Finally, an honest Abe

New York Post ^ | Nov. 25, 2012 | Harold Holzer

[T Ruth]

Director Steven Spielberg, whom I introduced last week [in 2012] at Gettysburg at ceremonies marking the 149th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s greatest speech, said he was deeply humbled to be delivering an address on that history-making spot.

***

… Daniel Day-Lewis gives the definitive portrayal of our time, perhaps ever, of Honest Abe.

For people like me, who have spent their lives studying Abraham Lincoln, the film is chilling — as if he’s really come to life.

Day-Lewis does it by avoiding the traps most Lincoln actors fall into, the stoic, “Hall of Presidents”-esque stereotype that probably most Americans imagine.

There are no moving pictures of Lincoln, no recordings of his voice. But after his death, everyone was Lincoln’s best friend, and there are descriptions of everything from his accent to his gait.

The most important thing is the voice. Far from having a stentorian, Gregory Peck-like bass, Lincoln’s was a high, piercing tenor. Those who attended his speeches even described it as shrill and unpleasant for the first 10 minutes, until he got warmed up (or his endless stories managed to cow them into submission).

***

Few great people are appreciated in their time. And it’s good to remember that, no matter how right the decisions seem now, they were hard-fought then.

“I wanted — impossibly — to bring Lincoln back from his sleep of one-and-a-half centuries,” Steven Spielberg said at Gettysburg, “even if only for two-and-one-half hours, and even if only in a cinematic dream.”

***

Harold Holzer is one of the country’s leading authorities on Abraham Lincoln. ...

[At the end of the article Holzer gives thumbnail reviews of all prior Lincoln films, ranking them from worst to best, which Holzer considers to be Spielberg’s.]

[Ditto]

Thank you for posting that map. It shows how much money the North was getting from the South. It shows why there was a war to keep the Southern states under Northern control.

As I have told you before, you are nuts.

[DiogenesLamp]

As I have told you before, you are nuts.

You wish I were. I'm undermining what you wish to believe in, and you don't like it.

[Ditto]

No, you are just nuts. A few posts ago, you admitted that the cotton planters did not pay any tax and that they didn’t even sell the cotton to the Europeans, the cotton factors did. You also agreed that the cotton factors were mostly Northern banks. It was those same banks that financed the importation of goods into the United States and thereby paid the Federal tariffs. And you agree that the vast majority of those imports were in Northern ports and were sold to Northern citizens. But somehow you insist that the South paid 72% of Federal taxes. Like I said, you are nuts. Really nuts.

[DiogenesLamp]

No, you are just nuts. A few posts ago, you admitted that the cotton planters did not pay any tax and that they didn’t even sell the cotton to the Europeans, the cotton factors did.

And you don't seem to grasp the fact all that money gets cut off with secession. The North was *STILL LOSING THE MONEY*.

Which is why they wanted a war.

It was those same banks that financed the importation of goods into the United States and thereby paid the Federal tariffs.

If you think the "banks" were paying Federal tariffs, you don't know how that industry works either.

And you agree that the vast majority of those imports were in Northern ports and were sold to Northern citizens.

I don't agree. The destination of those products cannot be known simply from the fact they were shipped to New York where the tariff was collected.

The *VALUE* came from the South. That *VALUE* gets cut off with secession. That *VALUE* is why the North would not let the South go in peace.

But somehow you insist that the South paid 72% of Federal taxes.

Produced. They produced 72% of the Federal revenue, meaning that without them, that Federal revenue disappears.

The government still loses that 72% of their income stream.

The North likely loses that 500 million per year trade with the South much of which only existed because of protectionist laws forcing the South to buy from the North.

As an independent nation, they could spend all that 500 million per year in Europe if they wanted.

The North stood to lose 700 million per year in revenue from their economy.

And that's why there was a war. The North absolutely did not give a sh*t about slaves. It was that money they didn't want to lose.

[Ditto]

And you don't seem to grasp the fact all that money gets cut off with secession. The North was *STILL LOSING THE MONEY*.

You would be totally wrong on that point. It appears you think King Cotton was a real thing. Turns out it was just a myth. See Industry and Economy during the Civil War The Northern economy grew rapidly during the war while “King Cotton” proved to be nothing but a myth. The South could not even feed themselves.

Again, you are pretty much ignorant of the facts.

[DiogenesLamp]

You would be totally wrong on that point.

I am not wrong on that point. Without a war to stop them, the South was going to keep all that money and the North was going to lose it.

Do I have to clarify for you the fact that the WAR is the only thing that stopped that from happening? Have you not heard me say over and over again the North launched that war to stop the loss of that money?

The Northern economy grew rapidly during the war while “King Cotton” proved to be nothing but a myth.

You blockade a country that is heavily dependent on foreign trade, and what do you expect to happen to their economy?

Again, the North did it to *STOP* the South from gaining wealth that the North would not be getting after secession.

And you act like it is some sort of "magic" for the Southern economy to go to sh*t when armies are invading and naval ships are blockading. Yeah, economies tend to do that when under attack.

The threat to the North was *PEACE*. War was the only answer that could work for the North. They absolutely could not tolerate a peace with the South, because peace would cut off their 700 million per year.

[Ditto]

Without a war to stop them, the South was going to keep all that money and the North was going to lose it.

Keep all of what money? You already agreed they didn’t pay any Federal tax. They kept everything they made from cotton. What was the North going to keep?

Plus your genius Southern planters embargoed their own cotton when the war began looking to force England to get involved. The North didn’t need to blockade it. Instead of getting in a fight they didn’t want, England developed new sources of cotton in Egypt and India. Brilliant move that embargo was. They thought Cotton was King and they had the world by the balls. Turns out, that was not the case. And here we are 165 years later, and you still have not learned that.

And historical details aside, how in the f**k can you show sympathy for a bunch of rouge aristocrats who championed slavery and attempted to destroy this nation all for their own enrichment? That’s just sick.

[DiogenesLamp]

Keep all of what money? You already agreed they didn’t pay any Federal tax.

Are you just pretending to be stupid or is this intended to be a honest question?

72% of Federal revenue came from export products from the South. If PEACE had maintained, those products would have eventually shipped directly from the South to Europe, and Northern Factors wouldn't have been involved. Northern businesses would not have been involved.

That 200 million dollars per year would have been completely removed from the Northern economy. The 500 million in direct trade with the North would also become less and less, because Southerners would be buying cheaper and better quality products directly from Europe.

They kept everything they made from cotton.

They kept 40% of the profits from cotton. The "Factors" and Northern shipping companies, as well as the FedGov all took "their share", leaving the actual slaveholders to make less money from slavery than the Northern businesses and government.

Which is why the North really didn't mind passing the Corwin Amendment. Most of the profits from slavery were going into their pockets.

England developed new sources of cotton in Egypt and India.

Only because of the blockade. If peace had been maintained, they never would have developed alternative sources.

And historical details aside, how in the f**k can you show sympathy for a bunch of rouge aristocrats who championed slavery and attempted to destroy this nation all for their own enrichment?

Like the founders of this country? How can you not see that the civil war is identical to the Revolutionary war? Except the King was much closer and much more willing to shed blood than George III.

[Ditto]

Are you just pretending to be stupid or is this intended to be a honest question? 72% of Federal revenue came from export products from the South.

You are the only one being stupid here. It’s been explained to you multiple times that the Federal government did not tax exports. I’ll say it again. The Federal Government did Not tax EXPORTS!

You either do not understand the difference between imports and exports, or you are being intentionally stupid.

They kept 40% of the profits from cotton. The "Factors" and Northern shipping companies, as well as the FedGov all took "their share", leaving the actual slaveholders to make less money from slavery than the Northern businesses and government.

Where the hell did you get the 40% number. Show me the source for that lie. And what “share” did the Federal Government take. How did they take it. You know damn well you are just making this stuff up.

Don’t you get tired of just making up Bull Shit?

[BroJoeK]

New Orleans c. 1860 Mississippi River steamboats:

ClearCase_guy: "As I understand it, New Orleans was becoming a much bigger deal by 1860.
Steam ships running up and down the Mississippi.
Railroads moving east and west to connect to the river.
New Orleans sending more goods overseas.
New York faced the possibility of getting completely cut out of the deal.
The big money up North didn’t like that."

x: "In 1840, New Orleans was the 3rd largest city in the US, after NYC and Baltimore, and the 4th busiest port in the world, after London, Liverpool, and New York.
By 1860, though, things had begun to turn."

Right.
By 1860, New Orleans (169,000) had fallen to the fifth largest US city, after New York (1,080,000), Philadelphia (566,000), Baltimore (212,000) & Boston (178,000).

During the decades from 1830 to 1860, New Orleans population had grown at 4.4% per year (compounded), but New York City had grown at 5.4% and so was rapidly expanding its lead over New Orleans and other major US cities.

1860 US railroads:

In terms of Federal tariff revenues, New Orleans in 1860 paid twice more than every other Confederate city combined, but it was still only 4% of total Federal tariff revenues.

Further, tariffs collected in New Orleans were at least 50% on goods which would be transported by river steamboats or by railroads to Northern customers.
So, the total contribution of all Southern ports was around 4% of Federal tariff revenues.

That's why neither New Orleans nor any other Confederate city represented a serious threat to Union tariff revenues in 1860.

[DiogenesLamp]

You are the only one being stupid here. It’s been explained to you multiple times that the Federal government did not tax exports.

"Tax" has nothing to do with the point I'm trying to get across to you.

With *PEACE*, that money (which was later taxed) would never reach the North. They wouldn't get it anymore. They wouldn't be able to get any taxes or revenue off of it because it would be used for direct trade between Europe and the South.

The North would be cut out of that money!

I’ll say it again. The Federal Government did Not tax EXPORTS!

And I will say you are apparently DENSE, because the point has nothing to do with taxes, and everything to do with the fact they would never get their hands on those products or the money paid for them, because the Confederacy would be bypassing the North and trading directly with Europe.

With *PEACE* the North gets cut out of hundreds of millions of dollars in profit.

The North had to have that war to stop the South from cutting them out of around 700 million per year.

Somehow I still don't think the point is getting through to you. I expect you to come back with something about "taxes" again.

"Taxes" have nothing to do with the fact the NORTH GETS CUT OUT OF THE MONEY STREAM if the South was allowed to leave peacefully.

[DiogenesLamp]

In terms of Federal tariff revenues, New Orleans in 1860 paid twice more than every other Confederate city combined, but it was still only 4% of total Federal tariff revenues.

Misleading. Much of the products exported from New Orleans got taxed in New York where the imports in payment for them landed.

[Ditto]

With *PEACE*, that money (which was later taxed) would never reach the North.

What the hell money are you talking about? The money the cotton planters didn’t ,pay in taxes? The money they didn’t pay in tariffs? How in the hell did the North steal their money?

You are just nuts. What color is the sky in your world? And what’s the source for you 40% number? You fevered imagination?

[Ditto]

Misleading. Much of the products exported from New Orleans got taxed in New York where the imports in payment for them landed.

Again…

THERE WAS NO TAX ON EXPORTS!

Was that loud enough for you?

[DiogenesLamp]

THERE WAS NO TAX ON EXPORTS!

The point you are falling to understand HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TAXES!

[DiogenesLamp]

What the hell money are you talking about? The money the cotton planters didn’t ,pay in taxes?

Can you get the word "taxes" out of your brain for a minute?

There would be *NO MONEY* going to the North. There would be no taxes import/export or otherwise, because there would be no money going to the North.

200 million in value and money would be exchanged directly between the South and Europe.

[Ditto]

How in the hell do you figure that? There was no tax that hit the Southern planters. No one forced them to buy anything from the North. Yet you claim the North was taking all their money. How in the hell did they do that?

I’m realizing that you are an economic moron. And you’re nuts.

[DiogenesLamp]

How in the hell do you figure that?

You have me about ready to give up. You don't grasp how the Southerners could cut off all revenue from the North that was produced by exporting Southern products to Europe?

You cannot understand how if the South trades directly with Europe, the North gets cut out of any profit or taxes from trade they are no longer involved in?

I don't know how it can be explained to you more simply. At this point I think you should just ask somebody on your side how the North gets cut out of direct Southern trade with Europe.

The Northerners at the time sure understood it!

[Ditto]

You have me about ready to give up. You don't grasp how the Southerners could cut off all revenue from the North that was produced by exporting Southern products to Europe? You cannot understand how if the South trades directly with Europe, the North gets cut out of any profit or taxes from trade they are no longer involved in? I don't know how it can be explained to you more simply. At this point I think you should just ask somebody on your side how the North gets cut out of direct Southern trade with Europe. The Northerners at the time sure understood it!

If they understood it there must have been a lot of talk about it. Show me an example of it. How did the North get money from the South other than by providing services such as the Factors, bank loans, selling them food so they didn’t starve. If the South was so damn vital to the Northern economy, why did the Northern economy boom during the war years when the South was not using Northern factors, banks or buying northern food.

There were plenty of people in the North who supported the South during the war. Show me where they wrote about this grand conspiracy of yours.

Or maybe… just maybe, you are f*****n nuts.

[DiogenesLamp]

If they understood it there must have been a lot of talk about it. Show me an example of it.

You missed the posts from FLT-Bird up thread?

Here's a link.

Read the next one after that too.