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.]

[rxh4n1]

“There were 16 slaves states in the Union in 1861.”

Uh huh. And you have the nerve to call me ignorant. Which state was the 16th?

“They didn’t want to “expand” slavery to Kansas, they wanted Kansas to side with them in congress”

Uh huh. Then what was Bleeding Kansas all about?

“The United States would have had permanent slavery, thanks to the Northern Republicans who passed that amendment through the House and Senate.”

That’s right. Lincoln and the Republicans line was not interfering with slavery WHERE IT ALREADY EXISTED.

“There is no way in hell that 34 states could pass a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery, and if you believe that could happen, you absolutely do not grasp the political situation in that era.”

34 at that time, and more free states were coming.

“The fight was over money and power”

Yes, power to protect slavery.

It was slavery at the root of every controversy.

[Ditto]

You just don't like the fact that I am absolutely right, and the South was paying the *VAST MAJORITY OF TAXES* to this nation. You don't like it because it puts the South in the position of being the victim and the North in the position of being the bad guy for rigging the game the way they did.

How did the South pay those taxes?

[DiogenesLamp]

Uh huh. And you have the nerve to call me ignorant. Which state was the 16th?

West Virginia, ignorant.

Wasn't quite a state yet, but it had already seceded from Virginia.

But yeah, let's ignore the REAL point, and focus on trivial bullshit.

There was no possible way to pass a constitutional amendment banning slavery, and to think there was, just shows an incredible amount of ignorance about the subject matter.

Uh huh. Then what was Bleeding Kansas all about?

Money and power. Just as I told you.

If Kansas sided with the slave states, their votes in Congress could cut off those hundreds of millions of dollars going into the corrupt Northern businesses who controlled the Union government.

Your problem is that you have just bought into all the propaganda because you wish to believe it. You *WANT* the history that has been taught to be true, and you don't want to see anything that calls it into question.

That’s right. Lincoln and the Republicans line was not interfering with slavery WHERE IT ALREADY EXISTED.

Which coincidentally keeps them from ever getting enough votes in congress to shut off the money spigot going to the corrupt North and it's corruptly controlled government.

34 at that time, and more free states were coming.

See how ignorant this is? You think enough "free states" would come in to get to 64, which is how many you would need to override the 16 slave states?

Man, that's incredibly ignorant and naive. You are grasping at straws because you do not want to actually consider the problem of passing a constitutional amendment to ban slavery.

You know in your heart it was impossible, yet you *WANT* to believe it could happen because you've pinned your understanding of what *DID* happened on this theory that "it could have happen."

No, it couldn't happen. It was literally impossible.

“The fight was over money and power”

Yes, power to protect slavery.

To protect *THEIR SHARE* of the profits from slavery, meaning all the money going into the North which all Northern industrialists very much liked. Also, the vast bulk of the money going into the US Federal government, which the government also liked.

You keep trying to make this war the fault of the Southerners who were overtaxed and had massive amounts of money taken from them by the Union, because you refuse to see the people stealing their money (through law) as the bad guys.

Even when I point out that the corrupt Northern government *VOTED FOR PERMANENT SLAVERY* you make excuses for why they did it, and refuse to understand they *DID IT TO KEEP THE MONEY FLOWING INTO THEIR POCKETS*!!!

The Northern controlled government *VOTED FOR PERMANENT SLAVERY*.

You can deny that reality, but it won't go away.

[DiogenesLamp]

How did the South pay those taxes?

By producing the goods Europe bought from them.

Years ago there was a movie called "Kidco." It was about a group of kids that created a successful business selling horse manure for fertilizer. They got the horse manure from their father's horse stable.

The State of California stepped in and said they weren't paying taxes on the sale of the horse manure.

The Kid called his father, and the people who supply the grain and hay to feed the horses, into court.

They asked them if taxes were paid on the hay and the grain? All the witnesses said that taxes were indeed paid on the hay and the grain.

The kid then pointed out, the government had already collected taxes on the stuff that went into the Horse, and now they were trying to collect taxes on the very same stuff that came out of the horse.

They were trying to tax both ends of the Horse!

This is where your understanding fails.

Whether you tax the front of the Horse or the back of the horse, it's *THE SAME STUFF BEING TAXED*!!!

And in case you are having trouble in understanding the analogy, Europe is the "Horse."

[rxh4n1]

Which doesn’t count because it separated to stay in the Union long after the war started. You sure are a nasty puke.

[rxh4n1]

Trying to have a civil debate here but you have to sink to personal insults. Goodbye to you.

[Ditto]

By producing the goods Europe bought from them.

Finally, an answer! So you are saying the South paid taxes on stuff they EXPORTED!

Wow… those poor old slave drivers. Everyone else in the country only paid on imports. But those mean nasty Federals charged poor plantation owners on the stuff they sold to Europe.

Is that the way it was in your fractured world?

[DiogenesLamp]

Which doesn’t count because it separated to stay in the Union long after the war started.

It does count, because it would still have voted against freeing the slaves.

But like I said, you focus on the trivial argument of whether we had 15 or 16 slave states, because you don't want to deal with the fact that it would take an additional 48 states to outvote the slave states if we have 16 slave states in the union.

If you want it to be 15, it still takes 45 additional states to outvote them.

The point is, it could not be done, and you don't want to admit you were just wrong.

You sure are a nasty puke.

I'm telling you things you don't want to hear. You want to go on believing the fairytale you were taught instead of realizing those Northern states were deliberately robbing the South legally, and they were actually the bad guys.

You don't want to hear it.

[DiogenesLamp]

Trying to have a civil debate here but you have to sink to personal insults. Goodbye to you.

You don't want to debate. You want to say what you believe, and you want me to agree with it.

Trouble is, i've learned more about what happened than most people, and I no longer believe all the crap I was taught.

Corruption in our government was the main cause of the Civil War.

Once it became apparent that the government could be used as a tool to enrich corporations (The political view of government from Alexander Hamilton) then it was only a matter of time before industries realized that if they controlled government, they could get it to vote for policies that increased their wealth and business.

And that's what happened. It became a system in which corporate interests started setting government policy and creating laws because they enriched these special interests at the expense of everyone else.

And that's how we had a civil war.

[DiogenesLamp]

Finally, an answer! So you are saying the South paid taxes on stuff they EXPORTED!

I am not going to go along with your attempt to pretend they didn't pay 72% of the taxes through your attempted misdirection of whether it was imports or exports.

As I said, it's the same stuff. It was *THEIR* stuff, and therefore they paid the taxes to the government.

Do you get taxed on work? Or do you get taxed on pay?

Do you get your pay without your work?

Is not a tax on pay the same as a tax on work?

Stop being childish with your deliberate misunderstanding of how economics work.

Bottom line is the South was being taxed at ridiculous levels, while the North was getting mostly a free ride.

And also, this point doesn't even address the fact that the South was compelled to use Northern industries because of laws passed by congress with the sole intent of enriching Northern industry.

There was 700 million per year coming out of the South and landing in the pockets of the North, but they never teach that in history, because it makes the North look like a bunch of greedy corrupt bastards instead of Noble people who were only concerned about the welfare of slaves.

[Ditto]

I am not going to go along with your attempt to pretend they didn't pay 72% of the taxes through your attempted misdirection of whether it was imports or exports. As I said, it's the same stuff. It was *THEIR* stuff, and therefore they paid the taxes to the government.

You are struggling buddy. How did the federal government tax their sales to Europeans? When the Yankees sold corn or wheat to Europe, they didn’t pay any taxes. But you insist the Southerners paid taxes on their cotton, tobacco and indigo sales to Europe. Who collected those taxes? I think anyone paying attention can see that you are full of manure.

[DiogenesLamp]

You are struggling buddy.

Well to quote Upton Sinclair:

‘It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.’

In other words, if people really don't want to believe it, they will pretend to not believe it.

When the Yankees sold corn or wheat to Europe, they didn’t pay any taxes. But you insist the Southerners paid taxes on their cotton, tobacco and indigo sales to Europe. Who collected those taxes?

You can pretend you don't understand, but you aren't that stupid. You know it, and I know it too, so why don't you just stop pretending?

The South paid those taxes. The North did not pay them, because they had nothing to pay them with. Their exports only amounted to 28%, so they could only pay 28% of the taxes at most.

[Ditto]

The South paid those taxes. The North did not pay them, because they had nothing to pay them with. Their exports only amounted to 28%, so they could only pay 28% of the taxes at most.

O brother. Who did the South pay those taxes to? Why did they pay them when they weren’t required to? Were they stupid? And why was the vast majority collected in the North and not the South?

So was the 72% from the South + the the 28% from the North the total money in the United States? That’s all there was. Noting for food, clothing, shelter, trains, horses, boats, books, schools, teachers … nothing for any of that?

Your Lost Cause illness is getting worse.

[DiogenesLamp]

O brother. Who did the South pay those taxes to?

The Federal government got the tax money. The Northern industrialists got the profit gouging.

Why did they pay them when they weren’t required to?

You are always required to pay the taxes.

Were they stupid?

Nah, they figured the North was ripping them off, and that's why they wanted out.

And why was the vast majority collected in the North and not the South?

It's a little thing called "The Navigation act of 1817", and subsequent iterations of it. It forced the South into using Northern shipping, and of course Federal subsidies had also built up Northern shipping to the point that Southern shipping and ship building had collapsed.

The taxes got collected mostly in New York and Boston because the shipping companies hubs were there, it was closer to Europe, so there was less turnaround on shipments. There was no reason for ships to travel 800 additional miles South when the tax rate was exactly the same there.

So was the 72% from the South + the the 28% from the North the total money in the United States?

That was the total tax money raised from tariffs. It was not the total money in the United States, and you asking such a question makes me think you really don't understand this economics stuff.

That’s all there was. Noting for food, clothing, shelter, trains, horses, boats, books, schools, teachers … nothing for any of that?

I don't even understand what sort of point you are trying to make here.

Do you not understand that virtually ALL federal taxes came from tariffs? They didn't come from "food, clothing, shelter, trains, horses, boats, books, schools, teachers "... they came from tariffs.

That stuff has nothing to do with taxes.

[Ditto]

You are always required to pay the taxes.

Oh man, give it up. There was no tax on exports. Does your cotton pick’n brain understand that fact. I’ll say it again louder.
There was no tax on exports. The South did not pay 72% of taxes.

[x]

Taxes are paid on grain that cows eat. Taxes are paid again on the milk (and the meat) that the cows make from that grain, so of course, if you buy the manure that’s taxed too.

But if you like you can think of America as a horse. Southerners sold cotton to Europe. The Southerners used the money to buy things from the North and to invest in Northern banks, industries, and railroads. The Northerners used that money — and the money they got from exports of gold, timber, and grain — to buy things from Europe. It’s at that stage that the Federal taxes were imposed and collected, not on the early activities.

[x]

Taxes are paid on grain that cows eat. Taxes are paid again on the milk (and the meat) that the cows make from that grain, so of course, if you buy the manure that’s taxed too.

But if you like you can think of America as a horse. Southerners sold cotton to Europe. The Southerners used the money to buy things from the North and to invest in Northern banks, industries, and railroads. The Northerners used that money — and the money they got from exports of gold, timber, and grain — to buy things from Europe. It’s at that stage that the Federal taxes were imposed and collected, not on the early activities.

[x]

Taxes are paid on grain that cows eat. Taxes are paid again on the milk (and the meat) that the cows make from that grain, so of course, if you buy the manure that’s taxed too.

But if you like you can think of America as a horse. Southerners sold cotton to Europe. The Southerners used the money to buy things from the North and to invest in Northern banks, industries, and railroads. The Northerners used that money — and the money they got from exports of gold, timber, and grain — to buy things from Europe. It’s at that stage that the Federal taxes were imposed and collected, not on the early activities.

[DiogenesLamp]

There was no tax on exports.

You can stop trying to pretend there is a difference. You just can't stand the fact that the South was paying the bills, and the North was mostly riding for free.

A tax on imports is the exact same thing as a tax on exports!

You don't get imports without exports to pay for them!

How about you stop denying reality and explain how the North got it's hands on the money *IF* they were the ones buying the imports?

It could not be done without taking it from the South somehow.

[DiogenesLamp]

BroJoeK posted a link to all the numbers some years ago. He tried to argue the North was buying the vast bulk of everything because they had gold.

His numbers did not actually reflect that claim. He tried to cherry pick his data to make it look like that was what was happening, but at the time I went through the work of unraveling all the misdirection and I showed that this wasn't what was happening at all.

You have to look at all the years to figure out what role specie played in the exchange.

As this is a lot of work and complex, most people won't put out the effort to do it and would prefer to just declare what they wish to believe to be true.

People often hide lies in complexity, and this is one of those examples.

I try to make it simple.

The South produced 72% of the export value. The North produced 28% of the export value.

Assuming balanced trade, which is the norm, this would mean that the South should have been able to purchase 72% of the total value of imports, and the North should have been able to purchase 28% of the imports.

The reality is a little different because of how everything was structured back then.

The North actually controlled the cotton trade, and all the other Southern trade. They controlled shipping, they controlled the banking, they controlled the insurance, warehousing, Packet lines and everything else.

They had gotten themselves into such positions of power, partially because of natural advantages such as New York harbor being ideally situated, but to a greater extent because of their ability to create protectionist laws that benefitted the North at the expense of the South. Also Federal subsidies for Northern industries such as fishing, and mail delivery.

But to break it all down to the point where we can track every dollar as to origin and eventual destination is a dauting task for any person.

But I am thinking an AI might be able to wade through all the data and come up with the most accurate answer possible, and I believe if such was done, it will show the North was raping the South financially.