Let's hope so.
Posted on 09/02/2019 4:35:14 PM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
See the Lincoln-Douglas debate #6.
Stephen Douglas:
We then adopted a free State Constitution, as we had a right to do. In this State we have declared that a negro shall not be a citizen, and we have also declared that he shall not be a slave. We had a right to adopt that policy. Missouri has just as good a right to adopt the other policy. I am now speaking of rights under the Constitution, and not of moral or religious rights. I do not discuss the morals of the people of Missouri, but let them settle that matter for themselves. I hold that the people of the slaveholding States are civilized men as well as ourselves; that they bear consciences as well as we, and that they are accountable to God and their posterity, and not to us. It is for them to decide, therefore, the moral and religious right of the slavery question for themselves within their own limits. I assert that they had as much right under the Constitution to adopt the system of policy which they have as we had to adopt ours. So it is with every other State in this Union. Let each State stand firmly by that great Constitutional right, let each State mind its own business and let its neighbors alone, and there will be no trouble on this question. If we will stand by that principle, then Mr. Lincoln will find that this Republic can exist forever divided into free and slave States, as our fathers made it and the people of each State have decided. Stand by that great principle, and we can go on as we have done, increasing in wealth, in population, in power, and in all the elements of greatness, until we shall be the admiration and terror of the world. We can go on and enlarge as our population increase, require more room, until we make this continent one ocean-bound republic.
Abraham Lincoln:
Judge Douglas asks you, "Why cannot the institution of slavery, or rather, why cannot the nation, part slave and part free, continue as our fathers made it forever?" In the first place, I insist that our fathers did not make this nation half slave and half free, or part slave and part free. I insist that they found the institution of slavery existing here. They did not make it so, but they left it so because they knew of no way to get rid of it at that time. When Judge Douglas undertakes to say that, as a matter of choice, the fathers of the Government made this nation part slave and part free, he assumes what is historically a falsehood. More than that: when the fathers of the Government cut off the source of slavery by the abolition of the slave-trade, and adopted a system of restricting it from the new Territories where it had not existed, I maintain that they placed it where they understood, and all sensible men understood, it was in the course of ultimate extinction; and when Judge Douglas asks me why it cannot continue as our fathers made it, I ask him why he and his friends could not let it remain as our fathers made it?
The Founding Fathers could not undo in just a few short years what the King spent over a century doing.
Because of the false teachings of progressivism, it has become one of the greatest of ironies that the "Great Emancipator" was also one of the most ardent defenders of the Founding Fathers - specifically on the topic of slavery.
Let's hope so.
First of all, the US Constitution is *NOT* our founding document. I can prove quite conclusively that all questions of citizenship during that era count US citizenship as having began July 4, 1776. There were many such cases in the courts, and the courts have always ruled that the Nation began, July 4, 1776.
And what document marks the occasion of the founding of the US nation? It is the Declaration of Independence.
The US Constitution was not even the first constitution. That was the "Articles of Confederation", and that was written prior to November 15, 1777.
The US Constitution is in fact the third fundamental legal document of the US nation.
.
.
Second of all, the US Constitution says nothing about forbidding secession. It is as silent as the tomb on the subject of states leaving, and I argue that this is because the Declaration established this as a fundamental right 11 years earlier, and so it was pointless to say anything further on the subject of a fundamental rights for states to leave.
But wait! New York, one of the most powerful states in the Union stated quite clearly in their ratification statement that they had a right to take back their powers given up to the Federal government. I.E. "secession." Do you think the legislatures of the state of New York were so stupid or ignorant to say such a thing without it being true?
But wait! Virginia, another of the most powerful states in the Union, also stated quite clearly in their ratification statement that they too had the right to take back their powers given up to the Federal government. Were the Virginia Legislatures so stupid or ignorant as to say such a thing without it being true?
But wait! Rhode Island, little nobody state that really shouldn't even be a state, also said that they could take back their powers, yada yada yada.
In 1812, Massachusetts and Connecticut asserted they had the right to leave. South Carolina asserted they had the right to leave in the 1830s, as did many other states.
So where do people get this idea that the Constitution forbade it? What proof does anyone offer that it did? And what proof is better than the proof i've already presented that it didn't?
The idea that it was all about economics is your own idea.
I would like to take credit for it, but I have discovered that many other people also thought of it before I did, though I did not know about this when I pieced it together myself.
Northerners thought they were fighting for the country and its constitution.
Yes they did. They were quite masterfully manipulated into both believing secession was illegal, and that they had a duty to go down south and kill people who just wanted to be free of their system of governance.
Lincoln declared secession unconstitutional, and with absolutely no good proof that this is correct, and he declared secession is "rebellion", even though that this is based on his first erroneous assertion that States didn't have a right to leave, and he contrived a very clever incident to make it look like the Southerners were irrationally and violently attacking US forces with absolutely no provocation in order to stir the passions necessary to get the public to allow him to launch a war.
They had no objections to whatever economic activities Southerners wanted to engage in.
Not the average Joe citizen Northerner. They knew little of the larger economics, but the wealthy and powerful industrialists and money men were acutely aware of the economic conditions in the country, and the existing system funneled 200-230 million dollars of Southern produced trade through the pockets of New Yorkers and Washington DC officials.
You see, the powerful people in the North did have objections to the South removing the control of their trade from the existing power structure.
They were okay with slavery, and this is why the Corwin amendment was offered. They absolutely would not tolerate the South trading directly with Europe, and bypassing their ports, their shipping, their banking, their insurances, and to make matters worse, importing and distributing European goods to markets these same Northern industrialists already served in the Mid West and border states.
The South managing it's own money affairs represented a huge financial threat to the existing Northern money power structure, and this is what people nowadays, and what people back then didn't understand.
Yeah, the nation went off the rails economically in 1963. Prior to that, there was a lot more economic sanity going on.
Were the Europeans buying cattle? How much of any of that stuff was the Europeans buying?
I happen to know the primary exports to Europe from the North was Wood, Leather, Fish, grains, and not a whole lot else.
We are talking specifically about EUROPEAN export products, not how much gold is in California or Silver in Nevada in 1860.
If you can show me how any of the stuff you mentioned somehow turned into European currency with which to buy European products, you might have a point, but other than that, they are irrelevant to who was paying the import taxes.
Couldn't find a version of this for the United States, but here is what the United Kingdom balance of trade looks like from 1870.
This business of trade balances going out of whack is a relatively recent and more modern phenomena.
It wasn't like Southern slaveowners hoarded all their pounds and francs in their mattresses. They exchanged that money for dollars that they could use or invest, and then other people could exchange dollars for foreign currency to buy exports.
You can sign a contract with all kinds of reservations, objections and provisos, but if you don't write them into the document they aren't going to be recognized by the other parties to the contract.
They knew little of the larger economics, but the wealthy and powerful industrialists and money men were acutely aware of the economic conditions in the country, and the existing system funneled 200-230 million dollars of Southern produced trade through the pockets of New Yorkers and Washington DC officials.
Which is why they didn't want a war. They didn't want to upset prevailing trade patterns.
If those patterns were disrupted what makes you think the new commercial middlemen would be more efficient and more beneficial to the slave owners than the old ones were?
And was Washington's cut really more than Richmond's would be?
I'm aware that the North had a much higher GNP, but they still couldn't buy imports with it unless they somehow acquired the value from Southern (73%) or Northern (27%) export goods. (Roughly.)
It still comes down to the South producing the vast bulk of the products exchanged with Europe. The North used some of it's GNP goods to trade with the South to acquire the value for European import products, but they still had to glom on to what the South was producing, making it ultimately the South paying for the European products through the intermediary of Northern citizens.
And the prices for Northern goods were artificially inflated because of high tariffs that protected them. It still works out that the South could get better value for their production by going direct to Europe.
Oh geez x, Slo-Joe had surrendered. Now you done gone and retriggered him!
ROFLOL
The South managing it's own money affairs represented a huge financial threat ...
... to themselves
The slaver democrats were a flaming disaster
We all know that.
The slavers were living on borrowed time. They were just one pitchfork away from being destroyed by the people they were enslaving.
They had NO lawfully earned money.
War levied against the United States by citizens of the republic, under the pretended authority of the new state government of North Carolina, or of the so-called Confederate government, was treason against the United States.
They wrote it into the prior contract which they all signed.
Which is why they didn't want a war. They didn't want to upset prevailing trade patterns.
This is correct, but this position was contingent on the trade patterns remaining the same. When it became clear that much of New York's import traffic would move to Charleston, to Mobile, to New Orleans, that put an entirely different face on the situation.
Everyone is in favor of a situation that profits them, and everyone is against someone taking away their situation which is profiting them.
If those patterns were disrupted what makes you think the new commercial middlemen would be more efficient and more beneficial to the slave owners than the old ones were?
Well first of all, prices would come down because the Government wasn't taking such a big bite out of everything. So on just that point alone, everyone would be making more money on the deal.
Secondly, the shipping costs which were controlled by the New York area shipping industries were set at just below what it would cost to ship using foreign ships or crew with payment of all the fines thus entailed. By eliminating the "Navigation act of 1817", Shipping costs would have been dramatically reduced, further putting more money into everyone's pockets except for the North Eastern industries.
To see what was going on, you have to look at the economics of the whole picture. I assure you Northern shipping executives were fully aware of the threat Southern independence would pose to their industry. Same with Bankers, same with Insurance agents, same with Warehousers, same with Manufacturers. They all had reason to fear and hate the South harming their business by lowering tariffs and eschewing their overpriced shipping.
And was Washington's cut really more than Richmond's would be?
It certainly would be starting out.
They did acquire that value by producing their own products and selling them both overseas and to Southerners.
By your argument, Hollywood and Silicon Valley and some farmers would be the only Americans buying foreign goods today.
The North used some of it's GNP goods to trade with the South to acquire the value for European import products, but they still had to glom on to what the South was producing, making it ultimately the South paying for the European products through the intermediary of Northern citizens.
Take an economics course sometime. Money circulates. It doesn't care who owned it last. If it's in your pocket, you can spend it.
And the prices for Northern goods were artificially inflated because of high tariffs that protected them. It still works out that the South could get better value for their production by going direct to Europe.
In historical terms, tariffs from 1846 to 1861 were on the low side. Add in shipping costs and it's not clear that US products were uncompetitive.
They wrote it into the prior contract which they all signed.
Nobody wrote the right of secession at will into the Constitution.
When it became clear that much of New York's import traffic would move to Charleston, to Mobile, to New Orleans, that put an entirely different face on the situation.
When exactly did that become clear? I don't mean "clear" to random editorialists with space to fill. I mean when did actual businessmen conclude that somehow all of New York's business was headed southward. How did they communicate this to the government? And how did government policy change?
You ought to realize that it would take years for Savannah or Charleston or Mobile or even New Orleans to match New York in shipping and commerce.
In 1860, Charleston only had $2.0 million in imports, Savannah had only $800,000 in imports, Mobile had only $600,000 in imports, New Orleans had only $20.6 million in imports, and other southern ports had only $3.0 million in imports. In the same year, New York City alone had $231.3 million in imports and all other northern ports had $95.3 million in imports.
New Orleans was the southern port that collected the most in the tariff, and it was only $3.1 million. The total south only collected $4.0 million in tariff revenues, whereas New York City collected $34.9 million in tariff revenues and the total for northern ports was $48.3 million. ...
So out of $52.3 million in tariff revenue in 1860, 92.35% was paid in northern ports, while only 7.65% was paid in southern ports, which includes Baltimore, Maryland.
New York had developed commercial advantages over decades. It would have been foolish for business people to throw away those advantages to chase after some dream of Southern economic dominance.
Well first of all, prices would come down because the Government wasn't taking such a big bite out of everything. So on just that point alone, everyone would be making more money on the deal.
Building new wharves and warehouses to accommodate greater quantities of goods, hiring and training new customs personnel, expanding banks and insurance companies and training new personnel would take time and money.
By eliminating the "Navigation act of 1817", Shipping costs would have been dramatically reduced, further putting more money into everyone's pockets except for the North Eastern industries.
"Into everyone's pockets"? Slaves? Poor back country Whites?
Your whole argument so far has been based on the welfare of slaveowning cotton planters. The money going into their pockets wouldn't likely percolate down to poorer Southerners.
Plus, more money into foreign shippers' pockets wouldn't necessarily percolate down into more pockets in our hemisphere. Money that American shippers make tends to get spent more over here, rather than across the sea.
To see what was going on, you have to look at the economics of the whole picture. I assure you Northern shipping executives were fully aware of the threat Southern independence would pose to their industry. Same with Bankers, same with Insurance agents, same with Warehousers, same with Manufacturers. They all had reason to fear and hate the South harming their business by lowering tariffs and eschewing their overpriced shipping.
Not everyone would put such a high value on your assurances or your knowledge of economics.
"Into everyone's pockets"? Slaves? Poor back country Whites?
Between you and I, which better fits the pattern? Between Nimrod and Caesar and Pharoah, who better fits the pattern? If we aren't going to take progressives as they actually exist and instead try to cram square pegs into round holes based on our own personal preferences of who we do and don't like, again we come back to tilting at windmills.
This is why the ideology is everything. Progressives are progressives, why go elsewhere to search for ghosts? These guys are very real and very dangerous.
"You don't think Northern Liberals were "Progressive" in 1860?
They didn't. So why should I? The progressives explicitly rejected liberalism, that's why they invented a new name for themselves right around 1900. The early progressives didn't want anything to do with being called a liberal. They didn't want to be liberals. They didn't like liberals.
It wasn't until the 30s when after the progressives had so frightened the American people in the 1910's that they had to take over the word liberal because they had nowhere to go. FDR was the one who led the charge in this re-labeling connivance.(Hoover was furious at it, FWIW)
But realistically speaking, the progressives were never liberal and they've never accepted liberalism. For them it's just a throw away title. That's how we end up with the phrase "classic liberalism". They hate liberalism and want explicitly to be removed from it - even to this day. There is no other liberalism than "classic liberalism". That's it. Any progressive who claims to be a liberal is simply wearing a disguise.
Again, if you want to re-litigate the Civil War, have at it. You clearly have a passion for it. But you're making a huge mistake if you think you're taking on progressivism while doing so. It's a completely disconnected effort.
https://fee.org/articles/how-the-myth-of-the-robber-barons-began-and-why-it-persists
"Slavery was abolished and so was the income tax. Federal spending was slashed and federal budgets had surpluses almost every year in the late 1800s."
If the progressives had existed prior to basically 1900, they would not have allowed this to happen. They especially would not have allowed the civil war income tax to be abolished, because of how ideologically necessary the income tax is for progressives. For them the income tax is a hill worth dying on. Even TR couldn't make it out of his presidency without putting out propaganda for the income tax.
My point is to highlight the break in lineage, that is all. This next part is me ranting, because while the Civil War - that's your thing; progressivism - that's my thing.
"To some extent, during the late 1800s—a period historians call the "Gilded Age"—American politicians learned from the past."
Progressives will never learn from the past because ideologically(religiously if you prefer) they cannot. They don't even measure success the same way we do. The more the planning fails the more the planners plan - we didn't have that at the latter part of 1800s/end of the 1800s. What little planning at all happened in those decades they acknowledged their mistakes when it didn't work and walked away from it because they weren't ideologically driven by it.
The arrogance of progressives leads them to believe that their ideology is always correct and the only reason that the plan failed is because you didn't comply with their brilliance and sophistication. This was unseen in the 30-ish year period following the civil war and only shows up right as 1900 arrives. The ideology is everything.
Say we were to open coastal shipping to foreign carriers today. What would happen? You’d have Chinese ships with Chinese owners and Chinese captains and Chinese crews sailing our coastal waters. Nothing against China, but those jobs and wages and profits would all be going to foreigners, rather than Americans. And the ships would be built in China (if they aren’t already). It would hurt the US economy. American seagoing technology and culture and way of life would decline. And foreigners might understand our coastal waters better than Americans did.
In the 19th century, it would have been the same thing. British or French or German or Spanish ships would have a large role and a large share of the wages and profits in our domestic commerce. And given how much more important water transport was in those days the effects could be worse than they would be today. The American merchant marine would decline. It wouldn’t be good for our economy and if war came it could be disastrous for our national security.
So let’s think about this for a minute. You are advocating for those who would let the rest of the country go to hell for a few more dollars in their own pocket, and you dare accuse others of self-interest. What planet are you living on?
The current neoconfederate wave started when libertarianism was riding high in American thinking. You could easily find idiots who thought Lincoln’s tariff was worse than slavery (though what kind of libertarianism was that?) But as the neoconfederate vogue grew, so did populism, so for a time you had idiots vilifying Lincoln for protectionism even as they advocated protectionism in our own day. Today, populism is in the ascendant, and - if we’re not blinded by regional hatred, as you are - we can see a connection between Lincoln’s desire to promote American industry and our desire to do so today. Maybe we aren’t as harsh on him or as inclined to tariffs as worse than slavery.
Talking about globalism in the 19th century politics is difficult. You apparently see Lincoln as a globalist because he wanted to go beyond local economies to something bigger - to a more widespread industrial network. Lincoln was a nationalist, rather than a globalist, but if you want to say that the new industrial America would be a global player and a global powerhouse and that building such an America added up to globalism, I won’t argue too strongly against that point of view.
But freetraders and agrarians who wanted the country (or their own region) to provide raw materials for European industry in exhange for finished goods were also globalists, and likely, more globalist than protectionists were. Cotton planters who wanted a close relationship with British industry were classic globalists, albeit globalists not in America’s economic interest, but in Britain’s (and in their own narrow group interest). Of course, truly self-sufficent subsistence farmers weren’t globalist, but that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about people who wanted globalism but with America in a subordinate and peripheral position. That may have been a bad thing or a good thing, but it was definitely globalist, and arguably, more globalist than protectionists were.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.