Lincoln's Gettysburg Address

YouTube ^ | March 20, 2008 | Abraham Lincoln via cparsons2005 on YouTube

[Bratch]

Gettysburg Address as recited by Jeff Daniels.

Lincoln's Gettysburg Address

[DiogenesLamp]

You realize the distance from London to New York is significantly shorter than ANY port in the south.

Yes. I point this out often when this subject comes up. New York had a natural advantage to intercepting trade from Europe. Charleston is 800 miles further to the South, and unless there is some incentive to go there, most people wouldn't take the extra time and expense to do so.

What would have caused a huge amount of traffic to eschew New York and head for Norfolk, or Charleston, or other points south would be 10-50% greater profits. If the Southern states operated on a much lower tariff system, cargoes could be sold in the South for much higher profits than would be available in New York, and this would have spurred a massive trade upswing in the South, with New York city being the loser in such a scenario.

New York city was extremely powerful and had incredible influence with Washington DC. Both were making enormous profits from the tariffs imposed by Washington DC, and both stood to lose enormous sums of money if the Southern states were allowed to trade directly with Europe, bypassing New York.

Greater Profits would have overcome New York's natural advantages, and most of the trade would have redirected to the South. The rice bowl of the most powerful men in America would have been threatened if this were allowed to occur.

You take this stuff personal, but it was all about business.

I do not take it personal, and yes, it was completely about business. I point out constantly that those invasions by those vast armies were the consequences of potential business losses that the powerful men of the North would have suffered if the South had been allowed to establish it's own trade system with Europe instead of funneling all that traffic and money through the hands of New York plutocrats.

The war was started because wealthy and powerful men in New York and Washington would be economically damaged if the South was allowed to do what it was trying to do.

The war wasn't started over "Slavery", and it wasn't started because everyone wanted to so rigidly uphold what they regarded as "Constitutional Law", the war was started because the South posed a serious economic threat to the men of power in that era.

The war was about money, and more specifically about who was going to lose it if the South wasn't stopped. Nearly the first thing Lincoln did was to throw up a blockade to stop trade traffic with Europe.

*THAT* is what the war was about.

[Zionist Conspirator]

If you’re having trouble getting your cotton picked, they have machines that do that now.

[DiogenesLamp]

If you’re having trouble getting your cotton picked, they have machines that do that now.

They had cotton picking machines in 1850, but they didn't work very well. Functional practical machines to pick cotton didn't arrive until around 1940. I use this date in my estimation as to how long slavery might have lasted if the Civil War had not occurred.

My prediction has been that slavery would have ended at some time between 20 years and 80 years into the future from 1860, depending on economic pressure in conjunction with increasing levels of social pressure.

Now I know you didn't offer your commentary because you wanted to engage in a rational discussion of the topic, but alas, I gave you a reasoned response anyway.

[Vermont Lt]

Holy crap! We finally agree on something!

[DiogenesLamp]

Holy crap! We finally agree on something!

Good to know. I've been saying pretty much this same thing for the last couple of years.

Let's see if we also agree that the New York/Washington DC coalition of corruption is the same threat that is trying to unseat Trump today.

I say the incestuous relationship between Media, the "Deep State", influential donors, foreign interests and Democrat office holders are behind the efforts to grow government and expand it's power and control, and they are behind it because they make so much of their money through government policy, or the influencing of government policy.

I'm fond of posting this map.

[x]

So who do we believe: some anonymous aspersion-slinger who goes by the name of "x", or Dr. Paul Craig Roberts of the Reagan administration?

Paul Craig Roberts went wacko years ago. Don't "believe" me. Check it out for yourself.

The historical literature is loaded with support for Dr. Robert's assertion that the tariff was the precipitator of the Secession.

That is the revisionist (that is, fake, phony baloney) history. Nobody worthy of being taken seriously takes that view seriously.

[Kalamata]

>>x wrote, “Paul Craig Roberts went wacko years ago. Don’t “believe” me. Check it out for yourself.”

Perhaps you will show us. Otherwise, I will continue to deem you a Left-Wing Hack.

**************
>>Kalamata wrote: “The historical literature is loaded with support for Dr. Robert’s assertion that the tariff was the precipitator of the Secession.”
>>x wrote, “That is the revisionist (that is, fake, phony baloney) history. Nobody worthy of being taken seriously takes that view seriously.”

Perhaps you will show us why you are trashing Roberts over the cause of secession. Otherwise, I will continue to deem you a Left-Wing Hack.

Sources, please!

Mr. Kalamata

[rockrr]

Thanks for the link. Being southern born I figured PCR to be a southron apologist (not that there’s anything wrong with that ;’} but an examination of his writings shows him to be a full-fledged lost causer.

As to the charge of holocaust denier, I am conflicted. I haven’t seen anything where he plainly states any denials but I see that his writing style leans toward passive-aggressive. He pours out claims and says (in effect) “you decide”. A wide range of articles can be found here: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/category/articles/

In one he is hypercritical of President Trump. Needlessly so unless he isn’t a Trump supporter. Among others is an article claiming more (and worse) war crimes were committed by the allies than by the Nazis. Then there is one where he denies that it wasn’t actions by the Germans that caused WWII. And yes, there is an article where he doesn’t tacitly deny the holocaust but he does cite claims by Holocaust deniers and suggests that you make up your own mind. From his writings he does not appear to be a fan of Israel (but he is Johnny on the spot for the palis).

It was there that I largely grew disinterested.

[Kalamata]

>> rockrr wrote: “Thanks for the link. Being southern born I figured PCR to be a southron apologist (not that there’s anything wrong with that ;’} but an examination of his writings shows him to be a full-fledged lost causer.”

I see him as a typical libertarian, sitting on one of any number of fences.

********************

>> rockrr wrote: “As to the charge of holocaust denier, I am conflicted. I haven’t seen anything where he plainly states any denials but I see that his writing style leans toward passive-aggressive. He pours out claims and says (in effect) “you decide”. A wide range of articles can be found here: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/category/articles/";
>> rockrr wrote: “In one he is hypercritical of President Trump. Needlessly so unless he isn’t a Trump supporter.”

Have you read this one?

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/11/08/only-donald-trump-can-save-american-democracy-and-only-with-our-support/

********************

>> rockrr wrote: “Among others is an article claiming more (and worse) war crimes were committed by the allies than by the Nazis.”

You are probably referring to this one:

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/01/11/a-holocaust-was-what-the-americans-did-to-the-germans/

********************
>> rockrr wrote: “Then there is one where he denies that it wasn’t actions by the Germans that caused WWII.”

Are you referring to this one?

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/11/22/germany-did-not-start-world-war-ii/

There is some truth in that. There is no doubt the heinous reparations placed on Germany by the Versailles Treaty ensured the future Nazis, or whoever came to power, the “moral” justification to recover German lands. The rest, or much of it, is speculation.

********************

>> rockrr wrote: “And yes, there is an article where he doesn’t tacitly deny the holocaust but he does cite claims by Holocaust deniers and suggests that you make up your own mind.

Are you referring to this one?

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/12/08/the-holocaust-2/

********************

>> rockrr wrote: “From his writings he does not appear to be a fan of Israel (but he is Johnny on the spot for the palis).”

Perhaps this one?

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/09/02/82658/

Or this one?

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/07/12/palestinian-genocide/

I certainly do not agree with Roberts’ deference to the Islamists, nor his support of pro-Palestinian guest contributors. The political ideology of Islam has no place in a civilized world.

********************

>> rockrr wrote: “It was there that I largely grew disinterested.”

As you can see, I am not necessarily a fan. Some of his economic stuff is good, and he is right on the money about the oppressive nature of the tariffs against the southern states. However, I defended him ONLY because some jackass played the “holocaust denier” card. I despise those who attempt to shut down debate with aspersions.

Mr. Kalamata

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "BroJoeK, I am genuinely happy to hear from you again.
I hadn't seen you launching your avalanche of text against me for awhile, and I was worried that you may have been going through a rough patch or something."

I'm fine, no problems, but have been very busy & focused elsewhere.
And busy is good, it helps pays my bills, but does distract me from fun-time here on Free Republic.

DiogenesLamp: "I still don't want to read your long spiels that basically reduce to "Rubbish!", but I am glad you are once again throwing them at me.v "

{sigh}

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Of course that same dollar would have brought in 1 1/2, to 2 times the same value in European goods, but they weren't allowed to get those at the fair market prices because of the protectionist policies of the USA."

Total nonsense.
Here's what you don't "get": in 1846 Southern Democrats controlled the US House of Representatives at 63%, the Senate at 55% and the Presidency -- James K. Polk, from Tennessee.
And naturally, they wanted lower tariffs, so they reduced tariffs on the US #1 import, wool from Europe, to 30%.
They put #2 brown sugar from the Caribbean, at 25%, #3 cotton from Europe, at 25%, #5 Iron products at 20% and #10 wines from Europe, at 40%.
That was in 1846 when Southern Democrats ruled everything in Washington, DC.

In 1857, when Southern Democrats again controlled the House at 53%, Senate at 64% and Presidency -- Doughfaced Pennsylvanian James Buchanan, they reduced tariffs even further -- #1 Wool to 24%, #2 Brown Sugar to 24%, #3 cotton to 19%, #5 Iron to 24% and #10 wines to 30%.

In 1860 Southern Democrats defeated the proposed modest Morrill increases, but after secession in 1861 Republicans passed "enhanced" Morrill rates of -- #1 wool to 37%, #2 brown sugar to 26%, #3 cotton to 25%, #5 iron to 29% and #10 wines to 40%.

In other words, Republicans in 1861 returned US tariffs to roughly the same rates Southern Democrats imposed in 1846!

Look here, DiogenesLamp, the real problem is that you Democrats have a long history of, from time to time, simply going insane, every couple of generations you people go nuts.
And we see it today -- John F. Kennedy would be tarred & feathered by today's Democrats, not for philandering, of course, but for things like reducing Federal taxes.
Kennedy was way too conservative in such matters for today's crowd.
Even Democrat policies of just a few years ago are today subject for apologies and disavowals by presidential candidates.

And that's just what also happened in 1860 -- not that some new economic "oppression" suddenly arose from the North, but that policies which had seemed perfectly tolerable in, say 1846, were now suddenly cause for secession!

Or so you would have us believe.
The real truth is that while minor tariff differences may have mattered to a very small number of Southern elites, what moved the great majority of secessionists was the perceived threat by "Ape" Lincoln and his Black Republicans against, yes, slavery.

That's what they said, over & over, your repeated denials notwithstanding.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "New York controlled the cotton trade almost completely, and they did so as a consequence of controlling virtually all the shipping in the United States."

"New York" is a place, not a person, and people who may or may not have lived in New York built, owned & operated many thousands of US merchant ships.
By the way, the overall percent of US exports & imports carried in US owned ships reached 93% in 1826, fell to 65% by 1861 and to just 28% by 1865.
The US merchant fleet never fully recovered afterwards.

So all those powerful New Yorkers, who you claim "ruled the waves", in fact were rapidly phasing out of international shipping business.

DiogenesLamp: "Lot of money involved.
Would be a terrible shame if that traffic and business all moved to New Orleans, Mobile, and Charleston.
Shame for wealthy and powerful New York business owners that is."

People who built & operated warehouses in New York would be just as happy to build & operate them somewhere else too, if that made economic sense.
One place it did make sense was New Orleans, which was consequently booming.

[rockrr]

Welcome back my friend to the show that never ends...

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata on Paul Craig Roberts: "As you can see, I am not necessarily a fan.
Some of his economic stuff is good, and he is right on the money about the oppressive nature of the tariffs against the southern states.
However, I defended him ONLY because some jackass played the “holocaust denier” card.
I despise those who attempt to shut down debate with aspersions."

I never heard of Roberts before, so have no dog in this fight.
But from the looks here it appears that Roberts is a more consistent America-hating denier than, for example, our new FRiend Danny Kalamata.
Unlike Kalamata, Roberts takes his loathing for the USA to its ultimate conclusions, blaming us for such things as the Second World War and also denying the Holocaust.

Apparently Kalamata is more than happy to start down that road -- i.e., blaming everyone but Confederate leaders for the Civil War, implying that Allied "injustice" contributed to WWII -- but he stops short at going the Full Monty regarding Holocaust denial.
Indeed, as we see here, Danny takes great umbrage at any suggestions that his Holocaust fly is down.

As someone who's debated at great length against both Holocaust deniers (~20 years ago) and Danny Kalamata (not about the Holocaust), I can attest the coincidences of similar debate tactics seem far too many to be mere... "coincidence".
It makes me wonder if there isn't some school somewhere teaching how to deny reality, fit those tactics to whatever subject you wish.
Or maybe it's simply a matter of, ahem... undirected, random convergent evolution of denial tactics?

For example, watch how Kalamata responds to this post -- he will not admit that he uses the same debate tactics as Holocaust deniers, rather he will take great umbrage in high dudgeon against my alleged accusation that he is a Holocaust denier, how could I be such a "jackass"?

The truth is I do call out and hope to stop dishonest debate, but Kalamata's basic problem is he really knows no other, ahem, kind.

[x]

When you have somebody who was an economist forty years ago making pronouncements about the Holocaust and the Civil War, you can't assume that there's any expertise involved. You can read Robert's Holocaust BS here. Examples: "The “death camps” were in fact work camps. ... Every camp had crematoriums. Their purpose was not to exterminate populations but to dispose of deaths from the scourge of typhus, natural deaths, and other diseases." Judge for yourself whether Roberts is somebody you want to trust about history.

As to the Civil War, his theory isn't based on evidence, rather it gives people who want to believe him a theory to justify ignoring the bulk of the evidence. You didn't find people saying, "Let's secede because of tariffs," so Roberts comes up with a theory that just assumes the tariffs were the reason for secession and that whatever else was said at the time doesn't matter.

Now consider: secessionist leaders wanted to win over foreign countries, especially Britain and France, countries that had already abolished slavery and weren't friendly to slaveholding. If secessionists didn't believe in slavery, but were only concerned about the tariff, why would they risk alienating potential supporters - abroad, and in the North and in the slave states - by talking so much about slavery? Why wouldn't they have said more about the tariff? The answer is that they did believe in slavery, they believed it was threatened and they cared intensely about saving slavery and viewed secession as the best means to that end.

Now consider how Robert's theory contradicts other neo-Confederate arguments. So many people out there are saying "My ancestors didn't own any slaves. They weren't fighting for slavery. It was the rich folk who owned slaves and wanted to keep them." Roberts is saying that those rich folks didn't care about keeping their slaves. He's saying that was all a front. And your ancestors fell for it. They weren't put off by all the proslavery propaganda.

That doesn't disprove the theory, but it makes everybody concerned look pretty awful: the rich folk who tore the country apart because they wanted more money, the poor folks who couldn't see through the ruse, and people like Roberts and Diogenes who do everything they can to whitewash the big slaveowners.

For Diogenes it's all about money, but somehow the millions invested in slaves don't count as a material interest. Somehow people who had thousands of dollars invested in slavery didn't worry about losing their investment. Somehow people who lived with slaves all their lives and grew rich off them were blissfully uninterested in the institution that underlay their society and their wealth.

Who can believe that nonsense? Who can read about all the conflicts in the 1850s about slavery and conclude that it was all nothing? Who can study the records of the secession and conclude that the tariff was somehow at the root of it all? You have to be terribly uninformed or willfully blind to accept Roberts' nonsense.

[x]

However, I defended him ONLY because some jackass played the “holocaust denier” card. I despise those who attempt to shut down debate with aspersions.

Violation of Free Republic guidelines.

[OIFVeteran]

You lost causes always love to trot out that letter to Horace Greeley but you always leave of the last paragraph, why is that? Executive Mansion, Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley: Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Yours, A. Lincoln

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata on Paul Craig Roberts: “As you can see, I am not necessarily a fan. Some of his economic stuff is good, and he is right on the money about the oppressive nature of the tariffs against the southern states. However, I defended him ONLY because some jackass played the “holocaust denier” card. I despise those who attempt to shut down debate with aspersions.”
>>Joey said: “I never heard of Roberts before, so have no dog in this fight. But from the looks here it appears that Roberts is a more consistent America-hating denier than, for example, our new FRiend Danny Kalamata. Unlike Kalamata, Roberts takes his loathing for the USA to its ultimate conclusions, blaming us for such things as the Second World War and also denying the Holocaust.”

I see Joey is back with his “Perpetual Slander Machine.” Joey cannot debate the issues without slandering someone. It is in his progressive blood.

*****************
>>Joey said: “Apparently Kalamata is more than happy to start down that road — i.e., blaming everyone but Confederate leaders for the Civil War, implying that Allied “injustice” contributed to WWII — but he stops short at going the Full Monty regarding Holocaust denial.”

You got part of it right. The constitution is not a menu, so as a constitutionalist I am obliged to support the right of the states to succeed. The primary reason for their succession appears to have been the threat of an oppressive tariff, tied to a history of at least one other oppressive tariff against the South.

I have been a WWII historian for over 40 years, and am not aware of any Allied injustice, except perhaps by the Soviets near the end of the war.

Joey labeled me a holocaust denier during our last “conversation” after I challenged Joey’s “love-affair” with the far-left, climate-change promoting, conservative-hating atheist named Michael Shermer (plus, I mocked his religion of evolutionism.)

*****************
>>Joey said: “Indeed, as we see here, Danny takes great umbrage at any suggestions that his Holocaust fly is down.
As someone who’s debated at great length against both Holocaust deniers (~20 years ago) and Danny Kalamata (not about the Holocaust), I can attest the coincidences of similar debate tactics seem far too many to be mere... “coincidence”.

Joey has never debated a holocaust denier; but if you challenge his leftist ideology he will label you one, and then pretend he is debating a holocaust denier.

*****************
>>Joey said: “It makes me wonder if there isn’t some school somewhere teaching how to deny reality, fit those tactics to whatever subject you wish.”

From what I have read from you, that school is your Alma Mater, Joey.

*****************
>>Joey said: “Or maybe it’s simply a matter of, ahem... undirected, random convergent evolution of denial tactics?”

LOL! Joey is one of those scientifically-challenged types who believes everything is evidence of the nutty theory of evolution.

*****************
>>Joey said: “For example, watch how Kalamata responds to this post — he will not admit that he uses the same debate tactics as Holocaust deniers, rather he will take great umbrage in high dudgeon against my alleged accusation that he is a Holocaust denier, how could I be such a “jackass”?”

You don’t have to try hard to be a jackass, Joey That is one of the hallmarks of progressive behavior.

*****************
>>Joey said: “The truth is I do call out and hope to stop dishonest debate, but Kalamata’s basic problem is he really knows no other, ahem, kind.”

The best way for you to help stop dishonest debate, Joey, is for you to quit debating.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>x wrote: "When you have somebody who was an economist forty years ago making pronouncements about the Holocaust and the Civil War, you can't assume that there's any expertise involved. You can read Robert's Holocaust BS here. Examples: "The “death camps” were in fact work camps. ... Every camp had crematoriums. Their purpose was not to exterminate populations but to dispose of deaths from the scourge of typhus, natural deaths, and other diseases." Judge for yourself whether Roberts is somebody you want to trust about history."

I have read all of that, and, frankly, I think he is absolutely nuts on that issue. But his analysis of the "tariffs against the South" is on the money.

*****************

>>x wrote: "As to the Civil War, his theory isn't based on evidence, rather it gives people who want to believe him a theory to justify ignoring the bulk of the evidence. You didn't find people saying, "Let's secede because of tariffs," so Roberts comes up with a theory that just assumes the tariffs were the reason for secession and that whatever else was said at the time doesn't matter."

There are many historians who hold the position that Roberts takes on the tariff. In fact, South Carolina threatened to secede over the 1828 tariff (even though they had no constitutional right to,) over and against a threat of war by Andrew Jackson. Henry Clay stepped in with a compromise tariff to prevent war and secession.

The tariff issue was on-going. Lincoln's support for a high tariff was very unpopular in most of the South.

*****************

>>x wrote: "Now consider: secessionist leaders wanted to win over foreign countries, especially Britain and France, countries that had already abolished slavery and weren't friendly to slaveholding. If secessionists didn't believe in slavery, but were only concerned about the tariff, why would they risk alienating potential supporters - abroad, and in the North and in the slave states - by talking so much about slavery? Why wouldn't they have said more about the tariff? The answer is that they did believe in slavery, they believed it was threatened and they cared intensely about saving slavery and viewed secession as the best means to that end."

Roberts explained it. States had no constitutional authority to secede based on the tariff, and Lincoln routinely expressed his desire for a high protectionist tariff and industrial subsidies (e.g., "to foster our manufactures".) On slavery, he said this in 1858:

"I stand here surrounded by friends—some political, all personal friends, I trust. May I be indulged, in this closing scene, to say a few words of myself. I have borne a laborious, and, in some respects to myself, a painful part in the contest. Through all, I have neither assailed, nor wrestled with any part of the Constitution. The legal right of the Southern people to reclaim their fugitives I have constantly admitted. The legal right of Congress to interfere with their institution in the states, I have constantly denied. In resisting the spread of slavery to new territory, and with that, what appears to me to be a tendency to subvert the first principle of free government itself my whole effort has consisted. To the best of my judgment I have labored for, and not against the Union. As I have not felt, so I have not expressed any harsh sentiment towards our Southern brethren. I have constantly declared, as I really believed, the only difference between them and us, is the difference of circumstances." [Springfield, Illinois, Oct 20, 1858, in Roy P. Basler, "Abraham Lincoln: his speeches and writings." 1946, p.29]

The editor, Roy Basler, commented:

"The truth is that Lincoln had no solution to the problem of slavery except the colonization idea which he had inherited from Henry Clay, and when he spoke beyond his points of limiting the extension of slavery, of preserving the essential central idea of human equality, and of respecting the Negro as a human being, his words lacked effectiveness." [Ibid. p.23]

*****************

>>x wrote: "Now consider how Robert's theory contradicts other neo-Confederate arguments. So many people out there are saying "My ancestors didn't own any slaves. They weren't fighting for slavery. It was the rich folk who owned slaves and wanted to keep them." Roberts is saying that those rich folks didn't care about keeping their slaves. He's saying that was all a front. And your ancestors fell for it. They weren't put off by all the proslavery propaganda."

What is a Neo-Confederate?

*****************

>>x wrote: "That doesn't disprove the theory, but it makes everybody concerned look pretty awful: the rich folk who tore the country apart because they wanted more money, the poor folks who couldn't see through the ruse, and people like Roberts and Diogenes who do everything they can to whitewash the big slaveowners."

That is not the way Andrew Jackson presented it. He clamed the rich money-grabbers were those, like Clay, who pushed for a national bank:

"Congress did respond favorably, however, to Clay's proposal to renew the charter of the Bank of the United States—only to have President Jackson veto the bill. Flouting a Supreme Court ruling that the government had a constitutional right to establish the bank, the President insisted the bank was unconstitutional. He called it an instrument designed to 'make the rich richer and the potent more powerful' while leaving 'the humble members of society—the farmers, mechanics, and laborers,' subject to government injustice. Clay lashed out at the President, saying he had been guilty of 'perversion of the veto power.... The veto is hardly reconcilable with the genius of representative government.... It is a feature of our government borrowed from a prerogative of the British king.... Ought the opinion of one man overrule that of a legislative body twice deliberately expressed?'" [Harlow Giles Unger, "Henry Clay: America's Greatest Statesman." De Capo Press, 2015, p.163]

*****************

>>x wrote: "For Diogenes it's all about money, but somehow the millions invested in slaves don't count as a material interest. Somehow people who had thousands of dollars invested in slavery didn't worry about losing their investment. Somehow people who lived with slaves all their lives and grew rich off them were blissfully uninterested in the institution that underlay their society and their wealth."

There was no threat from Lincoln that would cause slave holders to lose their slaves.

*****************

>>x wrote: "Who can believe that nonsense? Who can read about all the conflicts in the 1850s about slavery and conclude that it was all nothing? Who can study the records of the secession and conclude that the tariff was somehow at the root of it all? You have to be terribly uninformed or willfully blind to accept Roberts' nonsense."

Perhaps you will be so kind as to show us references that explain what you are referring to.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>OIFVeteran wrote: "You lost causes always love to trot out that letter to Horace Greeley but you always leave of the last paragraph, why is that?

Nice to meet you, too!

I notice that I got the date wrong. Thanks for the correction.

**************

>>OIFVeteran quoting Lincoln: "I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."

That doesn't really say what he considered his official duty to be. However, he did say this in an 1858 speech:

"I stand here surrounded by friends—some political, all personal friends, I trust. May I be indulged, in this closing scene, to say a few words of myself. I have borne a laborious, and, in some respects to myself, a painful part in the contest. Through all, I have neither assailed, nor wrestled with any part of the Constitution. The legal right of the Southern people to reclaim their fugitives I have constantly admitted. The legal right of Congress to interfere with their institution in the states, I have constantly denied. In resisting the spread of slavery to new territory, and with that, what appears to me to be a tendency to subvert the first principle of free government itself my whole effort has consisted. To the best of my judgment I have labored for, and not against the Union. As I have not felt, so I have not expressed any harsh sentiment towards our Southern brethren. I have constantly declared, as I really believed, the only difference between them and us, is the difference of circumstances."

[Springfield, Illinois, Oct 20, 1858, in Roy P. Basler, "Abraham Lincoln: his speeches and writings." 1946, p.29]

Lincoln also said this in his First Inaugural Address of March 4, 1861:

"Fellow-citizens of the United States:

"In compliance with a custom as old as the government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly, and to take, in your presence, the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, to be taken by the President "before he enters on the execution of his office."

"I do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement.

"Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

"Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."

"I now reiterate these sentiments: and in doing so, I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible, that the property, peace and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given, will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause—as cheerfully to one section as to another.

"There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:

"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

"It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it, for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the law-giver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution—to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause, "shall be delivered up," their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not, with nearly equal unanimity, frame and pass a law, by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?"

"There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by state authority; but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him, or to others, by which authority it is done. And should any one, in any case, be content that his oath shall go unkept, on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?

"Again, in any law upon this subject, ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not, in any case, surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well, at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States"?"
. . .

[Ibid. pp.579-581]

What are you objecting to?

Mr. Kalamata