Lincoln's Gettysburg Address

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

[DoodleDawg]

They don't look at the same facts, and nothing I can do will make them look at them. They choose not to see them, and so they do not see them.

Maybe they're not seeing things like you are?

People want to believe the myth, and they don't want to believe that one of their heroes has feet of clay or that his cause was unjust.

People like James Madison, Daniel Webster, and Salmon Chase could hardly be blinded by Lincoln myths. And none of them share your opinions.

[DiogenesLamp]

Maybe they're not seeing things like you are?

"Like" implies subjectivity. They are not seeing things objectively.

No matter how you slice it, New York and Washington who were grabbing the lion's share of 200 million dollars in trade, was not going to give that up over some principle that people should have self determination.

Worse still, they were not going to allow their carefully created protectionist markets in the interior of the nation to be destroyed by a system of commerce verging on free trade.

They might have tolerated giving up their Southern milk cow, but there was no way they would ever tolerate the threat to their hard built industries.

But people don't want to even look at the economic issues here. They want to believe the lofty sounding principles presented ex post facto to justify the war.

People like James Madison, Daniel Webster, and Salmon Chase could hardly be blinded by Lincoln myths. And none of them share your opinions.

I've addressed Madison before. If he had any objection to the idea of secession, he should have voiced it when he was on Virginia's committee which drafted the language to Virginia's ratification of the US Constitution.

He didn't. 40 years later, he says that secession is illegal. Which Madison are we to believe? The one that helped write the statement recognizing the right to "reassume" the powers of the state, or the guy 40 years later who contradicts the Virginia Ratification statement?

As for Daniel Webster and Salmon P Chase, Webster wasn't born when the Declaration was written, and he was only 5 years old when the Constitution was written, so I wouldn't put much stock in his opinion. Salmon P Chase was born years after both the Declaration and the Constitution, and so he too wasn't a contemporary who had first hand knowledge.

The Declaration speaks plainly about the right to independence, and attempts to deny what it says are just obfuscation.

[DoodleDawg]

"Like" implies subjectivity. They are not seeing things objectively.

In your opinion.

I've addressed Madison before.

Yes, we've all heard your opinions on Madison, Webster, Chase, and a host of others. Over and over and over again.

[DiogenesLamp]

In your opinion.

Mathematics speaks for itself. It isn't a matter of opinion. You can't change the numbers by wishing they were something different. They are what they are.

Yes, we've all heard your opinions on Madison, Webster, Chase, and a host of others. Over and over and over again.

And here you prove that you haven't. I've voiced an opinion of Madison, that is true, but I've never voiced an opinion of Webster on the issue.

Your claiming to have heard my opinion on Webster demonstrates that you aren't really listening and are just responding pro forma without really being cognizant of what i'm saying or have said.

And this is why I say nobody really looks at what I show them. They don't want to.

[x]

I caught your UN gig. Very impressive in its way: "How dare you! You have stolen my dreams!"

But you gotta concentrate on one thing. If you keep talking about climate change it will detract from the cause of more money for slaveowners - an area in which your activities could actually make a difference.

[DiogenesLamp]

I know you are just putting digs into me, but I think you are capable of some objectivity from time to time.

I just ran across this item yesterday, and it is an idea I had never previously contemplated. If you have the wherewithal to pause for a moment and think from the perspective of your hated Southerners, does this explanation not sound plausible to you?

Excerpt:

"When the Southern states seceded, they were concerned to do so legally or constitutionally under the Constitution so that the North could not legally claim that it was an act of rebellion and invade the Southern states. To make this case, the South needed to make a case that the North had broken the Constitutional contract and that the South was seceding because the North had not kept to the Constitution.

This presented a legal challenge for the South, because the reason for which the Southern states were seceding was the tariff, but the Constitution gave the federal government the right to levy a tariff. Therefore, the Southern states could not cite the tariff as a breach of the Constitutional fabric."

Here is the whole article.

https://www.theburningplatform.com/2018/11/14/a-civil-war-lesson-for-the-uneducated/

I find the argument plausible and compelling, and I plan to keep it in the back of my mind for future discussions in this vein.

[x]

I find the argument plausible and compelling

Of course you do.

You ignore what they actually said and did at the time because you think that your deductions from your own ideas are of more value than inductions based on the evidence.

Paul Craig Roberts, who wrote the article, also comes very close to being a Holocaust denier. He's not to be trusted.

[DiogenesLamp]

You ignore what they actually said and did at the time because you think that your deductions from your own ideas are of more value than inductions based on the evidence.

Uh, this wasn't my own deduction. This deduction came from Paul Craig Roberts. Also, this does not ignore what they actually said. It very strongly incorporates what they actually said as the supporting evidence for the entire premise.

Paul Craig Roberts, who wrote the article, also comes very close to being a Holocaust denier. He's not to be trusted.

I think i've heard of him before, but I can't recall reading anything else that he's ever wrote. He's not like Victor Davis Hanson, or Ann Coulter, or Kurt Schlichter, or any other famous writer on the right.

So you didn't find his explanation interesting or relevant? Okay then.

[rockrr]

Nice bit of confirmation bias you have there. Are we to conclude this to be evidence of your “objectivity”?

[x]

It very strongly incorporates what they actually said as the supporting evidence for the entire premise.

His theory is that what they said wasn't what they really meant. So for Roberts, what they said is hardly "supporting evidence for the entire premise." On the contrary, the evidence is something he ignores because it doesn't fit with his cockamamie wackadoodle theory.

If they didn't want tariffs, they could have stayed in Congress and modified them. The actual evidence is that they very much cared about other things - not the tariff.

Another stupid thing about the theory - proclaiming the rightness and goodness of slavery cost the secessionists much support abroad and closer to home.

Making that declaration wasn't something they benefited from. It was something they wouldn't do if they didn't have to do it. And the tariff wasn't a strong enough reason to run the risks that making slavery their cause would make for them.

[DoodleDawg]

Mathematics speaks for itself. It isn't a matter of opinion. You can't change the numbers by wishing they were something different. They are what they are.

You use your math the way a drunken man uses a lamppost: support rather than illumination. You take numbers, sprinkle them with your opinion, and hope people will take them at face value. Many people don't.

And here you prove that you haven't. I've voiced an opinion of Madison, that is true, but I've never voiced an opinion of Webster on the issue.

But on Chase and Madison and a whole host of others you have opined to the skies, claiming bias and what not.

[DiogenesLamp]

Nice bit of confirmation bias you have there. Are we to conclude this to be evidence of your “objectivity”?

Confirmation bias? This isn't my theory, and in fact differs significantly from what I have articulated before. I had always held that these references to slavery in the three or four secession statements, and the cornerstone speech, etc were all the consequence of a strategy to distract the public from the real underlying aspect which was money.

An effort to keep the public focused on the one hand, while they grabbed the money with the other hand.

I had never previously considered that this might be a legal strategy to justify separation on the basis that the Northern states had broken the compact by violating Article IV, section 2. My arguing position is that they had a right to secession with or without any sort of justification, and so therefore justifying their secession was irrelevant.

You can see confirmation bias if you wish, but I don't see it.

[DiogenesLamp]

His theory is that what they said wasn't what they really meant.

Depends on what you mean by "really meant." In the legal context of justifying secession on the basis of "breech of contract", i'm pretty sure they really meant it. In terms of being the real reason they wanted to secede, I'm pretty sure that money was their real motivation.

Given the fact that it was legally impossible to take slavery away from them, concerns about loosing it are either mass delusion, or a pretext.

If they didn't want tariffs, they could have stayed in Congress and modified them.

No they couldn't. By this point in history, they were outvoted routinely. The majority liked the system where most of the taxes were paid by the Southern states, and they were going to keep voting to maintain this system. There was literally nothing the Southern states could do to get off the hook for paying for Northern protectionism and the bulk of the Federal budget.

Another stupid thing about the theory - proclaiming the rightness and goodness of slavery cost the secessionists much support abroad and closer to home.

Arguing about what is your legal right is not always popular, but if you are making a legal argument, you are concerned with what is legal first, and whether it be popular second.

The Skokie Nazis argued "First Amendment." Their speech was not popular, but their only hope for legal relief was to argue the law, not what was popular.

As Paul Craig Roberts said, if they argued secession on the basis of Tariffs, there would be no sort of legal support for this claim, but by focusing on "breech of contract", they could make a legal argument that they hoped would convince people they were legally in the right.

It didn't work, because when you have this much money involved, legality is simply inadequate to guarantee your rights. The powerful will take the money despite any legal argument you make.

Making that declaration wasn't something they benefited from. It was something they wouldn't do if they didn't have to do it. And the tariff wasn't a strong enough reason to run the risks that making slavery their cause would make for them.

You are arguing from hindsight. At the time, these people clearly didn't realize how public opinion might turn against them. They clearly had no understanding of the power of an effective propaganda machine, and they lived in a social bubble.

Their argument made sense to people from their culture, and like many people in a social bubble, they don't realize these arguments will not resonate outside the scope of people from their culture.

Modern Urban cities and Liberal cultural elite today still don't grasp that their embrace of liberal culture is not shared by the majority of Americans. This is how they were so oblivious of the electorate to nominate someone like Hillary.

They live in a cultural bubble. Everyone they talk to thinks like they do, and we "Deplorables" are an alien body of thought to them.

Same thing with the Southerners of that era. They had no grasp of how their arguments would play in Europe, and they had no grasp of how Lincoln could mount such an effective propaganda campaign against them.

[rockrr]

You can see confirmation bias if you wish, but I don't see it.

Of course you don't.

[DiogenesLamp]

Of course you don't.

After thinking about it for a moment, I find it highly amusing that you are accusing me of confirmation bias. I don't think I could name another person on Free Republic who engages more in confirmation bias than do you. :)

I hope you find me equally amusing.

[DiogenesLamp]

You use your math the way a drunken man uses a lamppost: support rather than illumination.

I always liked that quip too, but it hardly applies when anyone can work the very simple math involved.

You take numbers, sprinkle them with your opinion, and hope people will take them at face value.

3/4ths is larger than 1/4th. It's hardly a cosmic revelation. I would hope that most people can understand that 3/4ths is larger than 1/4th, and I would also hope that they don't consider this as a matter of opinion.

But on Chase and Madison and a whole host of others you have opined to the skies, claiming bias and what not.

In the context of a constitutional prohibition for secession, I have only spoke of Madison, and only to point out that Old Madison contradicts Young Madison.

For what it's worth, I found a similar contradiction on the topic of "Natural Born Citizen." Young Madison articulates a position that is very much contradicted by Old Madison.

The more I have learned of James Madison, the more I realized he is "flexible" depending on what most advances his interest at the time.

[rockrr]

Proving once again that you may be slow but you do get there eventually.

If your charge is that I am a partisan then I proudly plead guilty. But then I’m not the one who has attempted to seize the high ground with absurdly comical (and totally irrelevant) claims of objectivity. I come by my bias honestly. Mama taught me an old saw that has served me well over the years: “Why climb a tree to tell a lie when you can stand on the ground and tell the truth”

I believe mainstream historians when they document that some truly bad characters drove the south to make some remarkably bad decisions following a disappointing election loss in 1860. When they encountered resistance to the consequence of those decisions they chose to double down. The result was the disastrous Civil War.

You, OTOH claim that “everything you were taught is a lie” and now you have divined the truth...followed by an endless string of incredible - and unconvincing assertions.

I stand guilty of having submitted links to documentation to support my claims. You routinely post crap that you have gleaned from the internet and breathlessly claim, “I never thunk of this idea but, by golly, it sure makes sense!”

And then you get indignant when people point at you and snicker.

I should add in here that I diligently follow every link and read every article that I encounter in the course of these threads. I do so out of intellectual curiosity, even when I suspect that they will be dishonest or revisionist claptrap. You routinely post comments that you refuse to waste your time reading this or that posted by your opponent. So who is the more objective one here?

It’s OK to be a partisan. We all are - in one way or another and to one degree or another. But in the name of intellectual honesty you really should own it if you wish to be taken seriously.

[DiogenesLamp]

So you don't think the simple observation that 3/4ths is much greater than 1/4th has any significance as evidence?

I found this revelation to be shocking when I first learned of it. For some inexplicable reason, this information had never been mentioned in the course of any history I had read or been taught regarding this era.

And now we are seeing once again from all this Ukraine bullsh*t that the underlying motive for the corrupt insiders of Washington DC is money.

I presume you can see it now, but I also believe it is confirmation bias which is preventing you from seeing it then.

[x]

You are wrong about just about everything. Like Roberts, you've made up your mind beforehand that it was all about "money" and couldn't be about slavery. I put "money" in quotes, because the slavery issue was very much about money and very much more important to slaveowners and secessionists than tariffs or protectionism.

Nor were the slave states "routinely outvoted." They'd been able to do very well in Congress. One election went against them and they panicked, rather than using the power they still had. Nor was free trade ever on the table. There were going to be tariffs and they were going to rise. The only question was how high. Southern states would have influence on that, if they were concerned enough about the issue to stay in Congress.

Slaveowners did live in a bubble, like everybody else, but they knew that slaveowning was not popular or approved of among those (overseas and here) whom they wished to win over to their cause. If they believed in slavery and worried about its survival they wouldn't have trouble expressing that belief, but if they really weren't worried, if it was really all about tariffs, they wouldn't have made such a big deal about slavery. They would have found ways to work an overwhelming concern about tariffs into their "broken contract" arguments (as some states did).

The secessionists wouldn't have leaned so heavily on slavery if it were not truly important to them. They knew how Europeans and Northerners felt about supporting a breakaway regime dedicated to the preservation of slavery, but they felt so strongly about establishing such a regime that they couldn't avoid saying so. And they were passionate men, not so legalistic and bloodless as you and Roberts claim. The spirit in Charleston in 1860 was revolutionary - anything but cynical or calculating or prudent.

The powerful will take the money despite any legal argument you make.

That is shameless and contemptible on your part. Tariffs were debated and passed in the same way any laws are. There was no question that they were legal and authorized by the the Constitution.

People get tired of your idiocy. Slaveowners were powerful men. So were the leaders of the secessionist movement (also slaveowners). They weren't victims or poor saps.

[DiogenesLamp]

You are wrong about just about everything. Like Roberts, you've made up your mind beforehand that it was all about "money" and couldn't be about slavery.

And you are wrong about this. For most of my life I believed the war was about slavery, and that it was a just war. What convinced me otherwise is learning more of the details.

I saw this map years ago, and it simply reinforced the claim that the war was not about tariffs because clearly New York city was paying the vast majority of the tariffs.

Cut and dried isn't it? New York was paying the bulk of the tariffs, so the South didn't have a real complaint about them being too high, did they?

Trouble is, I continued to learn, and what I learned paints a completely different picture of what happened.

Apparently the South produced 3/4ths of all the gross trade from the United States in 1860. Wait! What?

If the South was producing 3/4ths of all the trade, then how is New York paying almost all the tariffs? Something doesn't make sense here! What the H3ll is going on?

And then I learned the rest of the story because it was told in the economic data of the era, and so I changed my mind. This is called "objectivity."

I did have my mind made up. I just had it made up toward's your side. Facts persuaded me that this long held belief about the nature and cause of the war was simply wrong, and so I changed my position.

One election went against them and they panicked, rather than using the power they still had.

And this is nonsense. A whole series of elections had been going against them, and everyone could see what was happening. Lincoln's election was just the final straw in a long ongoing series of losses of political power in Washington DC.

You will remember they were wanting to leave back in John C Calhoun's day. Remember Andrew Jackson threatened to hang him?

Lincoln's election was simply proof to them that their situation was never going to improve so long as they remained in the Union.

That is shameless and contemptible on your part. Tariffs were debated and passed in the same way any laws are. There was no question that they were legal and authorized by the the Constitution.

If my money is being "voted" out of my hands because the other side has a majority, it may be Democratic, but that's not going to convince me it's fair.

There is an old adage: "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."

This nation has long been suffering from allowing non taxpayers to vote so that politicians could bribe them with the money of the taxpayers. This creates a democratic majority, but it is in fact a form of legalized theft.

The Southerners felt the same way when Northern majorities kept expanding the system that had them paying most of the taxes, and Washington DC spending the money on things mostly of interest to Washington DC, and not necessarily for the benefit of the people from whom the money came.