Kalamata: "Joey never ceases to amaze me at his inability to grasp simple economics.
This is another article from those trying times:"
Sadly, our Danny-child thinks he knows vastly more than he really does.
In this case he first claimed that Confederate "free trade" threatened Union economics.
I pointed out that's absurd, since there was no "free trade" ever contemplated by Confederates.
So now Dan-bo changes the subject to high Confederate import tariffs on Union "exports".
Kalamata quoting supposed Philadelphia press: "But now, since the Montgomery [Confederate] Congress has passed a new tariff, and duties are exacted upon Northern goods sent to ports in the Cotton States, the traffic between the two sections will be materially decreased.... "
Right, in 1860 "the South" imported about $200 million in goods from "the North".
That roughly equaled the value of cotton Southerners exported in 1860.
Confederates in 1861 hoped to tariff Union goods and return about $20 million per year to the Confederate treasury.
In fact nothing like that happened and I've seen no numbers on actual commerce, if any, between Union & Confederacy.
What we know for certain is that Confederate tariff revenues for the entire war were in the range of $3 million, total.
So in early 1861 the potential threat to Union economics was not "free trade", but rather Confederate tariffs on Union "exports" to the South.
But even the quote here doesn't say such trade will disappear, only that it will be more difficult than before.
Kalamata still quoting Phila Press: "The General Government,... to prevent the serious diminution of its revenues, will be compelled to blockade the Southern ports... and prevent the importation of foreign goods into them, or to put another expensive guard upon the frontiers to prevent smuggling into the Union States."
This quote has appeared on these threads before and each time somebody points out that, at best, it's taken out of context, with key words deleted.
At worst, and here Kalamata repeats the typical case, the quote's provenance is suspect.
Notice that where Kalamata is (thankfully) normally very specific in citing sources, in this case, as in others where we've seen the quote, he hides its provenance behind the words, "[Ibid. Philadelphia Press, p.69]"
No date, no author, no political-historical context, no link where we can confirm it.
But the bottom line on any Union blockade is that it was planned for many years as a response to rebellion.
Union General Scott didn't read a Philadelphia paper one morning and think, "oh, I should plan a blockade"!
No he simply dusted off and updated a plan prepared years earlier, likely under then Secretary of War Jefferson Davis.
Kalamata: "Blockading ports is considered an act of war."
Firing on Union troops in a Union fort, forcing their surrender, that's an act of war.
Rebellion is an act of war.
Kalamata: "The truth is, one way or another -- either by war or crony-capitalism -- the "republicans" would have plundered the South."
That's a typical Democrat hyperbolic lie.
Kalamata: "How simple-minded can one get?"
Union customs houses would have solved the problem identified in your quote.
Kalamata: "Lincoln was always a devout crony-capitalist, Joey, from the days of the $12 million "internal-improvements" boondoggle in 1837 (that saddled Illinois with "brilliant schemes" and a mountain of debt,) right up until his death.
Illinois amended its state constitution in 1848 to prohibit public financing of private industry, but too late to escape the graft and ambition of the "De Witt Clinton of Illinois," Abraham Lincoln."
So, like today's insane Democrats who think they can impeach the President by weaponizing the words "quid pro quo" and "personal benefit", the Danny-child thinks he can re-assassinate President Lincoln with the words, "crony capitalist" and "tyrant".
Repeat your magic words often enough and the whole world will bow down to you, right Dan-bo?
I don't think so.
The fact is that George Washington wanted Federal funds to help build canals across the mountains, it's one reason for the 1787 Constitution Convention.
Thomas Jefferson signed the law to build the first National Road over the mountains of western Maryland & Pennsylvania.
What we call "infrastructure" was part of our Founders' original intentions.
Now insane Democrats like Kalamata howl against Republican Lincoln's infrastructure projects, but when did Dan-bo ever complain about Democrat Jefferson Davis' "crony capitalism" as Secretary of War in supporting both the Gadsden Purchase and a Southern route for the transcontinental railroad which he, Davis, would personally profit from?
Right, so Republican devils are "crony capitalists", while Democrat angels are just... well... no big deal, nothing to see here....
Don't look at Democrat Bidens' corruption, only look at how Republican Trump wanted "quid pro quo" and "personal benefit" to investigate it!
The fact is that both Federal and states' governments supported "infrastructure" projects from the earliest days of the republic.
Lincoln was no more "corrupt", and arguably less (since he never gained personal wealth) than other politicians of his day.
Kalamata: "I can see how you might think that way, since you, like Lincoln, believe in a Living Constitution.
But it was common knowledge of those days, as well as common sense, that the Constitution was a barrier to the implementation of the Whig economic agenda, which was Lincoln's economic agenda.
Neely noticed: "In the 1840s, Lincoln appeared to be marching steadily toward a position of gruff and belittling impatience with constitutional arguments against the beleaguered Whig program."
My correct observation is that our new FRiend Kalamata is a living-breathing old-time Democrat, if not Dixiecrat.
[Mark E. Neely Jr., "The Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties." Oxford University Press, 1992, p.212] "
One way we know this is because he lies constantly about, for example, me -- accusing me here of championing "a living constitution".
It's a nonsense charge that he pulls out of his bag of accusations whenever it seems convenient, thus proving his own identity as a fossilized Democrat at heart.
Next, typical Democrat, Kalamata changes the subject, from Lincoln's pre-war intentions regarding slavery, to the old Whig program of protective tariffs and infrastructure projects.
These he claims were unconstitutional, and cites Neely to support that.
But notice first that Neely is talking about "constitutional arguments" from Democrats like our own Dan-child, who claim in the same breath that:
- Since the Constitution doesn't specifically authorize Federal infrastructure projects, therefore those are unconstitutional, and
- Since the Constitution doesn't specifically authorize secession, therefore secession is constitutional!
Kalamata: "When the Whig party died, its economic was adopted by the Lincoln "republican" party.
Its progressive concept of "implied powers" (that is, "If I imply it," it magically becomes an authorized power) was pretty much enshrined into law by Lincoln's usurpations.
I am simply a voice crying in the wilderness, Joey."
Sorry, Danny-child, but I've heard the real voice in the wilderness, I've known it all my life, and you're not it.
The real voice says, build a highway for God, make the crooked roads straight and the rough roads smooth.
It's talking about infrastructure!
And you can hear him yourself, in Isaiah 40, or as beautifully put to music by Handel.
So Dan-bo, you are not that voice, you are just an old-time Democrat, meaning a Lying Sack of Schiff, born to lie, raised to lie, you just can't post without lying about something, especially about Republicans and most especially about the greatest Republican, Abraham Lincoln (no offense intended to Mr. Trump, who proudly proclaims we are the party of Lincoln).
Kalamata on Jefferson Davis' "war of extermination": "You are ignorant of, or avoiding, Lincoln's total war on civilians, Joey. "
Dan-bo, "War of extermination" was Davis' term, not Lincoln's, and what Davis meant by it, exactly, we don't know, but we do know Confederates did plenty of their own pillaging and burning in Union states & regions from Pennsylvania to Kansas.
See my post #814 for a listing of examples.
As for Lincoln's so-called "total war", Sherman's orders in Georgia were that no harm should come to people or homes which offered no resistance.
After the war Congress paid millions of dollars to thousands of Southern Unionists who suffered losses.
As for those anti-American Southern Democrats who murdered Republicans, well... they had a tougher go of it, for a few years.
Kalamata: "When Sherman and Sheridan were finished impoverishing and making homeless both white and black civilians in the South, for generations to come, they turned their "racial justice" on the Plains Indians to make room for another great, crony-capitalist boondoggle, the Transcontinental Railroad (more appropriately called the Zig-Zag Railroad.)"
It's true that former Confederates had a tough time post-war, for a few years, until 1876 when they were successful in throwing out the Union Army, nullifying the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments, and imposing their own "racial justice" on unfortunate former-slaves.
By that time cotton production was back to 1860 levels and growing, while Southern railroad miles doubled & doubled again by 1900.
It's generally agreed that Native Americans were mistreated in the 19th century with the result that courts and laws since have awarded them large settlements.
Today dozens of tribal areas total ~50,000 miles, an area larger than Pennsylvania or New York with a population of 5 million, about 1/4 of whom live on reservations.
As to whether Sherman is to blame for every bad thing that happened, well... that's at least debatable.
That's enough for now, more later...