Finally, an honest Abe

New York Post ^ | Nov. 25, 2012 | Harold Holzer

[T Ruth]

Director Steven Spielberg, whom I introduced last week [in 2012] at Gettysburg at ceremonies marking the 149th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s greatest speech, said he was deeply humbled to be delivering an address on that history-making spot.

***

… Daniel Day-Lewis gives the definitive portrayal of our time, perhaps ever, of Honest Abe.

For people like me, who have spent their lives studying Abraham Lincoln, the film is chilling — as if he’s really come to life.

Day-Lewis does it by avoiding the traps most Lincoln actors fall into, the stoic, “Hall of Presidents”-esque stereotype that probably most Americans imagine.

There are no moving pictures of Lincoln, no recordings of his voice. But after his death, everyone was Lincoln’s best friend, and there are descriptions of everything from his accent to his gait.

The most important thing is the voice. Far from having a stentorian, Gregory Peck-like bass, Lincoln’s was a high, piercing tenor. Those who attended his speeches even described it as shrill and unpleasant for the first 10 minutes, until he got warmed up (or his endless stories managed to cow them into submission).

***

Few great people are appreciated in their time. And it’s good to remember that, no matter how right the decisions seem now, they were hard-fought then.

“I wanted — impossibly — to bring Lincoln back from his sleep of one-and-a-half centuries,” Steven Spielberg said at Gettysburg, “even if only for two-and-one-half hours, and even if only in a cinematic dream.”

***

Harold Holzer is one of the country’s leading authorities on Abraham Lincoln. ...

[At the end of the article Holzer gives thumbnail reviews of all prior Lincoln films, ranking them from worst to best, which Holzer considers to be Spielberg’s.]

[FLT-bird]

The tariff rate in 1860 was the lowest it had even been. The lowest. That is not what caused the war. When the Confederates congress enacted their own tariffs, they were basically at the same rate.

This is simply false. The Tariff of 1857 which replaced the Walker Tariff, lowered rates to between 15% and 24%. Two things to bear in mind. Firstly, the Southern states set a maximum of 10% in the Confederate Constitution so even the compromise tariff of 1857 was at least about twice the rate that would have been beneficial to them and Secondly, By 1860 it was clear to everybody that the Morrill Tariff was going to pass. The Morrill Tariff went on to triple tariff rates....making them even worse than the Tariff of Abominations which had crushed the Southern economy a generation earlier.

[FLT-bird]

The “ South” was not at all a democracy. It was ruled entirely by the aristocratic elite in the Deep South. The fact that in the North, people who opposed slavery, even if they were in the minority, were able to exist, drove them nuts. The aristocrats did not tolerate disagreements. And like you, they believed their own BS about King Cotton. It’s a damn shame that 700,00 men from both sides had to die, but that is how history works. It can be very ugly.

This is completely false. The Southern states were as democratic as they had ever been...including the time of the Founding Fathers a couple generations earlier. They were as democratic as the Northern states. The rich have always had outsized political influence. That's true. That was every bit as true in the North as in the South at the time. No, they did not rule over everyone else. They could easily be outvoted since they were only a small minority. Abolitionists could not get more than single digit percentages of the vote in any election anywhere in the North prior to 1863. They were a tiny, despised minority that had almost no influence.

[bert]

However, once the patriarchs were been thrown out, the riff raff gained control of the American cities and the result has been grand failure.

[FLT-bird]

Everything you've said is just propaganda you've been taught. Whatever the deep South was, it had a right to leave if it wanted. It's mistake was not leaving in 1787. The Democracy thing where huge multitudes in the North could vote themselves money out of other people's pockets, was a bad situation for them to join.

100%. Patrick Henry vehemently opposed the "general welfare clause" (Article I, Section 8) of the U.S. Constitution, arguing it was an dangerously vague, unbounded power that would lead to a consolidated government, destroying state sovereignty and individual liberty. He feared it, along with the necessary and proper clause, would allow Congress to bypass restrictions and pass oppressive laws. Henry argued that a "northern majority" would not share the same interests as the South and would use taxation to drain resources from the South.

Robert Barnwell Rhett made similar points in his address attached to and sent out along with South Carolina's declaration of causes. "The Southern States, now stand exactly in the same position towards the Northern States, that the Colonies did towards Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British parliament. “The General Welfare,” is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation, this “General Welfare” requires. The British parliament undertook to tax the Colonies, to promote British interests. Our fathers, resisted this pretension. They claimed the right of self-taxation through their Colonial Legislatures. They were not represented in the British parliament, and, therefore, could not rightly be taxed by its legislation. The British Government, however, offered them a representation in parliament; but it was not sufficient to enable them to protect themselves from the majority, and they refused the offer. Between taxation without any representation, and taxation without a representation adequate to protection, there was no difference.

And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States, have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue–to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.

There is another evil, in the condition of the Southern towards the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear towards Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them, were expended amongst them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them, would have been expended in other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy, was one of the motives which drove them on to Revolution. Yet this British policy, has been fully realized towards the Southern States, by the Northern States. The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three-fourths, of them are expended at the North. This cause, with others, connected with the operation of the General Government, has made the cities of the South provincial. Their growth is paralyzed; they are mere suburbs of Northern cities. The agricultural productions of the South are the basis of the foreign commerce of the United States; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade, is almost annihilated. In 1740, there were five ship yards in South Carolina, to build ships to carry on our direct trade with Europe. Between 1740 and 1779, there were built in these yards, twenty-five square rigged vessels, besides a great number of sloops and schooners, to carry on our coast and West India trade."

Jefferson Davis made the same point even after secession. ""The people of the Southern States, whose almost exclusive occupation was agriculture, early perceived a tendency in the Northern States to render the common government subservient to their own purposes by imposing burdens on commerce as a protection to their manufacturing and shipping interests. Long and angry controversies grew out of these attempts, often successful, to benefit one section of the country at the expense of the other. And the danger of disruption arising from this cause was enhanced by the fact that the Northern population was increasing, by immigration and other causes, in a greater ratio than the population of the South. By degrees, as the Northern States gained preponderance in the National Congress, self-interest taught their people to yield ready assent to any plausible advocacy of their right as a majority to govern the minority without control." Jefferson Davis Address to the Confederate Congress April 29, 1861

[FLT-bird]

In 1861 we departed from being a coalition of the willing to become a coalition of the compelled. That's not what the founders created.

Exactly. The union was not saved. It was destroyed. The original decentralized union of sovereign states based on consent the Founding Fathers created was replaced by a centralized union based on force, threats and violence.

[FLT-bird]

Really? What had the government done to them that made them want to leave. How had the Federal government of 1861 become like the British government of 1775?

See Rhett's address I included portions of above. He goes into it in detail.

So you think the Framers thought the Constitution was just a suggestion?

Not at all. The Framers and more importantly the states which ratified the Constitution thought it was voluntary for each state and was based on consent.

What was the South being compelled to do?

Remain in a now centralized union which had become economically exploitative and abusive toward them without their consent.

[FLT-bird]

Just as a point of fact, there were 15 slave states in 1860. Only 11 chose to secede.

There were arguments about whether Kentucky or Missouri seceded. The arguments for Kentucky having seceded are pretty weak. The arguments for Missouri having seceded are very strong.

[FLT-bird]

LOL. They didn’t “secede”. They Rebelled. They were never under any illusion that the British would just let them go their merry way.,/p>

No. The seceded. They never had the slightest intention of deposing George III or of marching into London and taking over. They simply left. That's secession.

[FLT-bird]

Did the Confederates assemble a list of abuses like the following?

Was that a requirement? And oh by the way.....some of the Confederate states did produce a train of abuses to justify their secession.

From Texas:

- The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slave-holding States.

By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.

- The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refused reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harrassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.

- The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holdings States in their domestic institutions--a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.

- They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a "higher law" than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.

- They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.

- They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offences, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.

- They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides.

- They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose.

- They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.

- They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State.

[Ditto]

Note that the Confederate Constitution only allowed a tariff for revenue - not a protective tariff. A tariff for revenue allows a maximum of just 10%. So even the "compromise" tariff rate was still orders of magnitude higher than would have been in the best interest of the Southern states.

Here’s your maximum of 10% in the Confederate tariff rates.

ACT

TO PROVIDE REVENUE FROM COMMODITIES IMPORTED FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

SECTION 1.
The Congress of the Confederate States of America do enact, That from and after the 31st day of August next, a duty shall be imposed on all goods, products, wares and merchandize imported from abroad into the Confederate States of America, as follows:

On all articles enumerated in Schedule A, an ad valorem duty of twenty-five per centum. On all articles enumerated in Schedule B, an ad valorem duty of twenty per centum. On all articles enumerated in Schedule C, an ad valorem duty of fifteen per centum. On all articles enumerated in Schedule D, an ad valorem duty of ten per centum. On all articles enumerated in Schedule E, an ad valorem duty of five per centum. And that all articles enumerated in Schedule F, a Specific Duty as therein named. And that all articles enumerated in Schedule G, shall be exempt from duty: to wit:

Your can read the whole thing here.

Confederate States Tariffs

According to you, a 25% rate is far above what is necessary for revenue. So we’re the confederats protecting domestic industries. And was the war really about Tariff rates when the vast majority of the South’s population never paid a penny in tariffs.

[DiogenesLamp]

The North would lose out on the servicing of cash crops, would lose out on the tariff revenue overwhelmingly used to pay for corporate subsidies and infrastructure projects in the North, and their manufacturers would be undercut on price by goods brought into the South. They would have to radically slash their tariffs and to even try to compete on price for manufactured goods. The Southern states were a cash cow for them.....a captive market and large source of jobs and profits for them.

I've made this point before. At risk were midwestern markets for Northern manufacturers. With the South setting up trade on the Mississippi, European products would flood the Midwest, costing the industrialists in the North their markets and their riches.

Ditto just doesn't understand that the Northern industrialists were not stupid and not squeamish. They knew exactly how great of a threat an independent South represented to their financial future, and they used every bit of influence they had with the newly elected President to push for war to stop it.

But some people try to minimize the economic threat the South posed to these industrialists by calling it a dispute over "tariffs."

No, it was way bigger than "tariffs."

[DiogenesLamp]

Jefferson Davis made the same point even after secession. ""The people of the Southern States, whose almost exclusive occupation was agriculture, early perceived a tendency in the Northern States to render the common government subservient to their own purposes by imposing burdens on commerce as a protection to their manufacturing and shipping interests. Long and angry controversies grew out of these attempts, often successful, to benefit one section of the country at the expense of the other. And the danger of disruption arising from this cause was enhanced by the fact that the Northern population was increasing, by immigration and other causes, in a greater ratio than the population of the South. By degrees, as the Northern States gained preponderance in the National Congress, self-interest taught their people to yield ready assent to any plausible advocacy of their right as a majority to govern the minority without control." Jefferson Davis Address to the Confederate Congress April 29, 1861

I have not seen this statement before, but I deduced this is exactly what was happening, just from looking at the available economic evidence I found.

It was "tyranny of the majority."

[DiogenesLamp]

Really? What had the government done to them that made them want to leave. How had the Federal government of 1861 become like the British government of 1775?

See Rhett's address I included portions of above. He goes into it in detail.

He doesn't want to read it. He is trying very hard to look away from anything which goes against what he wants to believe.

This argument is not a debate about evidence. It is a problem of getting people to not shy away from information that hurts their feelings, and get them to admit the truth that can be discerned from the information.

Their normal response is to not cooperate in learning things they don't want to learn.

[FLT-bird]

According to you, a 25% rate is far above what is necessary for revenue. So we’re the confederats protecting domestic industries. And was the war really about Tariff rates when the vast majority of the South’s population never paid a penny in tariffs.

Once they were at war, they imposed tariffs, seized property and did everything else imaginable to try to survive - as any government would under those circumstances. That is not what they set out in the Confederate Constitution when they thought they would be allowed to live in peace.

[DiogenesLamp]

Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.

Sounds a lot like how liberal sh*thole states are dealing with efforts to curb illegal immigration and masked ANTIFA violence.

[FLT-bird]

Their normal response is to not cooperate in learning things they don't want to learn.

Either that or to dishonestly try to claim that anything which in any way contradicts what they were taught and want to believe is the "lost cause myth". Thus they will go on and on and on about that. That is exactly why in all these quotes and sources I list, I only list ones from before or during the war.

No, this isn't somebody trying to justify after the fact. This isn't someone trying to sweep something under the rug. These are the complaints and speeches made by the principal actors at the time.

I love the excuse that anytime any Englishman observes something that disagrees with their dogma, its because that guy supposedly hates America....despite all evidence to the contrary. Since they can't use the "trying to protect slavery" claim, they're all just America haters. LOL!

[DiogenesLamp]

A War tax? Remember what I said about how things would have worked if *PEACE* was maintained?

You keep trying to compare *WAR* to *PEACE*.

Without War, the North was screwed. War was the only thing that could stop the South from implementing a future that benefitted it, and cut off the money to the North.

Yes, people tax a lot higher when they have to fund a war.

[Ditto]

Once they were at war, they imposed tariffs, seized property and did everything else imaginable to try to survive - as any government would under those circumstances. That is not what they set out in the Confederate Constitution when they thought they would be allowed to live in peace.

LOL. You are so full of Southern-fried crap. So those Damn Yankees made them charge 25% tariff rates. ;~)). So did they amend their Constitution to allow those high rates or did they just ignore it?

[FLT-bird]

Sounds a lot like how liberal sh*thole states are dealing with efforts to curb illegal immigration and masked ANTIFA violence.

In many instances the same areas.....and this comes from the spawn of the same people.

What Texas (and others) complained of is what we would now call "state sponsored terrorism." The big shock from John Brown's raid was:

A) they were carrying Sharps rifles which were the newest and best...and were very expensive. No rag tag bunch of poor terrorists could possibly have afforded those and everybody knew it instantly.

B) when several prominent New Englanders openly admitted that they had put up the money/sponsored the terrorist attack, their states refused to prosecute them or extradite them.

Just imagine if after 9/11 a bunch of prominent Saudis had publicly announced that they sponsored the terrorist attack and the Saudi government then refused to prosecute them for it or hand them over. What would the American people have thought? What would they have demanded? How would the US Government have reacted to that?

It was the same then......the same realization many of us have had about Leftists in the last decade. ie These are not merely people I disagree with or my political opponents. These people genuinely want us dead. They are actual enemies. That's how most Southerners felt after that. They were given damn good reason to feel that way.

[FLT-bird]

LOL. You are so full of Southern-fried crap. So those Damn Yankees made them charge 25% tariff rates. ;~)). So did they amend their Constitution to allow those high rates or did they just ignore it?

insert grade school level insult to be at your level

They did what Lincoln did when he imposed an income tax to fight the war despite the fact that the constitution did not allow it.