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.]

[DiogenesLamp]

You are talking about the Start of the West where they tried to sneak in 200 troops by hiding them below decks?

Or did you know about that?

[Ditto]

Wrong. That applies to administrative agencies its not a license for the executive to simply ignore the federal courts.

Taney issued his ruling to the Commanding General of Fort McHenry… an “administrative agency”.

[FLT-bird]

Taney issued his ruling to the Commanding General of Fort McHenry… an “administrative agency”.

correct. I was telling you why that doesn't apply.

[Ditto]

You are talking about the Start of the West where they tried to sneak in 200 troops by hiding them below decks? Or did you know about that?

Where in the hell did you get that piece of disinformation, and what good would 200 more mouths to feed be for Major Anderson? He was being starved out not shot out.

[DiogenesLamp]

There is no express or implied "right to secede" in the Constitution, and neither do the terms of the Declaration of Independence did not support Southern secession.

No, you don't get to pull that trick. You have to show where it is forbidden. Just because a right is not enumerated does not mean it doesn't exist.

The Declaration said this right existed, and the Constitutional convention was only 11 years after everyone in the nation had put forth the Declaration, so the burden of proof is on you to show how they intended the Constitution to *CONTRADICT* what was a recognized right at the time.

Consider that the Declaration urges that "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

I have considered it. It is a suggestion, not a requirement. People don't have to explain why they are exercising a right. It is only a curtesy when they do.

Yet you insist that while slavery is prominently mentioned in the official Southern statements of secession, economics was the real reason.

My position is that rights are not conditional. You can exercise your right for bad reasons as well as good. The point is it is *YOUR* right.

And again, they don't have to explain their reasons for leaving. The North needs to explain it's reason for stopping them, and so far I see no support in the US Constitution for their actions.

If you are accurate, that obscurity takes Southern secession away from the requirement of the Declaration that the causes be stated.

It is not a requirement. It is a curtesy.

Moreover, the Declaration states that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This principle makes slavery ineligible as a legitimate basis for secession.

Firstly, you don't have a conditional right of secession. You have a complete and total right to secede for any reason the people of a state see fit.

Secondly, the "all men are created equal" relies on the same God that says

" When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."

The right to leave is given by the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."

As for whether the North had a right to oppose secession, the Declaration did not claim that Britain had no right to try to keep America as a colony.

I do not grasp how you can reach that conclusion. The entire point of the Declaration and the War for independence was to assert the position that Britain had no right to try to keep America as a colony.

[PeterPrinciple]

My position is that rights are not conditional. You can exercise your right for bad reasons as well as good. The point is it is *YOUR* right.

---

maybe not conditional but subject to other factors in a complex system.

Rights are not absolute.

[DiogenesLamp]

Where in the hell did you get that piece of disinformation, and what good would 200 more mouths to feed be for Major Anderson? He was being starved out not shot out.

You are going to be very disappointed when you find out what I have told you is true. The troops were originally on the USS Brooklyn, and Buchanan thought that might look a little too warlike, so he ordered the troops transferred to the Star of the West so they could be sneaked in quietly. Unfortunately, Confederate sympathizer ships saw the troop transfer in mid-ocean and they headed for port where they informed the authorities. So they knew the Star of the West had troops on it when they fired the warning shots.

And no, Anderson wasn't starving in January of 1861. He was still being supplied by the locals in Charleston at that time. I think it was when they found out about Fox's plan in late March or early April that they stopped supplying him with food.

Also, the Star of the West contained provisions as well as troops.

[TexasGator]

“And again, they don’t have to explain their reasons for leaving. The North needs to explain it’s reason for stopping them, and so far I see no support in the US Constitution for their actions”

Legal exoerts and the USSC do.

[DiogenesLamp]

maybe not conditional but subject to other factors in a complex system. Rights are not absolute.

Are you suggesting they have to come up with a reason that God approves of? Because if you are invoking God in the context of a right, how do other people get to object to the exercise of a right?

[DiogenesLamp]

Legal exoerts and the USSC do.

They also think the 14th amendment creates the right to "gay marriage" and Abortion.

They can't define what a "woman" is because they are not biologists.

They say what they want to say, whether it be true or not.

[BroJoeK]

Steamboat SS Planter, built in Charleston, SC, 1860,
shown here as a packet loaded with 1,000 bales of cotton.

FLT-bird to Ditto: "You clearly don't understand how the economy worked.
The South produced the cash crops that were exported.

• The North serviced those crops in the form of factors, insurers, bankers and shippers and ship builders.
• The goods were gathered on packet ships, handled through warehouses in NYC, then shipped across the Atlantic to European markets.
• The Southerners who produced and owned the cotton contracted with Northern shippers to do so.
  They had to pay insurance, the fee for use of the ships, the crews' wages, etc.
• If you know anything about shipping, the last thing you ever want to do is have them sail empty - that just costs money and delivers no value in return.

• So the ships that had been contracted to sail to Europe were then filled with manufactured goods made in Europe after the cotton had been sold.
  These manufactured goods were what was then hit with the tariff.
  
• The Southern owners of those goods paid the tariff - not the port where they landed."

That's somewhat close, but still off the real mark.
So, first, let's put some numbers on the overall patterns of trade:

1. ~4.5 million standard 500 lb. bales of cotton in total produced in 1860, a bumper crop.
   Of those:
   • ~80% (3.5 million bales) of all cotton produced was exported
   • ~20% (1 million bales) of all cotton produced was used in US textile mills.

   1860 New Orleans, Freight On Board export sale prices:

   

2. 3.1 million of those bales shipped from Gulf Coast ports, primarily New Orleans (2.1 million bales).
   • ~75% (2,325,000 bales) of these exported directly to European & other foreign customers.
     
   • ~25% (775,000 bales) shipped via coastal packets to Northeastern cities, including New York, accounting for 40% of New York's raw cotton receipts.

3. 1.4 million bales shipped from Southeastern ports -- VA to FL.
   Of those:
   • 600,000 bales shipped directly from Southeastern ports to export customers.
     
   • 800,000 bales were collected by intercoastal packet ships for delivery to Northern US mills, including New York.

4. Some raw cotton delivered to New York was shipped to upstate textile mills, the remainder (~525,000 bales) shipped to export customers overseas.
   These NY cotton export shipments represented 30% of all NY non-specie exports and 15% of all US cotton exports.

Bottom line: about 85% of all US exported cotton shipped directly to customers in Europe or New England without physically passing through New York.

How much did cotton growers earn per standard 500 lb. bale?
It varied, depending on circumstances, but here is the overall picture:

Cotton Clipper from New Orleans to Liverpool, England:

Average Price of a Standard 500‑lb Cotton Bale as it Moved from Plantation to Mill, ca. 1860

Stage	Description	Approximate Value (USD, 1860)
Planter (avg. net)	Net receipt at plantation, typically paid by "factors"	$50–51
Factor commission	Brokerage, handling, and financing (if used)	$1–2.50
Inland freight	Transport from plantation to New Orleans	$4–6
FOB New Orleans	Export value at port of shipment	$55–58
Ocean freight & insurance	Transatlantic shipment to Liverpool	$7–10
Liverpool importer sale	Sale price in Liverpool cotton market	$63–67
Manchester spinning mill	Delivered cost to English textile mill	$65–70

The above averages hide a great disparity in the earnings power of plantation elites verses middle & lower sized farms.
Based on their size, location & wealth, plantation elites produced more cotton and earned more per bale:

Distribution of Planter Outcomes in the Cotton Economy, ca. 1860

Planter Group	Net Earned at Sale (per 500‑lb bale)	Point of Sale
Elite (20%), river‑adjacent, self‑financing, >25 slaves	$52–53	FOB New Orleans
Middle (50%), factor‑using, average transportation costs, 5-24 slaves	$48–50	Sold to factor at farmer’s gate
Bottom (30%), small farms using merchant credit, distant from river or rail transportation, <5 slaves	$43–46	Cotton delivered to local merchants & creditors

Overall, where did the cotton money go?
Here is a breakdown of cotton growers' earnings in 1860:

Cotton Income Flows by Planter Class, ca. 1860

Group	Slaves Held	Share of Planters	Estimated Number of Farms	Share of Cotton Output	Net $ per Bale (FOB New Orleans)	Total Cotton Income
Elite	≥ 25 enslaved	~20%	~60,000	80%	$52.50	$189 million
Middle	5–24 enslaved	~50%	~150,000	15%	$49.00	$33 million
Bottom	< 5 enslaved	~30%	~90,000	5%	$44.00	$10 million
Total	—	100%	~300,000	100%	—	$232 million

In short: ~20% of cotton growers produced 80% of all cotton while earning over $3,000 per plantation, on average.
The other 80% of growers did not do so well.

But what about imports, didn't Southern planters have to pay tariffs on the goods they imported to, for example, New York?

No, not ever, because:

1. 90%+ of all cotton was sold at the planter's gate, and/or Freight On Board in New Orleans (or other port).
   At most only 10% was shipped on consignment for sale by the planter in European ports like Liverpool, LeHavre or Amsterdam.

2. This means that 90%+ of cotton arriving in Europe was not owned by Southern planters, but rather by American factors, cotton merchants, British & American merchant banks, brokers (financial & commodity), shipping & marine agents, import brokers, etc.
   Some then decided which European products to buy for the return shipment to New York.

3. When imported goods arrived in New York the tariff was NOT paid by anyone.
   Instead, imported goods went into bonded warehouses where they sat -- sometimes for months or years -- until sold.
   Then and only then did the buyers pay Federal tariffs -- never the sellers, much less Southern cotton planters.

That's why the whole narrative about how "the South" somehow "paid for" Federal tariff revenues is just nonsense.
From beginning to end, exports of cotton and everything else the US produced circa 1860, was a national effort with national players, not just a regional effort with exclusively regional actors.

[PeterPrinciple]

read it slowly and let your lips move.

Rights are NOT absolute. They are subject to other factors in a complex system.

Do some thinking and reflecting.

And yes, our founders did invoke God given rights. What are those God given rights subject to?

Are you suggesting we DON’T have to have a reason for what we do?

Is your freedom absolute, you can do anything you want? or is it guided by higher goals and objectives?

I had freedom as a child but it was subject to a lot of things and people.

You have a right to a gun, do you have the right to shoot me? It depends on a lot in a complex situation and things are not always perfectly clear in our society.

Your rights are subject to God, whether you think so or not. Or you can do what ever you want to, you are god and decide what is right or wrong.

[DiogenesLamp]

And here is another one of these long winded things that I don’t bother reading anymore.

[DiogenesLamp]

You are dancing around the point. I think we can all agree the 13 slave owning colonies had a right to independence.

How did that right to independence disappear after "four score and seven years"?

[TexasGator]

Non Sequitur

[PeterPrinciple]

Answer the question.

Are your rights absolute or subject to?

There is the issue.

[Rockingham]

The key issue is that, in the terms of the Declaration, independence may be sought from a larger polity "whenever they become destructive of the ends for which they were established." To give shape to that concept, Americans of the colonial era looked to the specific bundle of rights established in the Magna Carta and English common law. For the South, the reason for secession and the formation of the Confederacy was the protection of slavery. That is not sanctioned in either the Magna Carta or in English common law.

Was that adequate and proper cause to repudiate the Constitution? Not in my view, nor in the view of anyone with a lick of sense. That is why, after the Civil War was over, Southern apologists contrived all sorts of evasions and excuses for secession other than slavery.

Unfortunately, this Lost Cause myth and its pseudo legalisms are attractive today to people who ought to know better. Secession cannot properly be defended as a species of no-fault divorce that does not need a proper reason. Secession was foolish and wicked.

[DiogenesLamp]

Non Sequitur

Nah, he was zotted years ago.

[DiogenesLamp]

"whenever they become destructive of the ends for which they were established."

Where did you get that quote? It's not from the Declaration.

For the South, the reason for secession and the formation of the Confederacy was the protection of slavery.

That is just one assertion, and an unproven one at that. Beyond that, there are no conditions regarding the right to independence, else it would have applied to the original 13 slave colonies as well.

Was that adequate and proper cause to repudiate the Constitution?

The Constitution is not repudiated by states exercising their rights.

That is why, after the Civil War was over, Southern apologists contrived all sorts of evasions and excuses for secession other than slavery.

So you tell me, all the while ignoring the evidence of their constant economic complaints going all the way back to the 1820s.

[FLT-bird]

But what about imports, didn't Southern planters have to pay tariffs on the goods they imported to, for example, New York? No, not ever, because: 90%+ of all cotton was sold at the planter's gate, and/or Freight On Board in New Orleans (or other port). At most only 10% was shipped on consignment for sale by the planter in European ports like Liverpool, LeHavre or Amsterdam. This means that 90%+ of cotton arriving in Europe was not owned by Southern planters, but rather by American factors, cotton merchants, British & American merchant banks, brokers (financial & commodity), shipping & marine agents, import brokers, etc. Some then decided which European products to buy for the return shipment to New York. When imported goods arrived in New York the tariff was NOT paid by anyone. Instead, imported goods went into bonded warehouses where they sat -- sometimes for months or years -- until sold. Then and only then did the buyers pay Federal tariffs -- never the sellers, much less Southern cotton planters. That's why the whole narrative about how "the South" somehow "paid for" Federal tariff revenues is just nonsense. From beginning to end, exports of cotton and everything else the US produced circa 1860, was a national effort with national players, not just a regional effort with exclusively regional actors.

Several things here.

You overinflate the amount of cotton produced by large plantations because you ignore their role as bundlers/wholesalers. A large plantation owner would buy up all the cotton grown by the small/family farmers around him for a slightly discounted price and then bundle it with his own prior to arranging shipping for the cotton his plantation produced. This tends to wipe out the production of yeomen farmers and make it appear as though the plantations produced all of it - which was not the case. It was common practice for family farms to devote a decent percentage of their acreage to raise money for all the things they couldn't produce at home.

The Tariff of Abominations reduced Cotton purchases by a whopping 50% as English merchants could no longer afford to buy as much cotton since they could not exchange it for manufactured goods but instead had to pay hard cash for it. It simultaneously reduced profit margins because of the much higher tariffs imposed. Thus the price per bale of cotton was also reduced even while the cost of manufactured goods rose. It was economically ruinous to the Southern states which is what prompted the Nullification Crisis. This was not theoretical to Southerners. They had lived through it already and well understood what would happen.

Any of a number of newspapers on all sides, writers, politicians and tax experts have all attested that the Southern states did indeed pay the vast bulk of the Tariff. Its laughable that some PCer now thinks he knows better how the economy worked than the people who lived back then and saw it with their own eyes and in their own bank accounts.