Capitalism's Savior (Everything You Believe About FDR Is False)

Wall Street Journal ^ | Wednesday, October 29, 2003 | CONRAD BLACK

[presidio9]

Those worried about the recent sluggishness of the American economy should look to the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt. When he entered office in 1933, unemployment was at 33%, there was almost no public-sector relief for the jobless, 45% of family homes had been -- or were in imminent danger of being -- foreclosed, and the Chicago Grain Exchange, the New York Stock Exchange and the banking system had collapsed. Almost no one was engaged in agriculture on an economically sustainable basis and the nation's food supply was apt to be severely interrupted at any time.

[Eric Paul]

Sorry to interrupt, but I have a question. I am curious what your definition of neo-conservative is. Do you consider President Reagan the first neo-conservative president? Do you also consider George Bush Sr. a neo-conservative?

[Dead Dog]

Under FDR's lead we went socialist, and almost whent communist. Where else would we go with Alger Hiss (assistent Sec of State), Dean Acheson, Harry Dexter White (assistant secretary of the Treasury), and Lauchlin Currie, all trusted members of FDR's administration, and all Communists. Acheson was never proven a party member, but he certainly was in all the right places at all the right times, with all the wrong people.

[Restorer]

My ancestors owned no slaves but had no interest in paying taxes to the Northern Industrialists who propped up the Lincoln administration.

I know it is hard for many Americans to realize how different the US was in 1860, and apply today's issues to what was going on back then.

Your comment implies massive taxation by the Union. FYI, the total Federal budget in 1860 was $60,000,000. I believe this works out at about $2 per capita nationally. Even at the value of a dollar then, that won't finance much oppression. You could probably pay your annual federal taxes by working 2 days at the average salary for unskilled labor.

Even this minimal amount of taxation was entirely indirect, mostly as tariffs on imports. Don't want to pay taxes? Don't buy imported products. Not an option we have available today.

Almost all of that money went to fund the (very small) armed forces and the Post Office. US residents at the time were among the lowest-taxed people in history. Since average state taxes were lower in the South, southerners paid even less tax.

BTW, not even all the $60,000,000 came from taxes. A major source of income for the budget was the sale of public land.

Federalis freedom often meant starvation, rape by federal soldiers, looting, forced separation from their white friends who suffered the same fate.

All of this was a result of the war. A war started by the South.

[Restorer]

federalis had plenty of laws in the North that forbid blacks from settling in their states so blacks had little place to go

Such laws were invalidated by the 14th Amendment. And a great many ex-slaves obviously did move North or West after the war. Any difficulties they faced on arrival were due to public sentiment, not legal restrictions.

[Dead Dog]

They also set a one night lynching record for the number of innocent free blackmen hung in a 24 hour period. I believe it was 19 or something like that. It's not so much an Irish thing, it's an American thing. The point being, the North was not brimming with compasion and racial equality in regards to blacks.

I would be suprised if free Blacks were treated any better in the North then they were in the South. Remeber, the largets stock yard in La. was owned by a black Freeman, he was also a ruthless slave owner.

[headsonpikes]

I'm no defender of FDR's policies - my point is that the '30s were the high tide for utopian dreamers and world-improvers world-wide.

American socialism has many fathers.

[Restorer]

Let me ask the reverse, if a state wanted to secede from the Union simply because they did not want to guarantee a First Trimester abortion, would you favor an invasion?

I would follow Lincoln's brilliant policy. He refused to recognize the right of any state to secede, but would not invade because they made proclamations of secession. Only armed attack on federal forces led to invasion.

And calling it invasion is itself a loaded term. One cannot invade one's own country.

To answer your question, I would favor massive armed response to armed resistance to legal and constitutional federal actions.

[beckett]

Nothing was gained by eliminating slavery at the expense of 600,000 American lives so Northern factory owners could import yours and my starving Irish ancestors to work their miserable factories and live in their miserable tenements.

I have yet to read a post of yours that does not display, to one degree or another, the incoherent ramblings of an unbalanced mind.

Oh great thinker! LOL

[Dead Dog]

Most Freezer's opinions are based on their synthesis of historic knowledge more than a lack of knowledge. That is, they haven't formed their opinions in a vacuum. Be careful in assuming they don't know what they are talking about, otherwise you will quickly lose credibility.

[Dead Dog]

Although some of us can't type, Freezer=Freeper.

[presidio9]

JohnGault has indicated here that he puts much stock in the historical accuracy of the film "Gangs of New York." The movie in fact employed a great deal of dramatic license.

[metesky]

[Dead Dog]

Only if you assume Slavery would have continued without the Civil war. The reality is, 700K payed dearly for trade policy favorable to the industrial states. The South would have ended slavery on it's own accord. And, I would point out, had it not been for Lincoln's War, we would not have had the 100 years of racial dark ages in the South.

As for WMD in Iraq, do you REALLY think Saddamy didn't have a active WMD program in 2002?

[presidio9]

The South would have ended slavery on it's own accord.

When? Dred Scott indicates that they were getting more tenatious about their hold on the slaves, not less. As you pointed out, the British had been slave free for a generation.

As for WMD in Iraq, do you REALLY think Saddamy didn't have a active WMD program in 2002?

Irrelevant. The fact that he's gone justifies the war on its own.

[upcountryhorseman]

FDR was a pragmatist: he brought capitalists to
Washington to launch industry's war effort. At the same
time he curried favor with blacks, liberals, unions, etc.
to get votes. What he perhaps was not aware of; Many of
his advisors were communists and at least one was a spy
for the KGB.

[upcountryhorseman]

You are sooo right! Congratulations.

[headsonpikes]

KA-BOOM!!!

;^)

[steve8714]

Stalin ran rings around HST also.