too too funny
Posted on 02/12/2011 6:06:39 AM PST by Notary Sojac
This article that you support is so much a pants load that I can hardly keep a straight face.
Beginning with the first premise from this quote from the very beginning:
“Abraham Lincoln's greatest love was politics, but his intellectual passion was for what the 19th century called ‘political economy’ - the way economics and politics intersected in society and government. According to his law partner William Herndon, Lincoln ‘liked political economy, the study of it,’
Say it again.........”political economy”......Lincoln ‘liked political economy, the study of it.”
How is political economy defined at the very time that Lincoln was supposed to ‘like’ it?
Here from one of the foremost proponents of ‘political economy’, written in 1837: “Whether discussing usury laws, money and banking, internal improvements, or trade restrictions, the detrimental effect of government intervention is a theme that appears throughout the elements of political economy."
Proponents of this political/social/governmental position advocated total free trade. Essentially they supported liberty, property, peace, free markets, limited government, and sound money.
Another writer described proponents of ‘political economy as knowing that legislators adopt positions that are at variance with successful governmental operations.’
“... legislators, who generally assume the labor of directing the manner in which labor or capital shall be employed, in no manner peculiarly qualified for this task; they are, in many respects, peculiarly disqualified for it. The individual is liable to no peculiar biases, in making up his mind in respect to the profitableness of an investment. If he err, it is because the indications deceive him. The legislator, besides being liable to err by mistaking the indications, is liable to be misled by party zeal, by political intrigue, and by sectional prejudice.” (Francis Wayland)
And this quote: “the individual has no right to commit to society, nor society to government, the power to declare war.”
One only has to read Lincoln's 1860 platform or understand his Henry Clay affiliation, or his bias against the South, or his support of a central bank, or his willingness to bring war on the South to comprehend that he did not believe in “political economy”.
For a much more detailed analysis, see post 138
In fact some people of the period ridiculed him for any association with the movement. See this for example:
“Shelby Cullom, who practiced law beside Lincoln in Springfield, Ill., thought that ‘theoretically . . . on political economy he was great.’”
Let's look at the exact source quote (found here: http://abrahamlincolnsclassroom.org/Library/newsletter.asp?ID=137&CRLI=193 ) to see if it means what Guelzo says it means:
“My father,” said Senator Cullom, “took me to Mr. Lincoln at Springfield to have me study law with him. ....I have been with him when he returned from riding the circuit. Mr. Lincoln kept no account books to speak of. ....after trying a case he would take the fee that he received from his client, wrap it up in a piece of paper, write on the back of the paper the name of the case and the amount...ten, fifteen, or twenty five dollars what ever it might be and put the paper in his pocket.
"When Mr. Lincoln came home he would take these papers out of his pockets, one at a time and divide the amounts with his partner, Herndon. Theoretically Mr. Lincoln was strong on financial questions. On political economy he was great. Practically, he knew little about money and took no care of it. As a lawyer in practice, he was very strong before both court and jury. He had a great deal of personal magnetism and his honest, plain way captured the jurors. Mr. Lincoln would lean over the jury, gesturing with his long arms and holding the jurors fascinated with his homely eloquence."
Now as you can plainly see, Guelzo’s quote has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of political economy and is completely out of context.
Then Guelzo has the audacity to claim that he is certain of Mr. Lincoln's reading list.
He says: “Before he was elected the 16th president of the United States, Lincoln “ate up, digested, and assimilated” the premier texts in 19th-century political economy - John Stuart Mill's The Principles of Political Economy (1848), Mathew Carey's Essays on Political Economy (1822), his son Henry Carey's three-volume Principles of Social Science (1858), John Ramsay McCulloch’s The Principles of Political Economy (1825), and Francis Wayland's Elements of Political Economy (1837).”
Except for one book, that paragraph is a total contrivance.
From this source http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/28.2/bray.html#FOOT207
This bibliography attempts to list, in alphabetical order by author, all the books or parts of books that any serious scholar, biographer, or bibliographer has asserted that Abraham Lincoln read. In the interest of completeness, even dubious claims were listed.
The titles taken from Wayne Temple's “Herndon on Lincoln: An Unknown Interview with a List of Books in the Lincoln & Herndon Law Office” consist exclusively of pre-1866 publications that Lincoln could plausibly have read. While they were probably read or used by William Henry Herndon and noticed on the shelves by Lincoln, there is in most cases no corroborating evidence that Lincoln actually read these titles.
John Stuart Mill’s The Principles of Political Economy (1848), Rated as a book that Lincoln “somewhat likely” read. One of the books William H. Herndon says Lincoln “more or less peeped into” (Hidden Lincoln, 117).
Mathew Carey’s Essays on Political Economy (1822), Not listed as either having read or been in the Lincoln offices. W. H. Herndon told Weik that “Carey's political economy” was one of the books on this subject that Lincoln “more or less peeped into.” , however, comes from the fact that there was another Carey (Matthew) who wrote a treatise on political economy in the first half of the nineteenth century, and we cannot know which, if either, Herndon is referring to (Hidden Lincoln, 117).
His son Henry Carey’s three-volume Principles of Social Science (1858), mentioned by an informant or acquaintance, though in an uncertain context as regards title/author, time or place. It is somewhat unlikely that Lincoln read this book.
John Ramsay McCulloch’s The Principles of Political Economy (1825), ...Probably an incorrect title on the part of this author. In the listing McCullough, John Ramsey, Essays on Exchange, Interest, Money and Other Subjects [1850], again no documentation that Lincoln read these items.
The one book that there is certainty was Francis Wayland’s Elements of Political Economy (1837). High probability he read it.
Now, that from multiple sources. Does that give you any increased confidence in your support of Guelzo?
Practically every internet site that you reach through a search engine in checking on Lincoln's “classical” readings will pull up Guelzo’s articles, blogs, and essays. He is attempting to establish credibility with volume rather than any sense of propriety of content.
Thanks to beanshirts for his superb analysis and documentation.
Thank you for that very interesting post.
Thanks for the ping. I had forgotten about this thread. I’ve been busy with other matters (and still am).
Good posts from the both of you.
In the US, though, there was also a protectionist school of economics represented by Mathew and Henry Carey. Mathew Carey's books were even entitled Essays on political economy; or, The most certain means of promoting the wealth, power, resources, and happiness of states, applied particularly to the United States and Cursory Views of the Liberal and Restrictive Systems of Political Economy. There was nothing strange about Guelzo describing Lincoln's interest and enthusiasm regarding political economy. Political economists came down on different sides of controversial issues, just like economists today.
Guelzo was right in citing Herndon as saying that Lincoln “ate up, digested, and assimilated” Francis Wayland's book, but wrong in applying the same description to books that Herndon said Lincoln only "peeped into." Apparently he was too anxious to prove his case to present only the proven facts and let them speak for themselves.
It's not strange to think that we might be able to surmise with some reliability what statesmen who lived a century or two ago read and thought. We can speak with a good deal of confidence about what John Adams read and thought: we have his letters, his papers, and the books of his library with his annotations in the margins. Something similar is true of Thomas Jefferson, although most of the books he donated to the Library of Congress were burned in a fire.
It looks like we can't speak with the same degree of certainty about what a traveling lawyer in what had recently been frontier country who tried to educate himself in the saddle and in boarding houses read and thought. Certainly without the actual books and more precise testimony it would be hard to say how deeply Lincoln may have studied the books on economics which passed through his hands (though we do have ample testimony on his general reading habits -- Shakespeare, the Bible, Burns, Byron, legal books). Guelzo was wrong in claiming more knowledge about this than the evidence warranted.
I also wouldn't call Lincoln a "classical liberal." That label's been appropriated by laissez-faire libertarians. Lincoln's support for tariffs and a somewhat larger role for government in road and canal building and banking most likely disqualifies him as a classical liberal.
Still, in comparison to today's powerful government, Lincoln's philosophy does look more like minimal government than it did to some of his contemporaries or to modern libertarians with axes to grind.
And look around. There are plenty of protectionists on Free Republic who claim to be and are convinced free marketeers. For a century after Lincoln conservatism and protection went together well and formed the core beliefs of the Republican Party. There are also plenty of others here who are skeptical about the dogmas of free trade or protection and judge on a case-by-case basis.
Moreover, Guelzo may have had the 19th century "Market Revolution" in mind, a movement away from local, subsistence production to production for distant markets. Lincoln was very much a supporter of the Market Revolution which was opposed by some agrarian traditionalists. His support for railroad building, banking, and industrialization contributed to our modern industrial America.
Underlying his support for economic development was his commitment to private property, individual enterprise, the rule of law, and economic competition. He was by no means a socialist.
And the kind of Market Revolution he supported was also important. He favored an economy based on domestic production, rather than extraction of raw materials for foreign industry, and on free labor, rather than slavery. Not everyone who opposed tariffs in his day could have said that.
If you think of yourself as some sort of libertarian enforcer you might view Lincoln as one of the damned for his support of tariffs, national banking, railroad subsidies and other forms of government intervention which now appear to be quite rudimentary and comparatively innocuous. But if you look at a wider spectrum of issues, you might take into how he contributed to the building of the free market industrial economy that benefited us so much in the last century.
Love is in the air..... Long lost friend there?
ANYTHING? Including leaving the Union and leaving the Midwestern and Western territories in possession of the North, which is what the South did? Leaving those territories in possession of the North really stopped those who opposed the extension of slavery there, right?
Let's reverse the positions of the North and South. Ah, come on; you can do it. What would the North have done in that case? Here is a comment about such a reversal of roles from the March 5, 1861, Brooklyn Eagle (the largest evening newspaper in the country back then):
Let us suppose that the South had proposed this doctrine, had declared war against free soil as Mr. Lincoln and his party did against slave soil, and laid down a platform to exclude free labor from the territories, and place it in the way of ultimate extinction in the States, and that they possessed a numerical majority of the population and elected a Rhett or Yancey on that platform, as President of these States, would the North have any cause for apprehension? ... Reverse the position of parties, and the North would spurn the yoke of a free soil extinguishing president forced upon it by slaveholding votes against the united vote of every free State with as stern determination as was evinced by the most headlong of the Gulf States.
Except that's not what the south did. There isn't an area of the mid-west or western territories that the south didn't attempt to seize control. It was only the sheer vastness of size that stalled their efforts. They effectively seized New Mexico, for a time held Arizona, and almost seized California. There were even clashes in (what would be) Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana to declare townships and even entire territories for the confederacy.
It wasn't for want of trying.
I thought back when I was making my post to which you responded that I should note an exception for the Southern half of the New Mexico Territory who's "convention" voted to go with the Confederacy. They wanted to come in; the South let them and gained military supremacy there for a while. I've posted about the Confederate Arizona Territory many times in the past. I restricted my comments to the Midwest and Western territories because of the Arizona Territory. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Confederate Arizonans established a fort in Yuma, Arizona, later abandoned. As far as I know, the farthest west that a battle or skirmish took place was a skirmish at Stanwix Station 80 miles east of Yuma Arizona. I'm not aware of any battles in California. As far as I know, Southern sympathizers in California went to Texas to join the Confederate army.
I'm not aware of any "clashes" in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana. You live up in that part of the world. Could you provide some additional information/links, please? Always willing to learn history.
I'm sure there were Confederate sympathizers in the Midwest and Western territories and even Northern states, but do desires to join the Confederacy by isolated groups of sympathizers indicate that the South itself was instigating those actions. Or was it simply that those people agreed with the South and/or were against the coercion of states by the central government?
Some Confederate sympathizers flew a Palmetto flag for a day at Old Fort Kearney, an abandoned fort in Nebraska (?), but it was apparently the work of local sympathizers, not an action by the Confederacy. See: Link.
Various Indian tribes in the Indian Territory (Oklahoma) allied themselves with the Confederacy as well and supplied troops to fight the Federals. My recollection is that more Indians fought for the South than for the North. When the choice was between the Confederacy and an overbearing Federal government, who wouldn't go with the South? Just my opinion, as I'm sure you will recognize.
I found this case when researching something I had posted earlier:
The Case of the State of Kentucky Against the Governor of Ohio, for Refusing to Issue a Warrant for the Arrest of Lago. Washington, Jan. 11. – The case of the State of Kentucky against the Governor of Ohio, who refused to issue his warrant for the arrest of Lago, charged with having enticed a slave from Kentucky into Ohio, was set for to-day, in the Supreme Court, but the Attorney-General of Ohio having forwarded an affidavit of a professional engagement which prevented his attendance, the case was postponed until the 8th of February. Kentucky was ready by counsel.
The Constitution requires that:
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
In Kentucky v. Dennison, 65 U.S. 66 (1860) [Link], the Supreme Court ruled 8 to 0 that yes, the governor of a state had the duty to extradite a person charged with a crime in another state upon being provided with a proper demand from the governor of another state, but if the governor did not extradite the prisoner, no part of the Federal government had the power to coerce the governor to turn the person over to the state seeking him/her. From the syllabus of the ruling:
5. It was the duty of the Executive authority of Ohio, upon the demand made by the Governor of Kentucky and the production of the indictment, duly certified, to cause Lago to be delivered up to the agent of the Governor of Kentucky who was appointed to demand and receive him.
6. The duty of the Governor of Ohio was merely ministerial, and he had no right to exercise any discretionary power as to the nature or character of the crime charged in the indictment.
7. The word "duty," in the act of 1793, means the moral obligation of the State to perform the compact in the Constitution when Congress had, by that act, regulated the mode in which the duty was to be performed.
8. But Congress cannot coerce a State officer, as such, to perform any duty by act of Congress. The State officer may perform it if he thinks proper, and it may be a moral duty to perform it. But if he refuses, no law of Congress can compel him.
9. The Governor of Ohio cannot, through the Judiciary or any other Department of the General Government, be compelled to deliver up Lago, and, upon that ground only, this motion for a mandamus was overruled.
This ruling seems compatible with the earlier ruling in Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1843) that state officers could not be made to enforce Federal law regarding the return of fugitive slaves. That ruling made the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law a Federal responsibility. The Feds could not force a state to enforce Federal law. In some Northern states’ personal liberty laws, state officials were forbidden at the risk of fines and jail time to help enforce Federal law with regard to the return of fugitive slaves. These two rulings (Prigg and Kentucky) say the states are independent sovereigns who can decide what part of the Constitution they are going to obey and that the Federal Government can’t coerce them. This sort of a situation, i.e., states not following the plain words of the Constitution, undermined both the Constitution and the Union.
Kentucky v. Dennison was finally overturned in Puerto Rico v. Branstad, 483 U.S. 219 (1987). In that ruling, Thurgood Marshall delivered the unanimous opinion of the court that Kentucky v. Dennison …
"...is the product of another time. The conception of the relation between the States and the Federal Government there announced is fundamentally incompatible with more than a century of constitutional development."
Who knew? The Constitution was still being developed more than 100 years after it was written, and the relationship between states and the Federal government had changed from what it had been before the War Between The States. The Living Constitution theory lives on.
I’m not sure the newspaper article that led me to find this case was entirely correct. I’ve read elsewhere that the slave who was enticed to escape to freedom by Willis Lago had in fact been taken to Ohio by her master. It was in Ohio that Willis Lago helped the slave escape from her master. That might have been against Kentucky law, but the crime happened in Ohio. Could Kentucky law be enforced in Ohio?
Here is another complication. Willis Lago was considered a free black in Ohio. Had he earlier been an escaped slave himself? If so, perhaps that entered into Ohio Governor Dennison’s decision not to extradite him to Kentucky.
That is very good of you to acknowledge the evidence presented by me and to distance yourself from any attempted validation of his article.
Guelzo ought to be exposed for what he is.
You said: “If you think of yourself as some sort of libertarian enforcer...”.
You do not know that, nor does the content of my posts support that.
You should read more of what he wrote and what other historians write to see if this is part of a pattern in his work that isn't found in other historians before coming to a judgement like that.
He was too quick to assume that Lincoln had “ate up, digested, and assimilated” the major texts of 19th century political economy with the same zest that Herndon says he dug into Wayland's book, but if you found Shelby Davis writing
During my life I have been acquainted with very many able lawyers, and I have no hesitation in saying that Lincoln was the greatest trial lawyer I ever saw. He was a man of wonderful power before a court or jury. When he was sure he was right, his strength and resourcefulness were well-nigh irresistible. In the court-room he was at home. He was frank with the court, the juries, and the lawyers, to such an extent that he would state the case of the opposite side as fairly as the opposing counsel could do it; he would then disclose his client's case so strongly, with such honesty and candor, that the judge and jury would be almost convinced at once in advance of the testimony.
You might not automatically assume that his reported comment about Lincoln being "great" on political economy was wholly tongue in cheek. I wouldn't cite it as evidence in the way that Guelzo does, but there is a possible gray area there that you didn't acknowledge.
You said: “If you think of yourself as some sort of libertarian enforcer...”.
You do not know that, nor does the content of my posts support that.
That wasn't intended personally. It is the case that a lot of what we hear about history comes from people who have very strong political agendas who condemn those who don't belong to their own particular sect.
Over time these condemnations and accusations are spread beyond the cult and get separated from their original agenda. They take root with people who don't share the original ideology and can be hard to analyze properly and uproot.
But though I didn't intend it personally look at the sentence of yours immediately above your denial, "Guelzo ought to be exposed for what he is." And you don't think of yourself as some sort of enforcer?
I did and have. In order that you understand the magnitude of Guelzo’s use of blogs and non-footnoted publications to create a false reservoir of "factual" sources of support for his contentions, just simply do a search using the term “political economy”. I found 52 postings, 51 belonging to Guelzo...all listing his article, and it was posted on all sorts of locations...he really went to some trouble to get it where it went..
He essentially flooded the search engine platter. No one else except one provided any information on Lincoln's behavior. The one that was cited was the one I provided several posts ago that was either a misinformed comment or more likely one that was ridiculing Lincoln.
Next, regarding your long post on Lincoln...that is irrelevant to the article.
You said: “You might not automatically assume that his reported comment about Lincoln being “great” on political economy was wholly tongue in cheek.”
Taken in the context of the quote, how would you explain it?
“I wouldn't cite it as evidence in the way that Guelzo does,...”
Of course you wouldn't. It would be totally absurd.
You said: “..but there is a possible gray area there that you didn't acknowledge.”
And what would that be?
You said: “But though I didn't intend it personally look at the sentence of yours immediately above your denial, ‘Guelzo ought to be exposed for what he is.’ And you don't think of yourself as some sort of enforcer?”
That is such tripe that does not deserve any response other than to say that I expect you are looking forward to the next “Dirty Harry” movie starring Carl Bernstein.
He essentially flooded the search engine platter. No one else except one provided any information on Lincoln's behavior.
The laughs never end with you, Doris.
There may have been a blip yesterday or in the days before when blogs and aggregator sites picked up Guelzo's article, but such things don't last. I did a search for "Lincoln political economy" today and found all kinds of things unrelated to his article, including the worst trash from DiLorenzo & Co. Of course, since it's more recent, "Mr. Lincoln's Economics Primer" came up first, but it didn't block out other content.
You should know that "political economy" isn't the commonest of phrases nowadays (you should know, since you made some pretty questionable claims about political economy in your earlier post). By featuring the phrase so prominently and frequently in his article, Guelzo made it likely that any search for that phrase in connection with his article would lead to the article. But if you searched for "Lincoln economics" yesterday or the day before you would have found quite a mix of articles from different points of view (as I did searching for "Lincoln political economy" today).
But the laughs don't end there. You guys are quick to fault others for confining their research to what's available on line. By confessing that your research involved googling, you've essentially put a "kick me" sign on your own back. I won't take advantage of your mistake though. But seriously, try to get a look at Gabor Boritt's book. Lincoln and the Economics of the American Dream and don't rely on google seaches alone. Much of it is even available at Google Books.
And there's more! You've may finally have found out how the rest of us feel. There have been times when googling "Lincoln tariffs" or "civil war tariffs" only yielded pages and pages of Rockwellite or sub-Rockwellite editorializing and scarcely a pro-Lincoln or balanced or objective article for pages and pages. But nobody cried in public about it or said it was unfair. Now I've done those searches and come up with a better menu of articles, but "flooding the search engine platter" is something Rockwellites and neo-confederates have been doing for a long time.
That is such tripe that does not deserve any response other than to say that I expect you are looking forward to the next “Dirty Harry” movie starring Carl Bernstein.
I don't know what you're trying to say there. I suspect Woodward and Bernstein thought of themselves as some kind of enforcers themselves.
If Allen Guelzo is becoming another Tommy DiLorenzo, throwing together hackwork and promoting it relentlessly, he may be reproved, but given the fine work he's done in the past, pointing out what he's been capable of in his earlier work will do a lot more than playing the Grand Inquisitor, a prosecuting attorney, or a two-bit mob enforcer.
It has been proved that Guelzo’s only premise was a fabrication: ....John Stuart Mill’s "The Principles of Political Economy" was one of the books William H. Herndon says Lincoln “more or less peeped into” (Hidden Lincoln, 117).
You said: “Apparently he (the he is the author, Guelzo) was too anxious to prove his case to present only the proved facts (he had none to present so he resorted to fabrications) and let them speak for themselves.”
That is correct, and you do acknowledge the author's fallacious content.
Finally you rationalize this mega pants load by trying to point out Guelzo’s other works.
“If Allen Guelzo is..throwing together hackwork and promoting it relentlessly, he may be reproved, but given the fine work he's done in the past, pointing out what he's been capable of in his earlier work will do a lot more,,,,”
NO, it won't. The article has been exposed for exactly what it is............TRIPE contrived through CANARDS!.
And when has your writing ever risen above that, Doris?
It has been proved that Guelzo’s only premise was a fabrication: ....John Stuart Mill’s "The Principles of Political Economy" was one of the books William H. Herndon says Lincoln “more or less peeped into” (Hidden Lincoln, 117).
Just as well, given Mill's evolution in a socialist direction. Noah Brooks a friend of Lincoln's did mention in his "Recollections of Abraham Lincoln" that Lincoln "particularly liked" Mill's On Liberty. That doesn't justify Guelzo's conclusion, but it does give some context for it.
The article has been exposed for exactly what it is............TRIPE contrived through CANARDS!.
I think I tried that in a French restaurant once. Yummy!
Go crawl back under your rock.
Having not a single fact to add, you resort to insult, non-sequitur, sarcasm, and ending with another supercilious insult.
Let it be remembered that you stole away under the smokescreen of contrived superiority, but alas nothing more than failures to present any logical rebuttal.
Something is rotten in your denmark.
Anyone who looks through the whole thread will find facts enough in my posts, but there's no use in responding to parting shots like yours that don't make any new points but simply make insults.
D*psh*t, I actually agreed with you, but you weren't satisfied. I don't see any more point in trading insults back and forth, so I guess this is done.
Find one post that supports this:
“Lincoln read and absorbed it all...”
We can't say with any certainty that he "absorbed" those works, let alone “ate up, digested, and assimilated” those books, so in that Guelzo was wrong. It's also highly questionable whether Lincoln truly "embraced" classical liberal economics. I said as much in post #144 three weeks ago.
You haven't had anything new to say since, Doris, but persist in drawing out the exchange with pointless personal remarks that add nothing to the discussion. I don't know what it is you want, and at this point I certainly don't care, if I ever did.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.