Posted on 06/23/2013 5:55:07 PM PDT by Para-Ord.45
From the time Abraham Lincoln entered the White House nearly a century and a half ago, there has been an anti-Lincoln tradition in American life. President John Tyler’s son, writing in 1932, seemed to speak for a silent minority: “I think he was a bad man,” wrote Lyon Gardiner Tyler, “a man who forced the country into an unnecessary war and conducted it with great inhumanity.”
Throughout his presidency Lincoln was surrounded by rivals, even among his own cabinet. Outside the White House, his many enemies included conservative Whigs, Democrats, northern copperheads and New England abolitionists. Wisconsin editor, Marcus M. Pomeroy, sniped that Lincoln was a
“worse tyrant and more inhuman butcher than has existed since the days of Nero.”
Shortly before his reelection Pomeroy added: “The man who votes for Lincoln now is a traitor and murderer.… And if he is elected to misgovern for another four years, we trust some bold hand will pierce his heart with dagger point for the public good.”
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
0.E.O., a U.S. insurance specialist
"...the South paid a disproportionately low share of the tariffs collected."
So now what?
Wanna buy some obamadeathcare insurance?
Leading me to wonder how you feel about pro-freedom advocates in the former Soviet states.
Almost all federal taxes were tariffs, paid on imports. The importer paid them, then passed the costs on to the eventual buyer.
So 6M white southerners bought 3x as many imports as 21M white northerners?
Color me skeptical.
No thanks, I've got nice coverage through my company. So you'll have to peddle it elsewhere.
Disinterested.
Figures.
What can I say?
Might be an interesting statistic if you’d provide some context, like maybe a paragraph.
Trust me on this one: nothing.
OK
Found the quote. It is the same old nonsense that claims since 3/4 of US exports were from the South in 1860, then the South was "really" paying the tariffs on imports.
Which is, of course, comprehensive nonsense.
The issue of exports vs. imports is one of balance of trade, not of whose pocket the tax payment comes out of.
In actual fact, the Pennsylvania merchant and the Iowa farmer paid exactly the same tariff on an imported item as the SC planter.
The south probably had disproportionately low consumption of tariffed items because many of these items were luxury goods, and the 40% of southerners who were enslaved didn't consume many of those.
Since the federal government received the primary portion of its income from tariffs, you need to explain what the south, with their population, was importing in vastly larger quantities in order to make the first part of that statement true. As for the second part, the federal budget in 1860 was 78 million. Of that, 46 million went to defense, and the largest portion of that was spent in the west fighting Indians,with a good chunk of the army in Texas, where Robert E. Lee was commanding before the war. Another 15 million was spent on the postal service. So there's 61 million right there. Explain, in light of those numbers, how most of the taxes were spent in the north.
The context is 150 years ago, NOT NOW.
Slavery just changed it’s clothes, it never died.
Today blacks are slaves to Democrats and entitlements, and Affirmative Action.
By sueing in court, and having the court consider his case he provided the precedent that Chief Justice Taney overruled in favor of the Slave Power in Dredd Scott.
The notion that not only was Anthony enslaved for life, but that his children were also so punished, should have been ended with the Constitutional provision that no punishment could work “Corruption of the Blood”.
If so the new constitution would truly have put slavery on the legal road to extinction.
Nice cherry picked quote. How did he arrive at that, since the tariff was collected at the port, and the northern ports collected more than southern ports?
He must have determined that a massive share of the goods imported to the north were eventually sold in the south.
The road building (cumberland GAp) was mostly in the southern states, and the port improvements (Ft Sumter) were mostly in southern states (Boston, NY, RI already had very good ports. Erie Canal in NY was built with state bond funds.
I don’t see anyone hating southerners, except some southerners hating other southerners.
I do hate rapists, kidnappers, and torturers, but I don’t think that they were particularly common in the antebellum south. Just that the law there permitted it in some cases, for those rich enough to purchase slaves.
I know of no accounts of Lee raping anyone after it wasn’t legal. See, he wasn’t a bad man, he just grew up in a bad system, and was a little affected by it.
If Lincoln were the man the lost causers say he was, I would hate him, just as if RE Lee were the man they say he was, I would love him.
It isn’t so much that our friends with different opinions are stupid or evil, they just are a little twisted by the sad condition of knowing so much that isn’t so.
Um ... it kind of is in support of welfare.
Maybe not as an ideal but as a practical measure.
In the same way, saying slavery was a necessary means for Blacks to improve themselves, is support for slavery.
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.