The other thing that Tucker Carlson's text message makes undeniable

The Washington Post (via MSN.com) ^ | 03 May 2023 | Philip Bump

[FLT-bird]

On the other hand, some basics don't change and the five issues I listed -- national bank, import tariffs, internal improvements (infrastructure) and slavery -- were all important in both 1790 and 1840. And 1790 Federalists vs. Democratic-Republicans lined up the same as 1840 Whigs vs. Democratics.

Slavery wasn't a big issue in the early years of the Republic. After all, almost every state still had slavery at the time.

Indeed, I could easily argue that today's "Populist-Nationalists" are actually a throw-back to original Republican values of 1860, pre-Civil War.

I'd put it more like the 1920s. Its not a perfect match but there are similarities.

By now we've almost forgotten how 1930s era isolationist Republicans became 1960s to 1990s era internationalists -- it was to contain Communism, then considered the greatest threat mankind had ever seen -- considered so by conservative, free market, private enterprise Republicans, not so much by Democrats.

Sort of agree. We were willing to suspend (not abandon) our objections to a huge security state, entangling foreign alliances and distaste for foreign military involvements in order to stop first the National Socialists and then the State Socialists. Once they were defeated by 1991 however, we expected the foreign policy establishment to move on from that. They never did. In fact, they adopted globalism to push it even further away from a limited nation-state. Now its time for us to dig in and fight this. There is no need anymore and its gone way too far.

With the Communist threat gone, Republicans began, slowly, returning to our more "isolationist" roots, though few today will admit to being Old-Time Isolationists. We all know the world is important for many reasons, but we don't think the USA should be the "world's policeman" or get involved in every little dispute among distant countries. This is how 1980s staunch anti-Communists can say of the Russia-Ukraine war, "it's not our fight".

Yes. See my previous paragraph.

At the same time, Democrats have returned to their Democratic-Republican roots, favoring adventures abroad, whether those be Barbary Pirates under Democratic-Republican Pres. Jefferson or Chinese revolutionaries under Democratic Pres. Pierce, or a Uruguayan dictator under Democratic Pres. Buchanan.

Here we don't see it the same. There were several staunchly anti communist Democrats from Truman to JFK to Scoop Jackson, Charlie Wilson, Sam Nunn, etc. Also, I don't agree about Democratic Republicans and 19th century Democrats necessarily being more pro war and pro foreign entanglement than their political opponents. There were plenty of military actions when for example the Republicans were dominating the White House from 1860-1913.....even several banana wars in the 1920s and 30s.

Oh, but they did, and there was. US produced sugar, especially required very high tariffs (24% under Democrats' 1857 rates) to prevent cheaper central American sugar from taking over the US market. Cotton also was protected by tariffs (19% as of 1857) to prevent New England textile mills from importing cheaper cotton originating in, say, Egypt. But they did anyway, despite the 19% tariff, cotton in 1860 was the US's number three import, after woolens (from Europe, 24% tariff) and brown sugar (from the Caribbean 24% tariff).

Sugar perhaps. The rest not so much. Egypt didn't become a major cotton producer until very shortly before the war as the British were getting desperate for sources of supply other than the South because Cotton was expensive and because they figured a war was coming and were eager to find alternative sources for their textile industry.

So Democrats were totally in favor of high tariffs on their own products, but they hated paying 24% tariffs on iron manufactures (5th largest import) or 30% on French wines (10th largest import).

I think they would have been more than happy to eschew high tariffs on Sugar in order to have low tariffs on the things they wanted such as textiles, farm equipment, other manufactured goods. Once they saw high tariffs on all those manufactured goods New England had gotten, they figured they'd throw in one or two of their products as well but it wasn't IMO, of significant importance to them.

That's only remotely true if, by "the Northern states" you mean every state north of South Carolina. But if, by "the South", you mean every state south of the Mason-Dixon line, then it's not at all true. By 1860, the South's population (including slaves) had fallen to 40% of the US total, and the South received about 42% of Federal infrastructure spending. It also received 53% of fortification spending and 41% of lighthouses, plus 52% of hospitalization spending. Overall, in 1860, with 40% of US population, including slaves, Southern states received 49% of Federal spending, not including pensions.

We've had this argument before. Let's just say I dispute the figures/percentages you cite.....and let's forego the mutual battle of quotes/sources we can each cite for page after page after page...and we both know that's where this is going.

By which you mean to say that after 1865 Republicans began acting more like Democratic-Republicans and Democrats before 1861, right?

No. This is a point we disagree about. I don't think the Democratic-Republicans and later Democrats were especially warlike. The Republicans were no less likely to engage in foreign wars including Indian wars. Many would argue the US became more rather than less imperialist in this era.

Your term, "aggressive wars of empire" well describes the Democratic-Republicans' War of 1812 and the Democrats' Mexican War, as well as the Republicans' Spanish-American War.

I certainly would not describe the War of 1812 that way. That was defensive, not aggressive. The Mexican War had a veneer of being defensive but was in reality aggressive and there's no question the Spanish-American war was a case of American aggression.

The Republican president, McKinley, also opposed war with Spain until the sinking of the USS Maine in Havanah Harbor, after which McKinley felt he had no choice.

McKinley was the president and chose war. Other Republicans like Teddy Roosevelt were quite keen on war.

Which brings us to the World Wars and Democrat Presidents Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. Are we seeing a historical pattern here?

No, I don't see a pattern here. You could argue that Woodrow Wilson (though I detest him) actually held the US back from getting involved in WWI until late in the day despite a lot of pressure from prominent Republicans to get the US involved much sooner. As for WWII, I think a lot of people saw that we were going to get drawn in eventually. FDR was quite right to aid the Allies prior to our formal entry into the war.

During those years, under mostly Federalist control, every state north of the Mason-Dixon line began to gradually abolish its own slavery. The Constitution prohibited abolishing slave imports before 1808, but Congress did so on the first day they were authorized to.

Yes, but New England had pushed for that 20 year grandfather clause in the constitution allowing the slave trade to continue, almost all states still had slavery until well into the 19th century and illicit slave trading based out of New England continued on a very large scale until about the mid 19th century when it tapered off.

"In regard to the slave trade, Mr. Douglas stated that there was not the shadow of doubt but that it had been carried on quite extensively for a long time back, and that there had been more slaves imported into the Southern States during the last year [1858] than had ever been imported before in any one year, even when the slave trade was legal. It was his confident belief that over 15,000 slaves had been brought into this country during the past year. He had seen, with his own eyes, three hundred of these recently-imported, miserable beings, in a slave-pen in Vicksburg, Mississippi, and also large numbers at Memphis, Tennessee.[219]" So, it's claimed that New Yorkers were involved in importing slaves after 1808, but the last known slave ship, the Clotilda, was built, owned and operated out of Mobile, Alabama, not New York.

There have been several books written about the NEW ENGLAND based slave trade continuing long after the legal 1810 moratorium. A good one is Complicity: how the North Promoted, Prolonged and Profited from Slavery". Most such slave trading did not involve slaves imported into the Southern states. New England slave traders were constantly resupplying slaves on Caribbean islands where they were constantly dying in large numbers, and Brazil.

Or so he once claimed he would do, in the future, but there's no evidence he ever did, and no freed slave was ever returned, or slaveholders paid compensation by the British.

He did push for it and rather vigorously according to English accounts. The English refused to return any escaped slaves or to pay compensation to slave owners. The King actually went out of his way to praise the Prime Minister for refusing this American demand.

However, some basic things don't really change that much, even over very long time periods. In the years before 1861, there was a great continuity of outlooks and policies among Old Federalists, Whigs and the new Republicans. Likewise, among Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans and the Van Buren/Jackson Democratics, much more stayed the same than changed when their name changed.

As we previously mentioned, successor parties occupied a similar political niche when one party broke up so yes, they often did have similar positions on several issues, but they weren't exactly the same and sometimes there were significant differences. The extent of similarities and differences is a matter of degree.....ie how much different and on how many key issues? I don't see the Democratic-Republicans and later Democrats as having been the War Party while the other side was the Peace Party. It depended on each situation and there was often overlap between the parties on those who were hawkish and those who were dove-ish.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "Slavery wasn't a big issue in the early years of the Republic.
After all, almost every state still had slavery at the time."

Slavery was a major issue at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, but both sides were willing to compromise because they all agreed that slavery was wrong and should be gradually abolished.
That's why Southerners like Thomas Jefferson could proposed abolition in the Northwest Territories without threats of disunion from other Southerners.

Here is the South Carolina's Charles Pinckney at the Constitutional Convention's debate over the abolition of international imports of slavery, August 21, 1787:

"Mr. PINCKNEY.[4]
South Carolina can never receive the plan if it prohibits the slave trade.
In every proposed extension of the powers of Congress, that State has expressly and watchfully excepted that of meddling with the importation of Negroes.
If the States be all left at liberty on this subject, South Carolina may perhaps, by degrees do of herself what is wished, as Virginia and Maryland already have done.[5]"

So, in 1787 slavery was a deal-breaker for Pinckney, on the other hand, he was willing to follow the lead of Virginia and Maryland.
The next day, the discussion continued and Pinckney added this:

"Mr. PINCKNEY.
If slavery be wrong, it is justified by the example of all the world.
He cited the case of Greece, Rome, and other ancient states; the sanction given by France, England, Holland, and other modern states.
In all ages one half of mankind have been slaves.
If the Southern States were let alone, they will probably of themselves stop importations.
He would himself, as a citizen of South Carolina, vote for it.
An attempt to take away the right, as proposed, will produce serious objections to the Constitution, which he wished to see adopted."

Notice that even as devoted a Southerner as Charles Pinckney has bought into the "party line" that abolition of imports is something they should and will, eventually, do.

quoting BJK: "I could easily argue that today's "Populist-Nationalists" are actually a throw-back to original Republican values of 1860, pre-Civil War."

FLT-bird: "I'd put it more like the 1920s.
Its not a perfect match but there are similarities."

I think it's worthwhile quantifying the degrees to which the different administrations and parties were, or were not, active in international adventures.
So I counted them all up, based on this timeline.

1. Old Federalists (12 years under Washington & Adams): no foreign adventures, one purely defensive Quazi War which included one naval landing in the Dominican Republic.

2. Jefferson's Democratic Republicans (27 years under Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and JQ Adams): 21 foreign military actions -- average of .8 per year) in 14 different places: Tripoli, Mexico, Gulf of Mexico, Spanish Florida, Canada (War of 1812), French Polynesia, the Caribbean, Algiers, Tunis, British Oregon, West Africa (anti-slavery), Cuba, Puerto Rica and Greece.

3. Jackson's Democratics (31 years under Jackson, Van Buren, Polk, Pierce and Buchanan): 27 foreign military actions -- average of .9 per year) in 19 different places: Falkland Islands (South Atlantic), Sumatra (Indonesia), Argentina, Peru, Canada, Fiji (Western Pacific), Gilbert Islands (WP), Samoa (WP), Mexico (Mexican War), Nicaragua, Japan, China, Uruguay, Panama, Turkey, Paraguay, Angola (West Africa) and Columbia.

4. Old Whigs (8 years under Harrison, Tyler, Taylor and Fillmore): 8 foreign military actions -- average of 1 per year in 7 different places: California (Mexico), China, West Africa (anti-slavery), Texas (Mexico), Turkey, East Africa and Argentina.

5. Early Republicans (23 years under Lincoln, Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Arthur & Harrison): 18 foreign military actions -- average of .8 per year in 11 places: Japan, Panama, Mexico, Korea, Hawaii, Egypt, Columbia, Argentina, Haiti, Bearing Sea and Chili.

6. Late 19th Century Democratics (11 years under A. Johnson and Cleveland): 17 foreign military actions -- average of 1.5 per year in 10 places: Mexico, China, Nicaragua, Taiwan, Japan, Uruguay, Columbia, Korea, Haiti and Samoa.

7. Turn of the century "Big Stick" Republicans (15 years under McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt and Taft): 31 foreign military actions -- average of 2.1 per year in 13 places: Nicaragua, Cuba & Philippines (Spanish-American War), Samoa, China, Panama, Columbia, Honduras, Dominican Republic, Syria, Ethiopia, Korea and Cuba.

8. Southern Progressive Democrat (8 years under Woodrow Wilson): 16 foreign military actions -- average of 2.0 per year in 13 places: Mexico, Haiti, Dominican Republic, China, Europe (First World War), Cuba, Russia, Croatia, Turkey, Honduras and Guatemala.

9. Roaring '20s Republicans (12 years under Harding, Coolidge and Hoover): 11 foreign military actions -- average of .9 per year in 6 places: Panama, Costa Rica, Turkey, China, Honduras and Nicaragua.
   There were no foreign adventures under Republican Pres. Hoover.

10. Northern Democrat Franklin Roosevelt (12 years): 7 foreign military actions -- average of .6 per year, except one was the Second World War, in 6 places: Cuba, China, Greenland, Dutch Guiana (economic), Iceland and Second World War (globally, thousands of actions).

The point of this exercise is to show that while the Old Federalists under Washington and Adams had virtually no foreign adventures, already by the time of Jefferson & Jackson Democratics the US averaged nearly one incident per year around the globe (including the Wars of 1812 and with Mexico) and this continued until the late 19th century Democrat administrations of Johnson and Cleveland, which averaged 1.5 incidents per year.
Then Big Stick Republicans and Progressive Southern Democrat Woodrow Wilson increased that to over 2 incidents per year (counting the Spanish American and First World Wars as just two incidents).
During the Republican Roaring 20s, foreign incidents fell under one per year, including zero under Pres. Hoover.

By this measure, Northern Democrat Franklin Roosevelt looks pretty good, with only 4 incidents in 12 years, except that one of those was the Second World War, with thousands of military actions in every part of the globe.

Also by this measure, there were only two genuinely isolationist presidents -- George Washington and Herbert Hoover.
And I would add John Adams, since his Quasi-War with France was strictly defensive and involved only one foreign adventure, to the Dominican Republic.
Every other president, regardless of party, oversaw many global-spanning military actions, which averaged nearly one per year under Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans, rising to over 2 per year under Turn of the Century Big Stick Republicans and Progressive Southern Democrat Woodrow Wilson, before falling back to zero under Republican Pres. Hoover.

[BroJoeK]

FLT-bird: "We were willing to suspend (not abandon) our objections to a huge security state, entangling foreign alliances and distaste for foreign military involvements in order to stop first the National Socialists and then the State Socialists.
Once they were defeated by 1991 however, we expected the foreign policy establishment to move on from that. They never did.
In fact, they adopted globalism to push it even further away from a limited nation-state.
Now its time for us to dig in and fight this.
There is no need anymore and its gone way too far."

Maybe, maybe not.
Who did we fight and defeat in the First World War?
It was monarchist empire builders in Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey.

Who did we fight and defeat in the Second World War?
It was fascistic (national socialists) and monarchist empire builders in Germany, Italy and Japan.

Who did we fight and defeat (or not) in the Cold War?
It was communistic (international socialists) empire builders in Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam and elsewhere.

Do you see a pattern here?
Be they self-proclaimed monarchists, fascists, national socialists or international socialists, they were all empire builders, and it was their empires we defeated and destroyed.

Yes, in every case we went to war because we felt threatened, militarily, economically and/or ideologically.
But in fact, we were totally willing to "live and let live" with those old empires, providing they never threatened us.

But eventually they all did, "eventually" meaning, after they'd grown more powerful by invading and annexing their smaller neighbors.
And that is the issue our many alliances since WWII are intended to address -- why wait until these SOBs grow so powerful it becomes a matter existential necessity for us to go to war against them?
Why not address those issues while the empire builders are still smaller and weaker -- in other words, the "broken windows" police philosophy applied to international relations.

Well... the obvious answer to "why not?" is because being the world's policeman is very expensive in terms of lives and treasure.
But is it more expensive than letting those empire builders grow so powerful we may no longer be able to defeat them?

That's the issue today, and what Russia and China are amply demonstrating is that American weakness has serious and deadly consequences for smaller countries worldwide.

FLT-bird: "There were several staunchly anti communist Democrats from Truman to JFK to Scoop Jackson, Charlie Wilson, Sam Nunn, etc."

Sure, it was never a problem in the 1950s or 1960s getting old-time Democratic international adventurers to support the Cold War against Communism.
Even though most Democrats were indifferent to Communism itself, they loved international adventures, under whatever excuse was necessary.

1920s era "isolationist" Republicans were a real problem, but they (we) were persuaded that communism was evil enough we had to overcome our normal objections to projecting power globally.

Another problem beginning in the 1960s was many radical Democrats began noticing who, exactly, we were projecting American power against, namely their friends and allies, the international socialists, aka, communists.
And rather quickly those radicals took over their Democrat party, making the Scoop Jacksons increasingly out of place among Democrats.
So, many Democrats -- neocons -- began voting Republican because we continued to oppose communism globally.
Neocons contributed hugely to the landslide victories of Nixon in 1972 and Reagan in 1980 and 1984.

When communism and the Old Soviet Empire collapsed, circa 1990, so did US defense spending -- from 6% of GDP under Republican President Reagan to less than 3% under Democrat President Clinton.
But Democrats under Clinton and Obama continued to enjoy numerous international adventures, while Republicans under GW Bush found a new ideological enemy to replace communism -- Jihadist terrorism.

Today we are seeing the rebirth of the Old Empire builders in Russia and China, enouraged by American weakness and withdrawals, they have suddenly become more aggressive militarily -- Russia against former Soviet provinces like Georgia and Ukraine, China against the former province of Taiwan.
And the old post-WWII question returns, do we oppose them now, while they are relatively weak, or do we let them grow until opposing them becomes much more difficult?

FLT-bird: "Also, I don't agree about Democratic-Republicans and 19th century Democrats necessarily being more pro war and pro foreign entanglement than their political opponents.
There were plenty of military actions when for example the Republicans were dominating the White House from 1860-1913.....even several banana wars in the 1920s and 30s."

See my previous post, the summary of which is: we've only ever had three truly non-interventionist presidents, Federalist George Washington, Republican Rutherford Hayes and Republican Herbert Hoover, who had zero foreign adventures.
I would add to them John Adams, considering his only foreign landing, in the Dominican Republic, as part of the Quasi-war against France was a matter of necessary defense, not foreign adventurism.

Every other president and political party had numerous foreign adventures, running at roughly the rate of one per year from Democrat Thomas Jefferson in 1801 to Chester Arthur in 1885.
Then, beginning with Republican Benjamin Harrison in 1889 along with Democrat Grover Cleveland in 1893, foreign military actions jumped to 1.5 per year, and then over 2 per year under Big Stick Republicans and Progressive Southern Democrat Woodrow Wilson.

Foreign adventures returned to 1.3 per year under Roaring '20s Republicans Harding and Coolidge, then again zero under the much maligned Republican Herbert Hoover.

FLT-bird on antebellum import tariffs: "Sugar perhaps.
The rest not so much.
Egypt didn't become a major cotton producer until very shortly before the war as the British were getting desperate for sources of supply other than the South..."

And yet, the fact remains, there were substatial import tariffs protecting all the major Southern exports.
This chart shows how those amounts changed over time:

Commodity	1846 Tariff	1857 Tariff	Morrill
Woolens	30%	24%	37%
Brown Sugar	30%	24%	26%
Cotton	25	19	25
Iron mfg	30	24	29
Tobacco	40	30	25
Wines	40	30	40
Average tariffrs:	33%	25%	30%

FLT-bird: "I think they would have been more than happy to eschew high tariffs on Sugar in order to have low tariffs on the things they wanted such as textiles, farm equipment, other manufactured goods.
Once they saw high tariffs on all those manufactured goods New England had gotten, they figured they'd throw in one or two of their products as well but it wasn't IMO, of significant importance to them."

And yet, in 1860, Federal revenues from cotton import tariffs were third after woolens and sugar import tariffs.
So clearly, tariffs were an important factor in keeping Americans buying Southern products from the South.

FLT-bird on Federal spending in the South: "We've had this argument before.
Let's just say I dispute the figures/percentages you cite.....and let's forego the mutual battle of quotes/sources we can each cite for page after page after page...and we both know that's where this is going."

Certainly, there's no dispute over the fact that Southerners complained about Federal spending outside the South.
Of course, they wanted their "fair share" and often claimed they weren't getting it.
But I've never seen actual numbers demonstrating that "the South" was being cheated out of its "fair share", and logically, it's impossible, so long as Southerners controlled Federal spending in Congress, which they did almost uninterrupted from 1801 until secession in 1861.

Of course, Southern complaints would be entirely true if, by "the South", you mean only the Deep Cotton South.

FLT-bird: "No. This is a point we disagree about.
I don't think the Democratic-Republicans and later Democrats were especially warlike.
The Republicans were no less likely to engage in foreign wars including Indian wars.
Many would argue the US became more rather than less imperialist in this era."

I would separate out Indian Wars and military actions against rebellions like the 1791 Whiskey Rebellion or the 1857 Mormon Rebellion.
We can discuss those separately, if you wish.

For this discussion I'm talking about foreign adventures, military actions in far-away places, from Korea, China and Indonesia in the Pacific to Greece and Turkey in the Mediterranean.
In this we see that non-interventionist presidents were only four: Federalists Washington & Adams, Republicans Hayes and Hoover.

All the rest carried on active foreign interventions averaging one per year under Pres. Jefferson, growing to two per year under Big Stick Republicans and Progressive Southern Democrat Woodrow Wilson, before returning to zero under Republican Pres. Herbert Hoover.

FLT-bird: "I certainly would not describe the War of 1812 that way.
That was defensive, not aggressive.
The Mexican War had a veneer of being defensive but was in reality aggressive and there's no question the Spanish-American war was a case of American aggression."

Sure, you might call the War of 1812 "defensive" if you listen to Madison's propaganda on the subject.
But I would argue that all of the purely defensive reasons Madison gave for the war could have been settled through effective negotiations with the Brits.

And Madison's "real reason" for declaring war in 1812 can be seen in the very first military actions the United States then took -- we invaded Canada!
1812 was a war of choice, of conquest and empire building, just as was the Mexican War.
It was unfinished business left over from the Revolutionary War and our disastrous invasions of Canada back then.
And, fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your viewpoint, Mr. Madison's war to invade Canada ended just as disastrously as had Benedict Arnold's invasion of Canada 35 years earlier.

FLT-bird: "McKinley was the president and chose war.
Other Republicans like Teddy Roosevelt were quite keen on war."

No Republican avoided war when it was forced on him.
McKinley opposed war with Spain, as did Republican business leaders, until the USS Maine's sinking forced it on him.

As for Teddy Roosevelt, he was a Big Stick Republican, as aggressive overseas as Progressive Southern Democrat Woodrow Wilson.

FLT-bird: "No, I don't see a pattern here. You could argue that Woodrow Wilson (though I detest him) actually held the US back from getting involved in WWI until late in the day despite a lot of pressure from prominent Republicans to get the US involved much sooner. "

Wilson's strongest support for war came from his own party, especially Southern Democrats.
Northeastern Republican business leaders opposed war so long as they could sell war supplies to the Brits & French, that was the best of all worlds for them.
The strongest opposition to war came from midwestern Republicans, isolationists, largely of German descent, who didn't want to fight a war against their Fatherland.

Northeastern Republicans were convinced to support the First World War by German unrestricted submarine warfare, which sank their wartime profits along with American shipping, and, in threatening defeat of Britain and France, put in jeopardy the many hundreds of billions of dollars (in today's equivalents) they'd loaned to Europeans.

Most midwesterners understood about German's sinking our civilian ships, but what really made them mad was the Zimmerman telegram threatening a Mexican invasion of our Southern border.
As incredible as it might sound today, back then voters took our Southern border very seriously.

FLT-bird: "As for WWII, I think a lot of people saw that we were going to get drawn in eventually.
FDR was quite right to aid the Allies prior to our formal entry into the war."

Again, FDR's strongest support for war came from within his own party, especially Southern Democrats.
The strongest isolationists' opposition came from midwestern Republicans.
And, again, Northeastern Republican businessmen didn't want to go to war, what they wanted instead was wartime profits from selling war materials to the Brits while the US remained officially neutral.

Our pro-Communist radical Democrats also opposed war against Nazi Germany until... well, until June 1941, when suddenly their ox too was getting gored by "right wing" national socialism.

FLT-bird: "Yes, but New England had pushed for that 20 year grandfather clause in the constitution allowing the slave trade to continue, almost all states still had slavery until well into the 19th century and illicit slave trading based out of New England continued on a very large scale until about the mid 19th century when it tapered off."

Well before 1800 every Northern state had begun gradual abolition except New Jersey, which began in 1804.
Virginia tried to begin abolition in 1834 but failed to pass any abolition proposals.
That is the point at which Southerners began claiming that slavery was not a "necessary evil" to be gradually abolished, but rather slavery was necessary and good and that it should be expanded to include western territories and, eventually, to Northern states too, if slaveholders wanted to take their "property" there.

As for how much international slave importing continued after it was outlawed in 1808, I've seen estimates, but never anything concrete regarding who owned the ships that were allegedly illegally importing so many thousands of slaves.

FLT-bird: "Most such slave trading did not involve slaves imported into the Southern states.
New England slave traders were constantly resupplying slaves on Caribbean islands where they were constantly dying in large numbers, and Brazil."

So, how many of the hundreds of slave-ships transporting slaves from Africa to the Caribbean and South America were owned by New Englanders?
Are we certain there was even one?
How many can we name?

FLT-bird on John Adams: "He did push for it and rather vigorously according to English accounts.
The English refused to return any escaped slaves or to pay compensation to slave owners.
The King actually went out of his way to praise the Prime Minister for refusing this American demand."

Then Adams' negotiating position was strictly for show, to please Southerners back home, when no results could be achieved.

FLT-bird: "The extent of similarities and differences is a matter of degree.....ie how much different and on how many key issues?
I don't see the Democratic-Republicans and later Democrats as having been the War Party while the other side was the Peace Party.
It depended on each situation and there was often overlap between the parties on those who were hawkish and those who were dove-ish."

I think and argue that the War of 1812 and the Mexican War of 1846 were both wars of choice and of empire building, the first by Democratic-Republican, Mr. Madison, and the second by Democratic Mr. Polk.
Madison was the second Democratic-Republican president.
Polk was the third Democratic president.

The next similar war, arguably, was the 1898 Spanish-American war under Republican McKinley, the seventh Republican president, and here it was the Democratic New York newspapers -- Pulitzer's New York World and Hearst's New York Journal -- which campaigned for war against the reluctance of Republican Pres. McKinley and Republican business leaders.
War came only after the USS Maine's sinking made McKinley believe he had no other choice.

Bottom line:

1. Old Federalists -- no foreign adventures or wars of choice.

2. Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans -- 21 foreign adventures including one foreign war of choice, the War of 1812.

3. Jackson's Democratics -- 27 foreign adventures including one foreign war of choice, the Mexican war of 1846.

4. Old Whigs -- 8 foreign adventures, no foreign wars.

5. Early Republicans -- 18 foreign adventures, no foreign wars.

6. Late 19th century Democrats -- 17 foreign adventures, no foreign wars.

7. Turn of century Big Stick Republicans -- 31 foreign adventures, one foreign war of choice, the Spanish American War.

8. Progressive Southern Democrat Wilson -- 16 foreign adventures, including one foreign war, the First World War.

9. Roaring 20s Republicans -- 11 foreign adventures, no foreign wars.

10. Progressive Northern Democrat, FD Roosevelt -- 7 foreign adventures, including one foreign war, the Second World War.

And we can notice again that the only presidents with no foreign adventures or wars were Federalist George Washington and Republicans Hayes and Hoover.

[DiogenesLamp]

Slavery was a major issue at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, but both sides were willing to compromise because they all agreed that slavery was wrong and should be gradually abolished.

How many slave states were there in 1787? Wasn't it everyone but Massachusetts? (Massachusetts used judicial activism and a "living constitution" to abolish slavery by a legal trick.)

So 12 slave states in 1787?

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "How many slave states were there in 1787? Wasn't it everyone but Massachusetts? (Massachusetts used judicial activism and a "living constitution" to abolish slavery by a legal trick.)
So 12 slave states in 1787?"

Here is the timeline of US abolition laws passed, with black populations in 1790:

1. 1777 Vermont -- 0 slaves, 269 freed blacks in 1790 = 100% freed.
2. 1780 Pennsylvania -- ~3,000 slaves, 6,500 freed blacks in 1790 = ~2/3 freed.
3. 1783 Massachusetts -- 0 slaves, 5,400 freed blacks = 100% freed.
4. 1783 New Hampshire -- 8 slaves, 630 freed = 99% freed
5. 1785 Connecticut -- 2,650 slaves, 2,800 freed = ~1/2 freed.
6. 1785 Rhode Island -- 960 slaves, 3,500 freed = 80% freed.
7. 1787 Northwest Territories -- Ohio admitted in 1803 with zero slaves = 100% freed
8. 1794 First Slave Trade Act abolishing international imports or exports of slaves. Others in 1800 and 1808.
9. 1799 New York -- 21,193 slaves, 4,622 freed = ~20% freed.
10. 1804 New Jersey -- 11,422 slaves, 2,760 freed in 1790 = 20% freed.
11. 1820-Compromise outlaws slavery in Territories north of 36^o 30', except Missouri.

In 1790 Northern slave populations were declining roughly 3% per year, while freed black populations grew about 3% per year.
In Southern states, slave populations were growing at 3% per year, while freed black populations averaged ~4% growth per year.

[DiogenesLamp]

Here is the timeline of US abolition laws passed, with black populations in 1790:

I asked you how many states were slave states in 1787? As is usual with you, when someone asks you the time, you tell them how to build a clock.

How many slave states were there in 1787?

And to make it clear, if there were *ANY* slaves in the state, it was a slave state. I don't care what their legislature pretended to do in the way of abolishing slavery, if they still had slaves, they were still a slave state.

You are dodging the question.

How many states still had slaves in 1787?

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "And to make it clear, if there were *ANY* slaves in the state, it was a slave state.
I don't care what their legislature pretended to do in the way of abolishing slavery, if they still had slaves, they were still a slave state.
You are dodging the question.
How many states still had slaves in 1787?"

Sure, I understand your propagandist's art, it's to make up seem down, left look right, right seem wrong, and one frequently used technique is simply to redefine terms so that your side qualifies, and the other side doesn't.

You want to redefine your terms so that Northern states which passed gradual abolition laws look as evil as Southern states which never did.
Your problem is, the facts support my arguments that there were qualitative and quantitative distinctions between Northern and Southern slavery, even in 1790, and they begin with the percent of African-Americans who were freed:

Northern States % of African Americans who were freed:

1. 40% in 1790
2. 51% in 1800
3. 74% in 1810
4. 84% in 1820
5. 97% in 1830
6. 99% in 1840
7. 99.9% in 1850
8. 99.99% in 1860

During these years, the numbers of total African-Americans in Northern states multiplied 3.4 times.
In the meantime, freed Southern blacks remained an average of 7% of all blacks there, while the numbers of total African Americans in Southern States multiplied over 6 times.

The fact remains, however you wish to spin and corrupt it, that laws passed in Northern states before 1800 accomplished what they were intended to do, which is to gradually abolish slavery in the North.
And that is what Northerners in 1800 expected Southern states to also do.

However, in the meantime, there were no abolition laws passed in the South and so slave populations there continued to explode.

In the North, by 1790, only New York (1799) and New Jersey (1804) had failed to pass abolition laws, and they soon did so.
By 1840 the North had freed 99% of its African Americans from slavery.

[DiogenesLamp]

Sure, I understand your propagandist's art, it's to make up seem down, left look right, right seem wrong, and one frequently used technique is simply to redefine terms so that your side qualifies, and the other side doesn't.

You are still spinning. Until you give me a *NUMBER* you have *NOT* answered the question.

I will say that the correct number of slave states in 1787 is "12."

And no more of that "I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a Hamburger today" crap about getting rid of slavery. If you still have slavery, you are still a slave state.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "You are still spinning. Until you give me a *NUMBER* you have *NOT* answered the question."

Your question is ridiculous, absurd, obscene and not subject to direct answer.
It's the equivalent of "when did you stop beating your wife."
You want to redefine good as evil and evil as good, because that's your job as a propagandist.

Regardless of how you want to spin it, the fact remains that by 1791, immediate or gradual abolition was the law in six Northern states, plus Maine and the Northwest Territories which became six more free-states, but no Southern state ever passed abolition laws before the Civil War.

DiogenesLamp: "I will say that the correct number of slave states in 1787 is "12."
And no more of that "I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a Hamburger today" crap about getting rid of slavery.
If you still have slavery, you are still a slave state."

If that were remotely true, then the US is still a "slave nation" today, since we are told that among the millions of illegal-but-welcomed-by-Democrats immigrants are many who've sold themselves, or been sold by others, into slavery to pay for past debts and their transportation or settlement here.

Plus, many people redefine capitalist workers as "slaves" of "the system" and so on and so on -- it's all hyperbole and nonsense.

The historical fact remains, all your propaganda work notwithstanding, that once a Northern state had passed laws gradually abolishing slavery, it considered itself a "free-state" and was also considered "free" by Southern slave-states.

No Southerner in, say, 1850, distinguished between Northern states which had zero slaves and those which still had the occasional old servants not officially freed.
Even in the 1787 Constitutional Convention, there was no doubt as to which states supported slavery, and which states wanted to oppose it.

In nearly every Northern case, abolition was gradual, but also certain.

[nutmeg]

.

[DiogenesLamp]

Your question is ridiculous, absurd, obscene and not subject to direct answer. It's the equivalent of "when did you stop beating your wife."

Yes. Asking how many states still had slaves living in them is a trick question.

You are too smart to fall for a trick question like that.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Yes. Asking how many states still had slaves living in them is a trick question."

How many states & US territories still have slaves living in them today?

Let's see... 50 states, 5 US territories, plus DC, but didn't Obama tell us there were 57?
So that last one must be... hmmmmm... the state of insanity necessary to call freedom slavery and slavery just another form of freedom?

[DiogenesLamp]

This is your original statement to which I responded.

Slavery was a major issue at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, but both sides were willing to compromise because they all agreed that slavery was wrong and should be gradually abolished.

I asked you "how many slave states were there in 1787, because I already knew the answer and just wanted to see if you were going to pursue your misleading statement implying both sides were relatively equal in strength.

The truth is, the slave states by far outnumbered the "free" (meaning pretend free, not really free) states. You are trying to create the illusion that slavery was a major issue in 1787 when it was not.

If anything, the US constitution explicitly protects slavery, so yeah, all the Northern states share equally in codifying it into law.

How many states & US territories still have slaves living in them today?

Was thinking about this very question earlier today. It seems to me that the vast majority of people in this nation suffer under some form of slavery. Our taxes are ridiculous, we are constantly compelled to do things we don't want to do, and the same sort of corrupt thieving bastards have been running the nation since 1861 and getting rich off of our toil while contributing nothing of benefit to anyone else.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "I asked you "how many slave states were there in 1787, because I already knew the answer and just wanted to see if you were going to pursue your misleading statement implying both sides were relatively equal in strength."

1. In 1787, 5 Northern states had declared at least some forms of African slavery illegal and had begun gradual total abolition -- PA, MA, NH, CT, RI.

2. In 1787, 2 more Northern states were 12 and 17 years away from beginning gradual abolition -- NY & NJ.

3. In 1787, the future states of Vermont and Maine had already outlawed slavery.

4. In 1787, Congress abolished slavery in the Northwest Territories.
   These would eventually become 5 more states -- OH, IN, MI, IL & WI.

5. In 1787, slavery was 100% lawful in 6 Southern and 2 Northern states -- DE, MD, VA, NC, SC & GA, plus NY & NJ

6. In 1787, slavery was 100% lawful in 4 territories which would become Southern states -- Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama and Mississippi.

In summary, in 1787, slavery was 100% lawful in 10 Southern states & territories plus 2 Northern states, NY & NJ.

In 1787, slavery had been entirely or partly abolished in 12 Northern states & territories, not including NY & NJ.

Politically speaking, that was the balance between Northern and Southern interests on slavery.
And it's worth noting with interest that New York flipped from "slave state" to "free state" in 1799, the exact time when the US Capital began moving from Philadelphia to Washington, DC.
Of course, Washington, DC, wasn't built in a day, and New York did not free all its slaves overnight.

DiogenesLamp: "The truth is, the slave states by far outnumbered the "free" (meaning pretend free, not really free) states.
You are trying to create the illusion that slavery was a major issue in 1787 when it was not."

And once again, as is your habit, you are imposing your own peculiar vision of "slave" and "free" on our Founding Fathers, when none of them saw it that way.
Our Founders considered states or territories to be "free" once laws were passed to begin abolition there.
They were not in the least disturbed by the ten-year census data showing numbers of slaves declining gradually in "free states".
Politically, those states lined up with other free-states on the great issues of their time.

DiogenesLamp: "If anything, the US constitution explicitly protects slavery, so yeah, all the Northern states share equally in codifying it into law."

In every case, without exception, the Constitution's recognition of slavery's interests was done at the insistence of Southerners, such as South Carolina's Charles Pinckney, against the resistance of Northern free-states.
In the end, compromises were reached allowing the minimum recognition of slavery necessary for Southern support of ratifying the Constitution.

DiogenesLamp: "It seems to me that the vast majority of people in this nation suffer under some form of slavery.
Our taxes are ridiculous, we are constantly compelled to do things we don't want to do, and the same sort of corrupt thieving bastards have been running the nation since 1861 and getting rich off of our toil while contributing nothing of benefit to anyone else."

The men who took over Federal government in 1861 were angels compared to the devils who'd ruled almost continuously from 1801 until they declared secession and war on the United States in 1861.

The difference is, just like today, that while the press protected their own Democratics, they gleefully exposed every real or imagined Republican wrongdoing.

The United States in 1787:

[DiogenesLamp]

In 1787, 5 Northern states had declared at least some forms of African slavery illegal and had begun gradual total abolition -- PA, MA, NH, CT, RI.

Nope. Doesn't count until it's paid for. Doesn't count until there are *NO SLAVES* in those states.

MA is the only one you've got, and that was only through a legal trick.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Nope. Doesn't count until it's paid for.
Doesn't count until there are *NO SLAVES* in those states.
MA is the only one you've got, and that was only through a legal trick."

Of course, you are entitled to your own peculiar opinions on this, but those were not the opinions of our Founders back in the day.
Back then, Northern states considered themselves to be "free" the day they passed laws gradually abolishing slavery, and were not concerned about those few remaining "grandfathered" old servants.
Politically they lined up with all the other free states.

Nor, politically, did Southerners consider Northern states with a few remaining old servants / slaves to be, somehow, "slave states".

So even though you are entitled to your ahistorical opinions, they were not shared by anybody else in actual history.