Posted on 02/06/2003 1:37:27 PM PST by clintonbaiter
Marc Morano of CNSNews has reported that tours of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. aren't what they used to be. I can remember my first visit to D.C. way back when and my parents telling me about the Lincoln Memorial, and walking up the huge steps, and seeing the great man seated and looking majestic. I can even remember seeing his words etched in the stone all around me as I stood at his feet. It was striking, it was awe-inspiring.
I thought I had learned a good deal about Lincoln in school and felt like I knew him. I guess I was wrong.
Now, according to the Discovery Channel, Abraham Lincoln, Republican and the 16th President of the United States, was in reality a liberal Democrat. Moreover, not just any liberal Democrat. According to the folks at Discovery Channel, Abe Lincoln was slightly to the left of the late Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone......
(Excerpt) Read more at iconoclast.ca ...
You cannot know that beyond speculative interpretation of prophecy. That in itself is not sufficient grounds to conclusively determine America to be any such country.
You're confusing Jesus' kingdom with prophetic Israel.
I'm referring to Jesus' remark that his kingdom was not of this world.
Governments are of this world and are of men. Like the men who compose them they are sinful in their existence. That includes the American government. While it is theologically permissible to assert faith in God and even ask that the influence of providence help guide that government to the good, it is blasphemous to believe that the American government is of God's select sanction and from that to conclude that whatever America does is therefore sanctioned by God.
No the legislatures commissioned these Declarations.
Again, you are simply wrong on many counts. For starters, they were issued by the secession conventions of those respective states. When they were issued, they had absolutely zero statutory effect and were completely separated from the statutory acts of secession - the ordinances.
Against slavery.
No. Though some of the 11 ordinances state grievances against the government, not one of them mentions slavery as a grievance.
So secession was for mail?
In Arizona it was among other things. More so they stated their cause to be that the federal government had neglected its basic services and duties to protect their frontier after secession began in the south.
This was Lincoln's doings?
He helped to orchestrate it.
The Constitution does not forbid the president from doing this.
Yes it does. The Constitution allows that habeas corpus may ONLY be suspended by the guidelines set forth in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2. Article I, Section 1 states that the powers set forth in that article belong to the legislature, so therefore only the legislature may suspend habeas corpus.
The Constitution gives the president the power to preserve it.
The Constitution also gives the judiciary checks on the unconstitutional actions of the other branches per Marbury v. Madison. In 1861 the judiciary struck down The Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus as unconstitutional. He ignored the ruling thereby violating the constitution.
The Constitution says the powers granted went to the legislature. That section dealt with what wasn't granted.
Yes it was. The clause stating that the powers went to the legislature was Article I, Section 1. It stated itself to apply to all the powers "herein" contained in Article I. The suspension clause, which is the ONLY way that the writ may be suspended under the Constitution, falls under Article I in Section 9 of that article. Therefore it is governed by Article I, Section 1.
He wasn't impeached so his actions stand.
Historically, they stood unimpeded. They were unconstitutional though and the judiciary ruled them so. Try again.
Written by individuals! Should we now read the NYT editorial page to find an accurate description of average American opinion?
You can read it to find an accurate description of the opinions of liberals in America, which also typically means most New Yorkers. On a similar note you can read the Washington Times' page to find an accurate description of conservative opinion. The same applied in 1860 respective to the various papers. The New York Times, for example, was a pro-northern paper at the time. On March 30, 1861 it urged the north to go to war because the south's secession meant they didn't have to pay the tariff.
Or they could've commissioned their own declarations.
Many counties did.
They didn't so they supported the ones that were there.
How so? Those 4 declarations occurred in only South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas. That means they didn't apply to Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, and Tennessee. In addition the Texas voters adopted a different ordinance by popular referendum that listed causes but said not a word about slavery. The popularly adopted Texas ordinance is therefore of more weight for the people of Texas. That leaves you with only 3 of the 11 CSA states where those declarations are still present, and one of them, Georgia, also includes several paragraphs on other issues such as tariffs and government spending. While those 3 documents may indicate slavery to be a cause in the act of secession, they themselves are representative statements for only a small minority of the CSA states - not the whole as you dishonestly contend.
I dismiss your adding of the words "communist" and "proletariate".
I did not add those words to the quote and you know it. I did note that in Marx's writings the words worker and protetariat are used synonymously and interchangably. It is therefore correct to conclude that when Marx wrote of a worker's ascendency, it is the same as if he was saying a rise of the proletariat, which we all know to be communism.
Inconsequential to me.
Only for the reason that you do not like what he says. None are so blind as those who refuse to see, and it looks like you've opted to sit yourself squarely in the middle of the land of the blind.
I've considered his arguments.
No you haven't. You dismissed them without comment because you did not like what they said.
You're making things up. What do you want me to resolve?
The issue of an immoral means to achieve the end of slavery. According to Christian ethics, sinfully achieved accomplishments are rendered immoral by their sinful means. Defeating the South wasn't sin.
Unnecessarily shedding blood, murdering civilians, stealing, robbing, and arson were. The Lincoln's armies did all of those sinful things to achieve their end of a victory and The Lincoln himself chose a war of aggression as the primary means to that end among untold many options.
David lied to avoid capture by Saul. Was this right?
To lie is a sin and even the greatest of humans sin and sometimes do so to achieve something good. The act of lying is still a sin though.
Genesis prophesies for the last days. We are Israel. God renamed Manasseh and Ephraim as Israel. We are Manasseh and Britain is Ephraim. Read this to get my opinion on this issue. I am in almost total agreement with this site.
You may be in total agreement with whatever site you like, but speculation upon prophesies that have not yet happened is not grounds for a conclusive assertion of identity in those prophesies.
Calling him names because you do not like what he said is an illegitimate form of argument, especially considering that you have adamantly refused to consider Spooner's own argument itself.
Then you do not agree because you are still offering the illegitimate "infant industry" argument. It is economic fact that a country is economically hurt more by a protectionist tariff than it gains. A country with an infant economy therefore cannot gain more under protection than under free trade.
I agree. But when a nation attempts to dump a prduct like steel that is needed in war to wipe out the competition, we have have to play smart and not allow this to happen in case there is war.
Then you do not agree because you are still asserting the same illegitimate "dumping" argument. According to the rules of economics, dumping is actually beneficial to the recieving country because it permits the acquisition of the dumped good at a lower price. As for aggressive dumping, there is no known case of it ever successfully achieving what you claim it seeks.
Do you disagree wity Bush's protection of our steel
No. I do not.
or should we have let our steel industry die by foreign dumping?
First off, the industry isn't going to "die" from foreign competition. It will shrink, but remain to meet the demands that are not fulfilled by trade. Second, so-called foreign dumping means cheaper steel for us. If anything we should be sending those countries that supposedly pursue such a policy a note of thanks.
Indiana and Illinois has some of the best farmland in America and yet Chicago industrialized nicely.
On a same note, Louisiana has some of the best sugarcain land in America, yet New Orleans became a major shipping port nicely. In the case of both cities, geography and the market created needs for that which they could offer. But geographical resources also meant that the rural land around Chicago and was better used growing wheat or corn or whatever they grow, just as the land of Louisiana was better used growing sugarcain.
Slavery held the South down to the point where they got behind and started to go against tariffs.
No. They went against protectionist tariffs because those tariffs held the country itself behind where it would have been without those tariffs.
There were some that pleaded with the South to get rid of slavery so they could catch up industrially
There are some today who plead with America to develop solar powered cars. Those cars are not developed though because there is no demand for them and no place for them in the free market. Just the same, the free market had left the south with advantages in agriculture and exports. Because of that there was no need to build factories, and in fact doing so would have been illogical since those factories would be comparatively disadvantaged to regions and countries elsewhere where manufacturing was the advantageous economic sector instead of agriculture.
and so the tariffs wouldn't bite them
Industrializing would not have alleviated the tariffs because protective tariffs bite the country as a whole. By its very nature a tariff diminishes a country's welfare in comparison to what would be without that tariff.
but unfortunately, southern plantation owners just wouldn't listen.
No, not really. They simply knew that their region was comparatively advantaged in agriculture and, operating in a capitalist model, produced in the area where they had that advantage. It would have been absurd and irrational for them to have pursued a sector where they had a comparative disadvantage.
They never faced competition from Indian cotton?
They certainly may have, but their tariff policy from the 1820's to 1860 was consistently free trade. Therefore I am not sure what your argument is.
Yes overall. But we cannot let our steel industry die.
It will not die even without tariffs - simply decrease in size to the level necessary to meet home demand after imports.
We may need it in war.
Potentially, but no reason exists that in an unnamed war we will not be able to (a) acquire steel from comparatively advantaged allies or (b) increase domestic production of that steel in the event that those allies are unable to match our demands. It's not like the steel ores are going anywhere anytime soon.
Illinois had both industry and agriculture. Why couldn't the South do the same?
For the same reason that the south built ocean-going ports while Illinois did not. In each case the market dictated what industries were best suited to each region and they developed accordingly.
It was a mistake for the South to hold on to slavery.
For moral reasons, yes it was. We've already been over that many times.
Like I said, Illinois and Indiana did both. Why couldn't the South?
Because there was no geographic comparative advantage at the time. On a similar note, the south of 1860 had many ocean ports equipped for heavy exporting. Does the fact that the south had them mean that Indiana and Illinois should have also had them? Like I said, I'm a free trader until vital war industries are threatened with extinction.
Fair enough. In some select few cases, I'll agree on vital war industries. As our conversation indicates though, your concept of a threatened vital war industry is much broader than mine. Yours includes steel. Mine does not.
Either way, Lincoln and Congress would've been hated by the tax-haters.
Not necessarily, had they acted with restrained. Some southerners in 1860 urged Congress to refuse the Morrill bill and instead make slight adjustments to the free-trade revenue tariff to improve revenue totals and meet the budget. They did not do that though. Instead The Lincoln and his party went all out for redistributionist tariffs.
The government needed funding to win the war and the income tax wasn't enough at the time. The money had to come from somewhere.
Tariffs designed to cut off trade do not provide significant funding. The Morrill tariff was such a tariff.
The government needs money.
Protectionist tariffs are not designed to raise money. In fact they kill off the source of revenue tariff reciepts, that being trade.
It also hit that high years before, didn't it?
I don't have the stats for other years immediately on hand, but the last time the tariff had been a high protectionist level before the war was prior to the 1846 cut. For those years from 1846 to 1860, the tariff had been consistently lowered.
It went up and down for decades.
Not in the ones preceding the war. The last high tariff before Morrill was in 1846. Everything in between was a low rate that got progressively lower with more cuts in the 1850's.
So if the receipts weren't used for the government, where'd they go?
The receipts were used by the government but those receipts were small. Since the tariff was protectionist its real cost was in the trade it killed off.
I agree with that. But you're saying that the rates weren't raised to raise money to keep the country together. What were they raised for?
Exactly. They were raised, as I have previously noted, to "protect" selected domestic industries from foreign competition.
John C. Calhoun was a South Carolinian who initially supported the tariff. The tariffs were uncontroversial until about 1820
That is because tariffs became increasingly protectionist in the 1820's. The rates were also raised in that period to some of the highest ever, often called the "tariff of abominations."
Because by that time slavery had got them behind industrially.
No. It is because protectionist tariffs were doing more net harm to the country than good. That is what protectionist tariffs do.
If tariffs were not meant to protect industries, why were they called "protectionist"?
They are called protectionist because they seek to "protect" a specified industry from foreign competition. In reality though, that industry gains slightly while the rest of us lose greatly. In sum this inevitably leads to a net loss on the whole for the country.
I agree. But we have an extra 150 years of history to confirm this.
They had plenty of history to confirm it then as well. Adam Smith observed the problems caused by trade barriers in 1776. His works were well known to the founding fathers and those after him. David Ricardo then refined his theory into a finished form that is the central pillar of everything we know of tariffs today. He did that in the 1810's and his work was also well known. To suggest that they did not know how tariffs worked in 1860 is accordingly absurd.
He praises the ascent of the middle class.
Where? All he says of it is this "The American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class." There are no words of praise contained anywhere in that statement.
What did he say about the middle class?
He called it a capitalist tool of the bourgeouis.
Tell me how Lincoln was a Communist.
I did not say Lincoln was a communist. But if you do want to explore that issue, I will note for a fact that Lincoln shared in subscription to the labor theory of value with the communists.
Why didn't he say so?
When Marx said "working class," he WAS saying so. That is how he wrote. That is the style in which he composed his theories. That is the choice of words he used. If you doubt me, read any of his major writings on communism. The terminology is identical and is used interchangably with "proletariat."
We do?
Since that is the purpose of the book in which he states that, yes. We do.
I don't know, I've never read Marx.
That seems to be a large part of your problem. If you were familiar with how Marx wrote and the style and terminology he used, you would see immediately that he was talking about communism.
One man's opinion.
It's also his theory of communism, and the same theory he was expressing while praising Lincoln.
Why didn't he say "proletariate"?
Because he chose to use a synonym that, in his terminology, meant the same thing. To use an analogy, I could observe that you are "of low mental capacity" or I could observe that you are "stupid." Both statements convey same thing because the terms are synonymously used.
You're not Paul Harvey. The convention REFUSED to consider that the people of the united states were one common mass of people. End of story.
No, that's what you've heard all your life, but it's not the end of the story. You neo-rebs are fixated on this skewed interpretation of these events, but you don't know or can't accept the whole story.
Here's the end of the story, by Justice Story:
"The constitution of the United States was ordained and established, not by the states in their sovereign capacities, but emphatically, as the preamble of the constitution declares, by "the People of the United States." There can be no doubt, that it was competent to the people to invest the general government with all the powers which they might deem proper and necessary; to extend or restrain these powers according to their own good pleasure, and to give them a paramount and supreme authority."
- Martin vs. Hunter's Lessee, 1816
You don't like the whole story, but there it is.
The people have exercised their right to maintain the Union - under the tenth amendment.
Or, if you like, the tenth amendment doesn't come into play at all because of the Militia Act of 1792 as amended in 1795.
Walt
They're really sort of pitiful.
The record doesn't support them at all.
Walt
Davis, of course, is totally irrelevant. Lincoln's words still echo down the years, which is why what he said is attacked by the racist fringe elements like the League of the South and the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
Davis, of course held as strongly as did Lincoln that the states had no right to break off on their own. He used the same language/interpretation to do support his position as Lincoln did.
The neo-rebs won't much touch that issue. Some will denounce Davis, George Washington AND Lincoln, as I believe Aurelius does.
And since Davis and Lincoln took the same stands on constitutional issues -- (Davis' suspension of habeas corpus also conflicted with the wording of Marryman,) we can deduce that the real beef with Lincoln by the neo-rebs is his strong stand on equality.
That is what they hate, they just don't feel able to say it openly.
Walt
I would agree. I have decided it best to simply ignore 3fan. The word lunatic definitely comes to mind. I first thought that their constant diversion of the topic and resultant racebaiting was just a cheap ploy, but it soon became very clear that it was actually the result of aberrant thought processes. It is possible, I suppose that they were posting while under the influence of LSD, that too would explain their paranoid schizophrenia-like thinking. In my own interactions with 3fan, their responses and "answers" rarely had anything whatsoever to do with my posts that they were supposedly responding to. Very bizarre. Asking them "what time is it?" would probably be perceived on their part as an admission of complicity in the assassination of JFK.
Check out his latest little charade on Karl Marx. The guy seems to seriously believe that when Marx spoke of the "an era of ascendency..for the working class" and the "reconstruction of the social world" he was making a compassionate plea for better working conditions.
That sounds like "progressive" (socialist/communist) apologetics to me. They are probably reading from Pelosi's World Socialist handbook on 'how to deceive your friends and make America communist'. I think it's the chapter right after the one that explains how the Constitution is a "pact with the devil".
...And surely that "era of ascendency...for the working class" he was talking about couldn't have been an era of communism, could it? At least not in the foreign mental universe of #3fan's disconnected mind...
LOL. Their twisted anti-logic reminds me of the disjointed mental aberrations of a Lyndon LaRouche cultist who once tried to convince me me that George Bush was a "New England Opium Baron", whose ancestors conspired with the "Southern Slave Power" so the British Crown could expand the drug trade. That's what the WBTS was really about, they said. The Lincoln was out to stop the "opium barons" and their fellow conspirators the "slave power". The WBTS was apparently Lincoln's war against the British Empire's drug trade, or something like that, it was hard to follow. I did notice the repeated use of cult-like terminology that the wlat brigade constantly uses, though. Hmmmmm.....
Who cares what Marx' view was.
It is for me.
I'm referring to Jesus' remark that his kingdom was not of this world.
My original statement is that America is God's country. God's country and Jesus' kingdom are two different things.
Governments are of this world and are of men. Like the men who compose them they are sinful in their existence. That includes the American government. While it is theologically permissible to assert faith in God and even ask that the influence of providence help guide that government to the good, it is blasphemous to believe that the American government is of God's select sanction and from that to conclude that whatever America does is therefore sanctioned by God.
Romans says that God is involved politically. We are prophetic Israel and this is God's country until the end.
Again, you are simply wrong on many counts.
You're just disagreeing with everything I'm saying to be argumentive.
For starters, they were issued by the secession conventions of those respective states. When they were issued, they had absolutely zero statutory effect and were completely separated from the statutory acts of secession - the ordinances.
They were commissioned by the legislatures to declare the reason for secession. It's not surprising that you neo-Confederates try to deny reality and reality is that secession was for slavery.
No. Though some of the 11 ordinances state grievances against the government, not one of them mentions slavery as a grievance.
All the declarations say slavery was the reason. If any state would've disagreed with these declarations, they woul've commissioned their own.
In Arizona it was among other things. More so they stated their cause to be that the federal government had neglected its basic services and duties to protect their frontier after secession began in the south.
Secession was for slavery as the Declarations of Secession clearly state.
He helped to orchestrate it.
But was it Lincoln's doings?
Yes it does. The Constitution allows that habeas corpus may ONLY be suspended by the guidelines set forth in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2. Article I, Section 1 states that the powers set forth in that article belong to the legislature, so therefore only the legislature may suspend habeas corpus.
You left out the word "granted". But that's not surprising. You neo-Confederates cannot tell the whole truth because truth is not on your side.
The Constitution also gives the judiciary checks on the unconstitutional actions of the other branches per Marbury v. Madison. In 1861 the judiciary struck down The Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus as unconstitutional. He ignored the ruling thereby violating the constitution.
He wasn't impeached, therefore he acted according to the preservation of the Constitution.
Yes it was. The clause stating that the powers went to the legislature was Article I, Section 1. It stated itself to apply to all the powers "herein" contained in Article I. The suspension clause, which is the ONLY way that the writ may be suspended under the Constitution, falls under Article I in Section 9 of that article. Therefore it is governed by Article I, Section 1.
Again you have left out the word "granted". Funny how you keep doing that.
Historically, they stood unimpeded. They were unconstitutional though and the judiciary ruled them so. Try again.
No need to try again. If he wasn't impeached by the legislature, then his actions stand. The legislature is the check on the president.
You can read it to find an accurate description of the opinions of liberals in America, which also typically means most New Yorkers. On a similar note you can read the Washington Times' page to find an accurate description of conservative opinion. The same applied in 1860 respective to the various papers. The New York Times, for example, was a pro-northern paper at the time. On March 30, 1861 it urged the north to go to war because the south's secession meant they didn't have to pay the tariff.
Editorials aren't the place to look for any official words.
Many counties did.
Counties? LOL
How so? Those 4 declarations occurred in only South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas. That means they didn't apply to Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, and Tennessee. In addition the Texas voters adopted a different ordinance by popular referendum that listed causes but said not a word about slavery. The popularly adopted Texas ordinance is therefore of more weight for the people of Texas. That leaves you with only 3 of the 11 CSA states where those declarations are still present, and one of them, Georgia, also includes several paragraphs on other issues such as tariffs and government spending. While those 3 documents may indicate slavery to be a cause in the act of secession, they themselves are representative statements for only a small minority of the CSA states - not the whole as you dishonestly contend.
The seceded states joined the states that issued Declarations. Secession was for slavery as the Declarations of Secession clearly say and any state joining that secession was supporting the same cause. If there would've been any other cause, additional declarations would've been issued to name any other cause. They didn't so they joined the cause of perpetuating slavery.
I did not add those words to the quote and you know it.
You said to ignore the words that were quoted and to add your made up words. That's not reality.
I did note that in Marx's writings the words worker and protetariat are used synonymously and interchangably. It is therefore correct to conclude that when Marx wrote of a worker's ascendency, it is the same as if he was saying a rise of the proletariat, which we all know to be communism.
If he meant that, he would've said that.
Only for the reason that you do not like what he says. None are so blind as those who refuse to see, and it looks like you've opted to sit yourself squarely in the middle of the land of the blind.
No, I'm just not as easily swayed by a subtle tongue as others. I don't believe everything I hear. When someone says something, it has to agree with reality or I dismiss anything said as idiocy. Spooner was an idiot.
No you haven't. You dismissed them without comment because you did not like what they said.
He said that the cause of preserving the union was a sham. That qualifies him in my book as an idiot because indeed the union was preserved with a Northern victory.
Unnecessarily shedding blood, murdering civilians, stealing, robbing, and arson were. The Lincoln's armies did all of those sinful things to achieve their end of a victory and The Lincoln himself chose a war of aggression as the primary means to that end among untold many options.
The South committed rebellion and attacked the United States after doing so. They got what they deserved. And you can't lay every wartime malfeasance on Lincoln. That's intellectually dishonest. Individuals will do what individuals do.
To lie is a sin and even the greatest of humans sin and sometimes do so to achieve something good. The act of lying is still a sin though.
So David should've allowed himself to be executed by Saul on false charges? Covert activity in the act of self-preservation against evil is not sin.
You may be in total agreement with whatever site you like, but speculation upon prophesies that have not yet happened is not grounds for a conclusive assertion of identity in those prophesies.
Read the site. There is a clear migration of the Israelites to America and Britain. This has already happened. Prophetic Israel is America, UK, and Israel.
Pot, kettle, black. You refer to Lincoln as "the Lincoln" implying a subhuman thing so don't lecture me on namecalling. Spooner was an idiot for denying reality. The union was preserved with a Northern victory.
Tariffs may be needed to get off the ground, I don't know. After getting off the ground, tariffs aren't good though, obviously. Apparently early Americans didn't realize that because almost everyone including Southerners supported low and high tariffs until 1820. We have the advantage of an extra 150 years in results to help our opinion. The only reason the South turned against tariffs was because after decades of putting all their eggs in the slavery supported agriculture market, they fell behind industrially unlike Illinois and Indiana who, without slavery, industrialized nicely along with continued the development of agriculture. The South made their own bed.
Then you do not agree because you are still asserting the same illegitimate "dumping" argument. According to the rules of economics, dumping is actually beneficial to the recieving country because it permits the acquisition of the dumped good at a lower price. As for aggressive dumping, there is no known case of it ever successfully achieving what you claim it seeks.
And you're willing to take a chance on this theory? All it takes is one time to lose our steel industry and we may be up the creek without a paddle.
No. I do not.
I do.
First off, the industry isn't going to "die" from foreign competition.
Not competition, dumping.
It will shrink, but remain to meet the demands that are not fulfilled by trade.
But maybe it will shrink too much to save us in case of sudden war.
Second, so-called foreign dumping means cheaper steel for us. If anything we should be sending those countries that supposedly pursue such a policy a note of thanks.
Until they attack us and we can't fight back because we don't have the capacity to manufacture weapons of war.
On a same note, Louisiana has some of the best sugarcain land in America, yet New Orleans became a major shipping port nicely.
Well duh! LOL
In the case of both cities, geography and the market created needs for that which they could offer. But geographical resources also meant that the rural land around Chicago and was better used growing wheat or corn or whatever they grow, just as the land of Louisiana was better used growing sugarcain.
So why didn't Louisiana industrialize so that tariffs would've not affected them as bad as the North. Slavery, that's why.
No. They went against protectionist tariffs because those tariffs held the country itself behind where it would have been without those tariffs.
So now you're saying that tariffs were equally bad against the North as the South? That goes against everything your "slavery wasn't the reason" brothers say.
There are some today who plead with America to develop solar powered cars. Those cars are not developed though because there is no demand for them and no place for them in the free market. Just the same, the free market had left the south with advantages in agriculture and exports.
No more than the North. Like I said, Illinios and Indiana has some of the best farmland in America. Yet they industrialized and the South didn't. It was because the South put all their eggs in the slavery basket.
Because of that there was no need to build factories, and in fact doing so would have been illogical since those factories would be comparatively disadvantaged to regions and countries elsewhere where manufacturing was the advantageous economic sector instead of agriculture.
Illinois and Indiana has just as good as farmland as the South Yet they industrialized nicely. The difference was that the South put all their eggs in the slavery basket.
Industrializing would not have alleviated the tariffs because protective tariffs bite the country as a whole. By its very nature a tariff diminishes a country's welfare in comparison to what would be without that tariff.
That goes against the theory that tariffs hurt the South worse than the North. You said yourself that since the South wadn't industrialized that tariffs transferred wealth from the South to the North. Are you backing away from that now? You're disagreeing with everything I'm saying to be argumentive but you're starting to contradict yourself.
No, not really. They simply knew that their region was comparatively advantaged in agriculture and, operating in a capitalist model, produced in the area where they had that advantage. It would have been absurd and irrational for them to have pursued a sector where they had a comparative disadvantage.
They were advantaged in agriculture because they practiced slavery. Illinois and Indiana has just as good as farmland yet they industrialized nicely. The difference was slavery.
They certainly may have, but their tariff policy from the 1820's to 1860 was consistently free trade. Therefore I am not sure what your argument is.
That they supported tariffs until 1820 when slavery put them behind industrially.
It will not die even without tariffs - simply decrease in size to the level necessary to meet home demand after imports.
But it may be not enough to save us in war.
Potentially, but no reason exists that in an unnamed war we will not be able to (a) acquire steel from comparatively advantaged allies...
Ha! You have a lot of faith in the more socialist countries of the world! No, we need to keep our steel capacity up to meet war needs if those needs arise.
...or (b) increase domestic production of that steel in the event that those allies are unable to match our demands. It's not like the steel ores are going anywhere anytime soon.
You shut a steel plant down you can't just go back in one day and fire it back up. That takes infrastructure and time.
For the same reason that the south built ocean-going ports while Illinois did not.
Chicago is one of the busiest ports in the world. That's not it.
In each case the market dictated what industries were best suited to each region and they developed accordingly.
Slavery spoiled the South to the point they fell behind industrially and started to get bit by tariffs. They made their own bed.
For moral reasons, yes it was. We've already been over that many times.
And for economic reasons. It held them back industrially.
Because there was no geographic comparative advantage at the time. On a similar note, the south of 1860 had many ocean ports equipped for heavy exporting.
So did the midwest, all along the great lakes.
Does the fact that the south had them mean that Indiana and Illinois should have also had them?
They did!
Fair enough. In some select few cases, I'll agree on vital war industries. As our conversation indicates though, your concept of a threatened vital war industry is much broader than mine. Yours includes steel. Mine does not.
What in the world is a vital war industry if steel isn't?! It takes steel to build almost all weapons of war!
Not necessarily, had they acted with restrained. Some southerners in 1860 urged Congress to refuse the Morrill bill and instead make slight adjustments to the free-trade revenue tariff to improve revenue totals and meet the budget. They did not do that though. Instead The Lincoln and his party went all out for redistributionist tariffs.
You lie by saying "redistribution". That wasn't their purpose. That's nothing new for you neo-Confederates though, the truth isn't on your side, you have to spruce it up to make a point.
Tariffs designed to cut off trade do not provide significant funding. The Morrill tariff was such a tariff.
Yes we know, but apparently that wasn't as clear in the 1800 because tariffs went up and down all through those years.
Protectionist tariffs are not designed to raise money. In fact they kill off the source of revenue tariff reciepts, that being trade.
That must not have been clear then because tariffs went up and down all through the 1800s.
I don't have the stats for other years immediately on hand,...
You don't!? You raise hell on this site every day year after year on the same subject but you don't even know the tariff rates through the early 1800s?! They did hit 50% before 1820 with southern support. They thought it was the way to fund the government since they didn't have an income tax. We know now a low flat income tax is the best way to fund the government but they didn't realize that then. We have an extra 150 to 200 years of results to confirm our opinion.
...but the last time the tariff had been a high protectionist level before the war was prior to the 1846 cut. For those years from 1846 to 1860, the tariff had been consistently lowered.
Yeah, it went up and down. Just like the income tax goes up and down now depending on which party controls legislation.
Not in the ones preceding the war. The last high tariff before Morrill was in 1846. Everything in between was a low rate that got progressively lower with more cuts in the 1850's.
Between 1790 and 1865+, it went up and down about with the same frequency the income tax goes up and down now.
The receipts were used by the government but those receipts were small. Since the tariff was protectionist its real cost was in the trade it killed off.
So the receipts were meant for government spending. Glad to see you admit that.
Exactly. They were raised, as I have previously noted, to "protect" selected domestic industries from foreign competition.
Southerners supported this policy until slavery got them behind industrially.
That is because tariffs became increasingly protectionist in the 1820's. The rates were also raised in that period to some of the highest ever, often called the "tariff of abominations."
Tariffs were high on and off before 1820.
No. It is because protectionist tariffs were doing more net harm to the country than good. That is what protectionist tariffs do.
So the South wasn't hurt worse by high tariffs than the North? This is completely opposite what you said before.
They are called protectionist because they seek to "protect" a specified industry from foreign competition.
So they are meant to protect. Glad to see you admit that.
In reality though, that industry gains slightly while the rest of us lose greatly. In sum this inevitably leads to a net loss on the whole for the country.
We know that now. Apparently, they didn't know that then because they went up and down. Or they didn't have a choice because there wasn't an income tax.
They had plenty of history to confirm it then as well.
The Industrial Revolution began in the late 1700s, didn't it?
Adam Smith observed the problems caused by trade barriers in 1776. His works were well known to the founding fathers and those after him.
Reagans opinions are well known too, that doesn't mean everyone supports them.
David Ricardo then refined his theory into a finished form that is the central pillar of everything we know of tariffs today. He did that in the 1810's and his work was also well known. To suggest that they did not know how tariffs worked in 1860 is accordingly absurd.
Then why did Southerners support high tariffs before 1820 if they were so sure they were destructive?
Where? All he says of it is this "The American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class." There are no words of praise contained anywhere in that statement. He called it a capitalist tool of the bourgeouis.
Got an exact quote?
I did not say Lincoln was a communist.
Then why do you quote Marx if you don't think Lincoln was a Communist?
But if you do want to explore that issue, I will note for a fact that Lincoln shared in subscription to the labor theory of value with the communists.
So you're saying Lincoln was a communist?
When Marx said "working class," he WAS saying so.
Says you. But you're wrong on all your other assumptions.
That is how he wrote. That is the style in which he composed his theories. That is the choice of words he used. If you doubt me, read any of his major writings on communism. The terminology is identical and is used interchangably with "proletariat."
If he would'be meant "communist" and "proletariat" in his quotes, he would've said them. You're making things up and adding to what he said like neo-Confederates always do because truth is not on your side.
Since that is the purpose of the book in which he states that, yes. We do.
He's just another man with an opinion to me.
That seems to be a large part of your problem.
LOL You want me to study Marx? Why?
If you were familiar with how Marx wrote and the style and terminology he used, you would see immediately that he was talking about communism.
And why is this important to me? If he would've meant "communism", he would've said "communism". You had to add it to spruce it up to fit your agenda.
It's also his theory of communism, and the same theory he was expressing while praising Lincoln.
So you're saying that's proof that Lincoln was a communist? Why didn't he say "communism" if he meant "communism"?
Because he chose to use a synonym that, in his terminology, meant the same thing.
Instead of using a synonym, why didn't he just use the real word?
To use an analogy, I could observe that you are "of low mental capacity" or I could observe that you are "stupid." Both statements convey same thing because the terms are synonymously used.
Both mean the same thing. But using the word "working class" does not mean your speaking of Communism.
Exactly. They have to add subtle and not so subtle twists to truth to make it fit their agenda.
Another lie from a neo-Confederate. That's nothing new. Since you're the type to just go off half cocked and accuse me of doing drugs, then it's safe to dismiss your accusations against Lincoln as lies too as if we haven't already.
Antislaveists are Communists?
Anyone who is interested in correctly understanding his quote, which you obviously are not.
It was a national victory.
Walt
No, I'm not. Why should I be?
True.
LOL - Since you're the type to repeatedly go off half cocked and falsely accuse people of racism, then it's safe to dismiss you as someone who is a hatemongering racebaiter, or a deranged lunatic, or possibly someone who posts while under the influence of LSD.
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.