Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN: STATESPERSON AND DEMOCRATIC PARTY ACTIVIST
The Iconoclast ^ | February 6, 2003 | Paul Walfield

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 ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: abelincoln; liberalagitprop; misrepresentation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 241-256 next last
To: #3Fan
It is for me.

And for the rest of us that's supposed to mean exactly what?

My original statement is that America is God's country.

So you think America is God's country? Prove it then.

God's country and Jesus' kingdom are two different things.

Perhaps, or perhaps not. Since you do not have divine inspiration in your writings and since your theological grounding has been demonstrated as weak at best, I do not see how it is possible for you to conclusively assert this as a truth.

We are prophetic Israel and this is God's country until the end.

And you know that exactly how?

They were commissioned by the legislatures to declare the reason for secession.

No they weren't. The conventions themselves were commissioned by the legislatures to carry out secession. In those four states, the conventions chose to adopt among themselves a non-statutory declaration of their causes in addition to seceding. To assert anything more than that, as you do, is to lie. But as you have also shown, you seem to see no moral wrong in the act of lying on a regular basis.

All the declarations say slavery was the reason.

There are only 4 states with declarations of the sort to begin with, and one of those states also had a popular referendum that adopted DIFFERENT reasons, not one of which was slavery. You are truly grasping at straws.

If any state would've disagreed with these declarations, they woul've commissioned their own.

Such an assertion is a non-sequitur. Your conclusion that they would have adopted other declarations does not follow from your premise of agreement. It is therefore an invalid argument.

But was it Lincoln's doings?

His and the congress.

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.

Exactly what in the world does the word "granted" have to do with anything? It certainly doesn't rebut anything I said, nor does it show a falsehood on my part. It does show dishonest motives on your part though as you are obviously playing games of semantical bullsh*t artistry.

He wasn't impeached, therefore he acted according to the preservation of the Constitution.

That's another non-sequitur. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Heck, your conclusion does not even seem to have any significant connection with your premise!

Again you have left out the word "granted". Funny how you keep doing that.

It is not nearly as funny as how obsessed you are with the word "granted" to the point that you seem to consider me a participant in a conspiracy to exclude it from this discussion. Forgive me for digressing, but I simply do not see what is so special about that otherwise ordinary word that has attracted you to it. Then again, you aren't of very sound mind so I suppose I should expect it.

No need to try again. If he wasn't impeached by the legislature, then his actions stand.

That's another non-sequitur. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Therefore there remains a need for you to try again.

The legislature is the check on the president.

No. It is one of many checks. Another is the judiciary, which can rule presidential actions unconstitutional. That happened to Lincoln and he unconstitutionally refused to abide by the decision.

Editorials aren't the place to look for any official words.

No. They're the places to look for samples of various types of popular opinion.

Counties? LOL

Yes. Counties. Some even tried to secede on their own when their states were delaying.

The seceded states joined the states that issued Declarations.

On the flip side one could just as easily say that the states that issued the declarations joined the seceded states. In fact that would probably be more accurate because the confederate government was organized in Alabama. Alabama did not issue a declaration, though the 4 states that did came to Alabama to join the confederacy with all the other states that did not.

Secession was for slavery

Repeating that over and over as you do no more makes it so than waving your arms up and down over and over will give you flight. Try again.

You said to ignore the words that were quoted and to add your made up words.

Fib as you may, the record of this thread indicates otherwise. Fibbing is a sin, you know, and for someone who purports his faith so openly, you sure do sin a lot.

If he meant that, he would've said that.

But that is the point - he did say it. He used proletariat and working class interchangably as synonymous terms meaning the same thing. It appears over and over and over and over and over in the multi-hundred page volumes on communism he composed over his lifetime.

No, I'm just not as easily swayed by a subtle tongue as others.

People who shut their eyes on the world will never be swayed by any tongue of any degree. You have already admitted repeatedly that you opt to shut your eyes to the world. it has to agree with reality or I dismiss anything said as idiocy.

Persons who would not recognize reality upon finding it glued to their foreheads have little basis on which to evaluate consistency of a thought with reality. You are one such person. It therefore follows that you lack the ability to make such an evaluation.

Spooner was an idiot.

Seeing as you lack the ability to accurately determine that, your claim can be dismissed as nonsensical and uncredentialed.

He said that the cause of preserving the union was a sham. That qualifies him in my book as an idiot

In other words, you are doing exactly what you claim not to have done - you are dismissing him because you do not like what he says.

The South committed rebellion and attacked the United States after doing so. They got what they deserved.

The United States at one time committed rebellion and attacked Britain after doing so. Did they also deserve to be crushed and murdered by King George? Or do you conveniently have at hand some goofy speculative secret bible code that somehow makes that little rebellion different? And you can't lay every wartime malfeasance on Lincoln. That's intellectually dishonest.

A commander is responsible for his army as a captain is responsible for his ship. The buck ultimately stops with each. In Lincoln's army, sin and abuse went well beyond a tolerable degree and in fact was encouraged by several of the top commanders. Lincoln is therefore ultimately responsible for those sins.

So David should've allowed himself to be executed by Saul on false charges?

That's a nice straw man, but it is one you built, not me.

Read the site. There is a clear migration of the Israelites to America and Britain.

...so you may believe. It is still speculation on your part of a type that resembles speculation by hundreds of fallen kings and countries that once claimed themselves to be the exact same thing.

181 posted on 02/09/2003 8:27:28 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: thatdewd
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.

What I said about you was true, that you would've preferred a divided America and more decades of slavery. You admitted it.

182 posted on 02/09/2003 8:30:08 PM PST by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: thatdewd
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.

Plus, you're more concerned with your disagreements with Lincoln over Constitutional powers than the evils of slavery. You admitted that too.

183 posted on 02/09/2003 8:32:01 PM PST by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
Antislaveists are Communists?

LOL - You did it again, you perverted the issue into an excuse for racebaiting, instead of simply defending or explaining your pro-communist apologetics in regards to Marx.

184 posted on 02/09/2003 8:32:47 PM PST by thatdewd (Nam et ipsa scientia potestas est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
You refer to Lincoln as "the Lincoln" implying a subhuman thing

No. As I have explained many times, I refer to the concept of the false Lincoln diety worshipped by some on this forum as "The Lincoln." It has little if anything to do with the real man Abraham Lincoln as he physically existed in his own time. I use the term to mock the idolatry practiced by those Lincoln cultists on this forum. As far as the real Abraham Lincoln is concerned though, I don't intend to call him any names other than that of which he is deserving.

185 posted on 02/09/2003 8:40:41 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
Plus, you're more concerned with your disagreements with Lincoln over Constitutional powers than the evils of slavery. You admitted that too.

LOL - You did it again, you hatemongering racebaiter. Slavery and Lincoln's destruction of the Constitutional balance of power are two completely separate and unrelated issues. He destroyed the Constitution early in the war when he had no intentions of ending slavery.

186 posted on 02/09/2003 8:46:32 PM PST by thatdewd (Nam et ipsa scientia potestas est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
What I said about you was true, that you would've preferred a divided America and more decades of slavery. You admitted it.

Here's your original question:
Is a few more decades of slavery acceptable to you with a Southern win?

And here is my exact response:
"If it resulted in better race relations after emancipation than what was created by the Northern carpetbaggers during reconstruction."

I think any rational person would agree with my answer. And that, 3fan, is the source of your problem: rationality, or rather the complete lack of it.

You are a hatemongering racebaiter, nothing more, and you have repeatedly demonstrated that fact. I had stated I was going to simply ignore you because of that, but have attempted to engage you in discourse again, which was a waste of time. You have proven that you are still nothing but a hatemongering racebaiter. Adieu.

187 posted on 02/09/2003 9:03:40 PM PST by thatdewd (Nam et ipsa scientia potestas est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
And for the rest of us that's supposed to mean exactly what?

I don't care what it means for you.

So you think America is God's country? Prove it then.

It's too long to explain, read the site. My opinion is mostly the same. It documents the movements of the Israelites into the UK and America.

Perhaps, or perhaps not. Since you do not have divine inspiration in your writings and since your theological grounding has been demonstrated as weak at best, I do not see how it is possible for you to conclusively assert this as a truth.

Jesus' kingdom comes when heaven is on earth. God's country exists in our flesh world because He said we are His people. That's Christianity 101. You are biblically illiterate.

And you know that exactly how?

It's too long to explain, read the site.

No they weren't. The conventions themselves were commissioned by the legislatures to carry out secession. In those four states, the conventions chose to adopt among themselves a non-statutory declaration of their causes in addition to seceding. To assert anything more than that, as you do, is to lie. But as you have also shown, you seem to see no moral wrong in the act of lying on a regular basis.

You just said the same thing I did. The legislature commissioned the conventions. The conventions issued the Declarations.

There are only 4 states with declarations of the sort to begin with, and one of those states also had a popular referendum that adopted DIFFERENT reasons, not one of which was slavery. You are truly grasping at straws.

All four said slavery was the reason for secession and any states joining them was joining their cause unless otherwise declared, and they did not otherwise declare.

Such an assertion is a non-sequitur. Your conclusion that they would have adopted other declarations does not follow from your premise of agreement. It is therefore an invalid argument.

Nope, any state joining their cause to perpetuate slavery was attempting to achieve those ends.

His and the congress.

How much of each?

Exactly what in the world does the word "granted" have to do with anything? It certainly doesn't rebut anything I said, nor does it show a falsehood on my part. It does show dishonest motives on your part though as you are obviously playing games of semantical bullsh*t artistry.

The Constitution says the powers granted in Aticle I were for Congress. Section 9 listed what was not granted.

That's another non-sequitur. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Heck, your conclusion does not even seem to have any significant connection with your premise!

The Congress is the check on the president. It's up to them to hold the president responsible if he acts illegally. Lincoln wasn't impeached so the Congress felt he acted appropriately in his duty to protect the Constitution.

It is not nearly as funny as how obsessed you are with the word "granted" to the point that you seem to consider me a participant in a conspiracy to exclude it from this discussion.

It's Law!!! If the word "granted" is in law it is to be followed.

Forgive me for digressing, but I simply do not see what is so special about that otherwise ordinary word that has attracted you to it. Then again, you aren't of very sound mind so I suppose I should expect it.

Any power granted would be of the Congress. Section 9 is clealy a section that lists what is not granted. Do you always ignore words that are printed clearly in law? Oh yeah, you're a neo-Confederate, you ignore what doesn't fit your agenda.

That's another non-sequitur. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Therefore there remains a need for you to try again.

The Congress is the check on the president to hold him accountable if he overreacts in his duty to protect the Constitution. Lincoln wasn't impeached so he acted appropriately.

No. It is one of many checks. Another is the judiciary, which can rule presidential actions unconstitutional. That happened to Lincoln and he unconstitutionally refused to abide by the decision.

The Congress has the power to impeach, not the judiciary.

No. They're the places to look for samples of various types of popular opinion.

Mostly inconsequencial.

Yes. Counties. Some even tried to secede on their own when their states were delaying.

LOL

On the flip side one could just as easily say that the states that issued the declarations joined the seceded states. In fact that would probably be more accurate because the confederate government was organized in Alabama. Alabama did not issue a declaration, though the 4 states that did came to Alabama to join the confederacy with all the other states that did not.

So South Carolina didn't begin secession?

Repeating that over and over as you do no more makes it so than waving your arms up and down over and over will give you flight. Try again.

To deny that secession was for slavery is to deny reality. That's nothing new to you neo-Confederates though, is it?

Fib as you may, the record of this thread indicates otherwise. Fibbing is a sin, you know, and for someone who purports his faith so openly, you sure do sin a lot.

You said to replace the words in the quote with your made up words.

But that is the point - he did say it. He used proletariat and working class interchangably as synonymous terms meaning the same thing. It appears over and over and over and over and over in the multi-hundred page volumes on communism he composed over his lifetime.

So why didn't he say proletariat if that's what he meant. If he meant proletariat, he would've said it.

People who shut their eyes on the world will never be swayed by any tongue of any degree. You have already admitted repeatedly that you opt to shut your eyes to the world.

I listen long enough to determine if it's idiocy. Reality deniers are idiots.

Persons who would not recognize reality upon finding it glued to their foreheads have little basis on which to evaluate consistency of a thought with reality. You are one such person. It therefore follows that you lack the ability to make such an evaluation.

You're the one that can't admit that slavery was the cause of secession.

Seeing as you lack the ability to accurately determine that, your claim can be dismissed as nonsensical and uncredentialed.

Spooner must not've realized that the union was preserved. LOL Idiocy.

In other words, you are doing exactly what you claim not to have done - you are dismissing him because you do not like what he says.

I'm dismissing him because the result of the North's victory was preservation of the union. That's reality and Spooner denied it.

The United States at one time committed rebellion and attacked Britain after doing so. Did they also deserve to be crushed and murdered by King George?

We seceded for freedom. The South seceded for slavery. Big difference.

Or do you conveniently have at hand some goofy speculative secret bible code that somehow makes that little rebellion different?

There's no such thing as bible codes.

A commander is responsible for his army as a captain is responsible for his ship. The buck ultimately stops with each.

So is Lee responsible for the murders of union prisoners?

In Lincoln's army, sin and abuse went well beyond a tolerable degree and in fact was encouraged by several of the top commanders. Lincoln is therefore ultimately responsible for those sins.

More northern troops were murdered than southern troops. Were Lee and Davis responsible?

That's a nice straw man, but it is one you built, not me.

You said that sin should not be committed to do right. Then you said David committed sin when he lied in the act of saving himself. Are you going to stand by your claim or not? I said David's lies were covert activity for self-preservation against evil and therefore not sin.

...so you may believe.

So I know.

It is still speculation on your part of a type that resembles speculation by hundreds of fallen kings and countries that once claimed themselves to be the exact same thing.

We're not fallen as the South so painfully learned. It's near the end. We, the UK, and Israel are prophetic Israel as made clear in that site which I almost totally agree with.

188 posted on 02/09/2003 9:09:38 PM PST by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: thatdewd
LOL - You did it again, you perverted the issue into an excuse for racebaiting, instead of simply defending or explaining your pro-communist apologetics in regards to Marx.

So now I'm an LSD using pro-Communist? You neo-Confederates are really out there. LOL

189 posted on 02/09/2003 9:11:44 PM PST by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
No. As I have explained many times, I refer to the concept of the false Lincoln diety worshipped by some on this forum as "The Lincoln." It has little if anything to do with the real man Abraham Lincoln as he physically existed in his own time. I use the term to mock the idolatry practiced by those Lincoln cultists on this forum. As far as the real Abraham Lincoln is concerned though, I don't intend to call him any names other than that of which he is deserving.

Weird.

190 posted on 02/09/2003 9:13:05 PM PST by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: thatdewd
LOL - You did it again, you hatemongering racebaiter. Slavery and Lincoln's destruction of the Constitutional balance of power are two completely separate and unrelated issues. He destroyed the Constitution early in the war when he had no intentions of ending slavery

You admitted that you wouldn't have minded a few more decades of slavery over action against slavery. There's no getting around that.

191 posted on 02/09/2003 9:16:31 PM PST by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: thatdewd
I think any rational person would agree with my answer. And that, 3fan, is the source of your problem: rationality, or rather the complete lack of it.

I think that anyone that prefers slavery and the murder, rape, and beatings that go along with it to go on for a few more decades over freedom for blacks isn't holding treue with the sense of the value of freedom that this country was founded on.

You are a hatemongering racebaiter, nothing more, and you have repeatedly demonstrated that fact. I had stated I was going to simply ignore you because of that, but have attempted to engage you in discourse again, which was a waste of time. You have proven that you are still nothing but a hatemongering racebaiter. Adieu.

You admitted you prefer a few more decades of slavery rather than the freedom that was given to the slaves. You said it. I haven't mischaracterized you at all.

192 posted on 02/09/2003 9:23:29 PM PST by #3Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
Tariffs may be needed to get off the ground, I don't know. After getting off the ground, tariffs aren't good though, obviously.

Okay. Well I am stating as an economic principle that in most substantial circumstances, they simply aren't needed to "get off the ground" and end up doing more harm than good. That is because the gain to the infant industry is more than offset by the harm the tariff does to the country, resulting in a net loss.

Apparently early Americans didn't realize that because almost everyone including Southerners supported low and high tariffs until 1820.

Seeing as the free trade concepts that explained how tariffs were problematic came about in the 1810's due to Ricardo, this is to be expected. In the 1820's they had economic concepts about tariffs that were previously undeveloped.

We have the advantage of an extra 150 years in results to help our opinion.

We do, but in 1860 the nation similarly had the advantage of 40 years of experience on the same subject. The speeches made in opposition to the Morrill act further demonstrate a competant grasp of Ricardan concepts back then. In effect there was no legitimate reason then for protection and no substantial one beyond unfairly enriching protected industries at a cost to the rest. Those who advocated the protectionist arguments in 1860 were peddling antiquated and debunked nonsense for their own time, to say nothing of today.

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

You are still peddling nonsense. An manufacturing based economy is not inherently a "good" thing for all countries and regions everywhere. You are offering a command-style "one size fits all" approach to economic market specialization, and under capitalism things simply do not work that way. That manufacturing was good for the north does not mean it also had to be good for the south. This is especially so when the south had a comparative disadvantage in manufacturing combined with a comparative advantage in another market, agriculture. The south formed agriculturally and is still heavily agricultural to this day because agricultural types of production are its geographic strengths - the markets in which it has comparative advantages. If you doubt me, go try and grow sugarcane or citrus fruit in Minnesota. You will learn why the south went towards those types of agriculture very quickly, and it isn't due to a shunning of your fallacious "one size fits all" belief of paving the country in smoky factories and coal processing plants.

they fell behind industrially unlike Illinois and Indiana who, without slavery, industrialized nicely along with continued the development of agriculture.

Those two states industrialized in some regions because the markets there made it so. That doesn't mean their factories are good for everywhere else, nor does it mean that all agriculturally strong regions should try to industrialize like them, especially when doing so is comparatively disadvantageous.

To use an analogy, most people would agree that a deep sea-going port is an economically "good" thing to have. In 1860 the south was well equiped with ports of this nature, such as New Orleans, to conduct their exports. Therefore those port facilities were a good, economically advanced thing for them to have. Now, does that mean similar ports are good for everywhere? Does that mean I should criticize Wyoming as economically backwards since it doesn't have one? Or how about Vermont? Iowa doesn't have one either. Nor do South Dakota, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and many other states. Does that mean all these states are backwards? Does the fact that none of them built port facilities mean that they "made their own bed" and chose to resist something that is economically good? Of course not, and in fact it would NOT be in the interest of any of these states to build seaports because such seaports would be comparatively disadvantaged from the get go for economic reasons intrinsic to each of those states respectively - they are all landlocked and its not economically viable to built ports way up river in the middle of a landlocked state! Just the same, it was economically wise to put steel refineries near the steel in the north where that industry was. But that doesn't mean we have to also stick one in a Louisiana marsh where the land is better for sugarcane simply on the grounds that it is a "good thing" when we build it in Pennsylvania.

And you're willing to take a chance on this theory?

Yes. Cause I know that mathematically, "dumped" prices are good for us.

All it takes is one time to lose our steel industry and we may be up the creek without a paddle.

Nonsense. Unless you think aliens are coming along to beam them out from underneath the earth's surface, domestic iron ores are not going to go anywhere if somebody "dumps" steel here. Not even the industry will disappear as (a) dumping simply adjusts domestic production to a smaller level and (b) no significant barrier to reentry exists in the event that conditions change and more domestic steel is demanded.

I do.

You may believe that to your heart's content, but it is still an economically fallacious way of thinking with no basis in the reality of how markets work.

Not competition, dumping.

Dumping is by its very nature foreign competition. That competition occurs by way of lowering the world price of a product through the low "dumped" prices of the good being imported.

But maybe it will shrink too much to save us in case of sudden war.

How so? The iron ores aren't going anywhere, and there is no significant domestic barrier to reentry into a domestic market.

Until they attack us and we can't fight back because we don't have the capacity to manufacture weapons of war.

Exactly who are "they"? Do you mean to suggest that every steel producing country in the world will collaborate together all at once and wage war on us? Even if it were true that a steel exporter suddenly became our enemy, what is to stop us from going to another steel exporter elsewhere in the world who is our ally? And what is to stop us from increasing domestic production to compensate for the dropoff in imports?

Well duh! LOL

I'm glad you see the obvious situation of New Orleans. Now tell me - does New Orleans' role as a port and economic good mean that every state should have its own New Orleans? Does it mean that Colorado should build a port of its own, to be like New Orleans since the port of New Orleans is economically good?

So why didn't Louisiana industrialize so that tariffs would've not affected them as bad as the North.

For the same reason that you (hopefully) do not burn the contents of your wallet for the purpose of allowing you to qualify for welfare.

So now you're saying that tariffs were equally bad against the North as the South?

Against the northern people as a whole it caused a net loss in their welfare. But by regional comparison, those losses were even harder on the south.

No more than the North.

If you believe that the south was no more advantaged in agriculture production than the north, you are free to open a citrus and sugarcane farm in Minnesota. Report back to me when you are done though, as I would like to know if you have as much luck there as you would planting the same goods in Florida or Louisiana. If you do, then your statement is valid. If not, as I predict will be the case, then you will have just seen a demonstration on how the south possessed a comparative advantage over the north in those agricultural markets.

Illinois and Indiana has just as good as farmland as the South

Good for wheat and corn, that is. But farmland is not a generic brand of aspirin. Try growing oranges in Indiana or cotton in Indiana. Try growing sugarcane in Minnesota. Try growing rice in Montana. Each of those states has its own share of quality farmland, but that does not mean that farmland will grow everything the southern farmland does with the same quality and in the same ammount. It's a key rule of farming - climate matters.

That goes against the theory that tariffs hurt the South worse than the North.

No it doesn't. Something can be bad for all of us yet worse for some than others. Winter freezes (not snow, but those yucky, nasty ice storms), for example, are bad for the nation as a whole because nobody likes them. When the whole nation (continental states) is hit by one, everybody is negatively impacted. But for various reasons, the storm will likely be worse for residents of northern Pennsylvania than it will be for residents of gulf coast Mississippi because the severity in which it strikes will be greater. In the case of the tariffs, their negative impact on the southern economy was significantly more severe than on the northern economy, though both were harmed.

They were advantaged in agriculture because they practiced slavery.

No, not really. Slavery was an attribute - the labor attribute - of their economy. That economy developed toward agriculture though because of climate, soil type, and geographic ability to export.

Illinois and Indiana has just as good as farmland

Not for growing cotton, oranges, and sugarcane. In farming, climate matters.

Ha! You have a lot of faith in the more socialist countries of the world!

Since when are the only people who produce steel socialists?

No, we need to keep our steel capacity up to meet war needs if those needs arise.

Why not let the market adjust to that capacity and ration out that resource through its own mechanisms? There is no real reason why it wouldn't work just as well, and it would save us all the time, effort, and costs of fooling around with tariffs and subsidies.

You shut a steel plant down you can't just go back in one day and fire it back up.

What about a week? Or a month? It happens all the time absent a war - when an company needs a new warehouse due to market demands, they build one. When they need it fast, they speed up the construction. Just the same, when America needed ships fast in WWII, they sped up the construction and met the demand.

Chicago is one of the busiest ports in the world.

But it is a Great Lakes port catering exclusively to traffic that makes use of a network of internal waterways on the North American continent. It may serve some of the same functions as New Orleans, but it is not the same type of port. Just as it would make no sense to rebuild New Orleans on lake ontario, it would make no sense to rebuild Chicago on the coast of Florida.

So did the midwest, all along the great lakes.

Great lakes ports are just that - great lakes ports. They are not the same thing as oceanic ports. Similar, yes. But not the same.

They did!

Illinois did not have oceanic ports. It had ports for an internal waterway consisting of the lakes. Just as farmland in Illinois differs from farmland in Louisiana, shipping in Chicago differs from shipping in New Orleans.

What in the world is a vital war industry if steel isn't?!

Uranium.

You lie by saying "redistribution". That wasn't their purpose.

Sure it was as that is what protective tariffs do. They redistribute the consumer surplus into the producer surplus among other things - it's a matter of economic fact. Live with it.

Yes we know, but apparently that wasn't as clear in the 1800 because tariffs went up and down all through those years.

To the contrary - it was as available to human knowledge as anything we've got from about 1820 on, and prior to that it was partially known.

That must not have been clear then because tariffs went up and down all through the 1800s.

It was clear after 1820. America also enacted policy clearly recognizing it from 1846 to the war. Through that entire period tariffs were consistently low.

You don't!?

The tariff stats for 1816 or 1822, no. I don't. I could look them up fairly quickly if necessary, but thus far I have not found it in my interest to commit to memory the annual tariff schedule of the United States for every year of the 19th century. I do know those of years I commonly deal with (roughly 1857-65) though.

Yeah, it went up and down.

No. Not between 1846 and 1860. First it went down. Then it went down some more. That demonstrates consistency over an extended period.

Between 1790 and 1865+, it went up and down about with the same frequency the income tax goes up and down now.

You are violating basic rules of statistical presentation by way of padding the mean. Fluctuations in the tariff rate were much more frequent in some decades than others. If, for example, it went up and down almost yearly for a decade in the early 1800's yet went consistently down for 15 years straight from 1846-61, an average from 1800-1861 would not reflect the consistency of that last decade because your mean is padded. You must know this as the 1846 tariff has been brought to your attention repeatedly, yet you still pad your mean to suggest that fluctuations were evenly dispersed over that same period. That makes you a liar.

193 posted on 02/09/2003 11:12:10 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
On the contrary, I spent decades reading the "other side"; i.e., the mainstream view of Lincoln and the Civil War. Until a few years ago, Lincoln was one of my favorite historical figures; a genuine personal hero of mine. The problem anyone faces, in today's hyper-p.c. climate, is that opposing Lincoln, or defending the southern states' right to secede, is synonymous to most people with supporting slavery.

I shouldn't have to state the obvious, but I am not now, nor have I ever been, a supporter of slavery. I do now, however, see the events of 1861-1865 in an entirely different perspective. I think Lincoln was wrong, morally and constitutionally, in almost every position he took during his term of office. I think the Confederates had every right to secede; we fought for our independence for the exact same principle (right of self-government; consent of the governed).

I think the historical record, and not just wishful political party thinking, reveals that Lincoln was the first "big government" president. He certainly enhanced the imperial powers of the oval office, and presidents such as Wilson, FDR, Johnson and Clinton benefited greatly from the precedents he set. A conservative who expressed admiration for Lincoln could only do so out of historical ignorance.

Lincoln left us many lofty phrases. The problem is that his actions were not quite as poetic and stirring. I've read your posts on this subject, and know this is an area of specialty for you. You state your position well, but I think you're competely wrong. I don't think we're going to change each other's views. We'll have to agree to disagree.
194 posted on 02/09/2003 11:39:18 PM PST by bigunreal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: #3Fan
I don't care what it means for you.

Then why do you post it to me?

Jesus' kingdom comes when heaven is on earth. God's country exists in our flesh world because He said we are His people.

Being God's people does not mean that providence gives its seal of sanction to all of our political activies.

That's Christianity 101.

Not really. Christianity 101 entails the recognition of original sin and its lasting effects combined with action to avoid those sins where possible by acting morally and welcome their forgiveness by our creator when they occur. Goofy speculative theories about divine sanction for a political state are far removed from that basis.

All four said slavery was the reason for secession and any states joining them was joining their cause unless otherwise declared

That is a non sequitur. Try again.

Nope

Yes. It is a non-sequitur. No necessary connection exists between your premise and the conclusion you purport from it. Your argument does not logically follow and is therefore invalid. If you do not like that, reconstruct your argument to where its premises lead to its conclusion.

How much of each?

Well, the congress votes on bills and the president signs them...

The Constitution says the powers granted in Aticle I were for Congress. Section 9 listed what was not granted.

Section 9 Clause 2 lists a retained privilege of the people while granting the lone method in which that privilege may be suspended. It therefore grants a power under those prescribed circumstances - the power of suspension.

The Congress is the check on the president.

Yeah. And so is the judiciary. The judiciary conducted its check on Lincoln. He ignored that check and accordingly violated the constitution by doing so.

It's Law!!! If the word "granted" is in law it is to be followed.

And the Constitution grants the legislature alone with the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus under certain prescribed circumstances. So what is your point?

Any power granted would be of the Congress. Section 9 is clealy a section that lists what is not granted.

No. Section 9 lists clauses that share in that they are restrictions upon what may be done, but contained within the restriction on habeas corpus a power to suspend that writ is granted under the specified circumstances. Since Section 9 is in Article I, the grant of that suspension power is to the legislature.

The Congress is the check on the president to hold him accountable if he overreacts in his duty to protect the Constitution. Lincoln wasn't impeached so he acted appropriately.

It's still a non-sequitur. If you do not like that, fix your argument. Otherwise quit posting it and don't complain.

The Congress has the power to impeach, not the judiciary.

And the judiciary has the power to declare acts of the other two branches unconstitutional. That is its check. The judiciary did that to Lincoln. He ignored it. He therefore violated the constitutional authority of the judiciary.

So South Carolina didn't begin secession?

They did, but in doing so they acted alone. Alabama hosted the formation of the confederacy after other states, acting alone, also seceded.

To deny that secession was for slavery is to deny reality.

Prove your case of the sole reason then. To date you have been insufficient in your evidence for previously noted reasons. If you cannot offer anything more, you have no right to whine about it.

You said to replace the words in the quote with your made up words.

Where? Either prove your case or don't shoot your mouth off in the first place.

So why didn't he say proletariat if that's what he meant.

Because a synonym suffices. If I call you "stupid," do you ask why I did not instead call you "mentally slow"? No. Because both convey the same meaning. In marxian writings, the same goes for "worker" and "proletariat." The two are synonyms - they are different words that mean the same thing. What is it about that amazingly simple concept that you cannot grasp?

I listen long enough to determine if it's idiocy.

Not according to your earlier actions. You dismissed and ignored a brief two-paragraph quote from Spooner because you did not like it. That means you couldn't even "listen" for two paragraphs before shutting your eyes.

Spooner must not've realized that the union was preserved.

In other words, you did not read his quote. He recognizes that the country itself was retained intact. He attacks the legitimacy of the means in which it was retained.

I'm dismissing him because the result of the North's victory was preservation of the union. That's reality and Spooner denied it.

Where? It looks to me as if Spooner had many grievances with the way the union was retained. It is implicit in any such complaint that he knew the union to have been retained. Otherwise he would not have been able to complain about the methods used to retain it. Are you truly so stupid as to not comprehend that?

We seceded for freedom. The South seceded for slavery.

The south asserted the right to self government. Is that not freedom? The colonies asserted the maintanence of slavery. Is that not the system you decry?

There's no such thing as bible codes.

But you're convinced that America is the promised land?

So is Lee responsible for the murders of union prisoners?

In the cases they occurred and so long as they were under his command, he bears some responsibility.

More northern troops were murdered than southern troops.

The official records of the US government say otherwise. More southern POW's died in yankee hands than all of the northern POW's who died down south.

195 posted on 02/09/2003 11:46:28 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
As I stated in a reply to Whiskey Papa, I spent decades reading the "other side," which was really the only side until recently. It's wise to remember that "history is written by the victors." Have you read "The South Was Right?" or Thomas J. DiLorenzo's new book on Lincoln? If you get past the ardor the Kennedy brothers feel for the "Lost Cause," they make many good points. Their book is well-documented. I'm swayed by sourced material more than the personal prejudices of the author. Regardless, no member of the Daughters of the Confederacy could possibly summon any more ardor for her position than every court historian conveys for "Honest Abe" in every book on the subject.

Again, this subject is difficult to discuss in today's p.c. dominated culture. To express an opposition to Lincoln, or support for the south's right to secede, is effectively to express support for slavery. I think there's little doubt that, had slavery not existed in America in the 1860s, but a band of states decided to secede for whatever reason, that there would be near unanimous support for their cause (if not then, certainly now in historical hindsight).

I realize I'm in a distinct minority here, as in society at large. You state the established view of Lincoln and Civil War well. As I posted in my reply to Whiskey Papa, we'll have to agree to disagree.
196 posted on 02/09/2003 11:56:11 PM PST by bigunreal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: bigunreal
I think the historical record, and not just wishful political party thinking, reveals that Lincoln was the first "big government" president.

Y'all keep calling him that but Lincoln never interjected the government into society the way Jefferson Davis did. Would you call him the "bigger government" president?

He certainly enhanced the imperial powers of the oval office, and presidents such as Wilson, FDR, Johnson and Clinton benefited greatly from the precedents he set

How, exactly, did he do that? What precedents are you speaking of?

197 posted on 02/10/2003 3:44:40 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: bigunreal
I think the historical record, and not just wishful political party thinking, reveals that Lincoln was the first "big government" president.

He was the first president forced to use the power in the Constitution, that's all.

There is very little difference between what Washington, Madison, Jackson and Lincoln thought about the nature of the Union.

"The conduct of S. Carolina has called forth not only the question of nullification; but the more formidable one of secession. It is asked whether a State by resuming the sovereign form in which it entered the Union, may not of right withdrasw from it at will. As this is a simple question whether a State, more than an individual, has a right to violate its engagements, it would seem that it might be safely left to answer itself. But the countenance given to the claim shows that it cannot be so lightly dismissed. The natural feelings which laudably attach the people composing a state, to its authority and importance, are at present too much excited by the unnatural feelings, with which they have been inspired agst. (sic) their bretheren of other States, not to expose them, to the dangers of being misled into erroneous views of the nature of the Union and the interest they have in it. One thing at least seems to be too clear to be questioned; that whilst a State remains within the Union it cannot withdraw its citizens from the operation of the Constitution & laws of the Union. In the event of an actual secession without the Consent of the Co-States, the course to be pursued by these involves questions painful in the discussion of them. God grant that the menacing appearances, which obtrude it may not be followed by positive occurrences requiring the more painful task of deciding them!"

-- James Madison

The secessionists were dishonorable bums.

Walt

198 posted on 02/10/2003 5:37:52 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa (To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: bigunreal
I shouldn't have to state the obvious, but I am not now, nor have I ever been, a supporter of slavery.

I never feel that I have to make that statement.

The war came because the slave power feared the government was not and would not in the future help them enough in getting their bread from the sweat of other men's faces. Take that for a starting point.

Walt

199 posted on 02/10/2003 5:40:41 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa (To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
So you think America is God's country? Prove it then.

Look around.

Walt

200 posted on 02/10/2003 5:43:59 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa (To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 241-256 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson