Posted on 09/06/2003 9:14:08 AM PDT by quidnunc
Abraham Lincoln is thought of by many as not only the greatest American statesman but as a great conservative. He was neither. Understanding this is a necessary condition for any genuinely American conservatism. When Lincoln took office, the American polity was regarded as a compact between sovereign states which had created a central government as their agent, hedging it in by a doctrine of enumerated powers. Since the compact between the states was voluntary, secession was considered an option by public leaders in every section of the Union during the antebellum period. Given this tradition — deeply rooted in the Declaration of Independence — a great statesman in 1860 would have negotiated a settlement with the disaffected states, even if it meant the withdrawal of some from the Union. But Lincoln refused even to accept Confederate commissioners, much less negotiate with them. Most of the Union could have been kept together. Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas voted to remain in the Union even after the Confederacy was formed; they reversed themselves only when Lincoln decided on a war of coercion. A great statesman does not seduce his people into a needless war; he keeps them out of it.
When the Soviet Union dissolved by peaceful secession, it was only 70 years old — the same age as the United States when it dissolved in 1860. Did Gorbachev fail as a statesman because he negotiated a peaceful dissolution of the U.S.S.R.? Likewise, if all states west of the Mississippi were to secede tomorrow, would we praise, as a great statesman, a president who refused to negotiate and launched total war against the civilian population merely to preserve the Union? The number of Southerners who died as a result of Lincoln’s invasion was greater than the total of all Americans killed by Hitler and Tojo. By the end of the war, nearly one half of the white male population of military age was either dead or mutilated. No country in World War II suffered casualties of that magnitude.
Not only would Lincoln not receive Confederate commissioners, he refused, for three crucial months, to call Congress. Alone, he illegally raised money, illegally raised troops, and started the war. To crush Northern opposition, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus for the duration of the war and rounded up some 20,000 political prisoners. (Mussolini arrested some 12,000 but convicted only 1,624.) When the chief justice of the Supreme Court declared the suspension blatantly unconstitutional and ordered the prisoners released, Lincoln ordered his arrest. This American Caesar shut down over 300 newspapers, arrested editors, and smashed presses. He broke up state legislatures; arrested Democratic candidates who urged an armistice; and used the military to elect Republicans (including himself, in 1864, by a margin of around 38,000 popular votes). He illegally created a “state” in West Virginia and imported a large army of foreign mercenaries. B.H. Liddell Hart traces the origin of modern total war to Lincoln’s decision to direct war against the civilian population. Sherman acknowledged that, by the rules of war taught at West Point, he was guilty of war crimes punishable by death. But who was to enforce those rules?
These actions are justified by nationalist historians as the energetic and extraordinary efforts of a great helmsman rising to the painful duty of preserving an indivisible Union. But Lincoln had inherited no such Union from the Framers. Rather, like Bismarck, he created one with a policy of blood and iron. What we call the “Civil War” was in fact America’s French Revolution, and Lincoln was the first Jacobin president. He claimed legitimacy for his actions with a “conservative” rhetoric, rooted in an historically false theory of the Constitution which held that the states had never been sovereign. The Union created the states, he said, not the states the Union. In time, this corrupt and corrupting doctrine would suck nearly every reserved power of the states into the central government. Lincoln seared into the American mind an ideological style of politics which, through a sort of alchemy, transmuted a federative “union” of states into a French revolutionary “nation” launched on an unending global mission of achieving equality. Lincoln’s corrupt constitutionalism and his ideological style of politics have, over time, led to the hollowing out of traditional American society and the obscene concentration of power in the central government that the Constitution was explicitly designed to prevent.
A genuinely American conservatism, then, must adopt the project of preserving and restoring the decentralized federative polity of the Framers rooted in state and local sovereignty. The central government has no constitutional authority to do most of what it does today. The first question posed by an authentic American conservative politics is not whether a policy is good or bad, but what agency (the states or the central government — if either) has the authority to enact it. This is the principle of subsidiarity: that as much as possible should be done by the smallest political unit.
The Democratic and Republican parties are Lincolnian parties. Neither honestly questions the limits of federal authority to do this or that. In 1861, the central government broke free from what Jefferson called “the chains of the Constitution,” and we have, consequently, inherited a fractured historical memory. There are now two Americanisms: pre-Lincolnian and post-Lincolnian. The latter is Jacobinism by other means. Only the former can lay claim to being the primordial American conservatism.
David W. Livingston is a professor of philosophy at Emory University and the author of Philosophical Melancholy and Delirium (University of Chicago Press).
On the contrary, there was Andersonville, Libby Prison, Salsbury, Danville, and on and on. For enemies of the regime there was the Eastern Military District Prison in Richmond, AKA Fort Thunder.
i feel for you or anyone else who has to try and defend "the filth that flowed down from the north". NOT an easy job.
You try to defend Jeff Davis and his gang of criminals so I don't feel all that bad.
Because if there was no interest in complying with the constitution before the war, and there was no interest in complying with the constitution during the war, why should we believe that there would have been any interest in complying with the constitution after the war? We're talking with the one institution that could have proven an impediment to the Davis regime. Following the war Davis could have easily used the excuse of a threat from a defeated U.S., the need to build a nation, allegations of Union agents within the southern population as a reason to maintain martial law, prohibit habeas corpus, and avoid staffing a court which might have crazy ideas about civil rights. As time when on Davis or his successors, if any, could have continued to avoid staffing a court until the whole idea of a supreme court died out completely.
after all it took the 13 colonies over a DECADE to establish the USSC.
That's one of the more ridiculous defenses of Davis's actions you have come up with. A Supreme Court was a product of the Constitution. One was not required prior to the ratification of the Constituiton, and within months of Washington's inauguration a Supreme Court was up and running.
It is more likely that imported cigars were seen as a luxury good and thus a means to shift the tax burden onto persons buying luxury items. Even then, a 25% tariff was low by the standards of the day and cigars were one of only 12 articles in the 25% category. The rest were predominantly 15% or 10% - a level that was lower than US tariffs had been for the previous half century (heck, 25% was lower than the US tariffs had been for the previous half century except for between 1857-60).
LOL. So it was a class warfare thing? How about it was good for Virginia tobacco farmers and cigar makers?
Yet again, the record proves you are a liar.
REALITY CHECK
==========
To: nolu chan
I don't know. What do you think?
Beats me. You're the one first claiming McPherson was a Marxist and then claiming he was a socialist.
545 posted on 09/15/2003 4:23 AM CDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 542 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
==========
To: Non-Sequitur
[Non-Seq] So is McPherson a socialist or a Marxist?
I don't know. What do you think?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 495 | [Non-Seq] And Foner and McPherson are Marxist on your say-so? Anyone who doesn't swallow the sothron position hook, line, and sinker has to be a Marxist? Well, that certainly clears that up.
McPherson the Socialist
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
542 posted on 09/15/2003 3:34 AM CDT by nolu chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 504 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
==========
To: nolu chan
So is McPherson a socialist or a Marxist?
504 posted on 09/14/2003 6:47 AM CDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 495 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
==========
To: Non-Sequitur; lentulusgracchus
[Non-Seq] And Foner and McPherson are Marxist on your say-so? Anyone who doesn't swallow the sothron position hook, line, and sinker has to be a Marxist? Well, that certainly clears that up.
McPherson the Socialist
* * *
495 posted on 09/14/2003 5:17 AM CDT by nolu chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 392 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
==========
To: lentulusgracchus
,i>He runs with Foner and McPherson, who are. Or will you now expostulate with me, and insist that Neely is only a fellow traveler?
And Foner and McPherson are Marxist on your say-so? Anyone who doesn't swallow the sothron position hook, line, and sinker has to be a Marxist? Well, that certainly clears that up.
392 posted on 09/13/2003 8:24 AM CDT by Non-Sequitur [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 388 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
==========
To: Non-Sequitur
Documenting the tyranny of the Davis regime makes Neely a Marxist? Or do you have anything else to support your claim?
He runs with Foner and McPherson, who are. Or will you now expostulate with me, and insist that Neely is only a fellow traveler?
388 posted on 09/13/2003 7:59 AM CDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
==========
To: lentulusgracchus
But these Marxist historians are all, all honorable men.
Documenting the tyranny of the Davis regime makes Neely a Marxist? Or do you have anything else to support your claim?
368 posted on 09/12/2003 8:33 PM CDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
==========
To: thatdewd; Non-Sequitur; rustbucket
[thatdewd, quoting] "Confederate authorities, Neely argues, used much the same pragmatic, flexible approach characteristic of the Lincoln administration..."
But McNeely put a rather different characterization in the title of his book, didn't he?
But these Marxist historians are all, all honorable men.
302 posted on 09/12/2003 9:32 AM CDT by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
==========
Yes he did. The tariff they adopted had an average rate of 13% - one of the lowest in the world and lower than ANY American rate in half a century. That you would consider the 1861 CSA tariff protectionist is, quite frankly, laughable.
The Secession Commissioners promised Virginia (and the other Upper South as well) protective tariffs in order to gain support for secession, and the Confederate Congress followed through.
No they didn't. The highest CSA rate, 25%, was imposed on only 12 of 431 articles. As you have discovered, at least one of those articles was a key luxury good making it ideal for revenue taxes just like cigarettes are today. Of the rest of those 431 articles, I think two or three on sugar goods (which were of no interest to Virginia) were 20%. Of all the goods in their tariff sugar is about the only one where even a strong case could be made for its protection elements. Everything else was 15% or less and by the standards of the day 15% was LOW for even revenue tariffs.
I'll go back to my original point. The South was not even close to being united on the topic of tariffs
They were united to a degree in which the anti-tariff factions constituted a solid majority of southerners. They were also united to a degree in which that majority's view was shared by every single southern congressman save one in 1860 and every single southern senator save one in 1861. And they were united to a degree that they were able to pass a provision prohibiting exclusively protectionist tariffs in their constitution. While it is indeed true that there were minority southern factions who opposed free trade, that is true of almost any issue and its existence does not in any way, shape, or form constitute that minority as either a majority or as a significant influence upon the majority.
As I have shown, the CSA tariff of 1861 was by the standards of the day one of the most free-trade oriented tariff schedules in the world. I am looking at a printout of the United States tariff schedule by year from 1821 through 1870 as I type. The absolute lowest average rate for any of those years was the one in place in 1860 that Morrill repealed. It's average rate was about 18% and at the time it was considered to be a free-trade tariff. The CSA one adopted the next year was, by comparison, 13% making it the lowest in the last half century.
and as a cause for secession, tariffs were a nothing.
The record indicates otherwise. If you doubt me, scroll up this thread and you can see Robert Toombs, Thomas Clingman, and Robert Hunter all voicing vehement opposition to the tariff policy of the north during the middle of the secession crisis. It is understandable that you would not know this as, aside from Toombs' speech, those quotes have not appeared in print since 1861. But they are nevertheless there, as are many many others just like them, all of which indicate very clearly that the tariff was a highly contentious issue being fought in the very middle of the secession debate.
No. It was an age old technique that has been employed since the days of Rome and before. Luxury goods, especially inelastic ones (as in those that are addictive and will be purchased despite price increases), are good candidates for taxation. Cigars are a classic example of a taxable luxury good.
How about it was good for Virginia tobacco farmers and cigar makers?
If they wanted to help tobacco farmers, they would have put a high tariff up on all tobacco goods - not just cigars. And since Virginia is not exactly known for its cigar makers I truly doubt there were enough of them to either clamor for protection or to reap its percieved benefits.
[Non-Seq] Well, they aren't. But neither is Lincoln. You claim nobody was supporting slavery and then toss in a couple of Lincoln quotes. Given that it's only fair to point out that both Davis and Lee were supporters of slavery.
REALITY CHECK
==========
To: nolu chan
I don't know anyone arguing that slavery was right or just...
Try Jefferson Davis or Robert Lee.
"We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Law in nature tells us to recognize him - our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude. Freedom only injures the slave. The innate stamp of inferiority is beyond the reach of change. You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables him to be." -- Jefferson Davis, March 1861
"Considering the relation of master and slave, controlled by humane laws and influenced by Christianity and an enlightened public sentiment, as the best that can exist between the white and black races while intermingled as at present in this country, I would deprecate any sudden disturbance of that relation unless it be necessary to avert a greater calamity to both." -- Robert Lee, January 1865
498 posted on 09/14/2003 6:27 AM CDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 496 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
==========
To: TheWriterInTexas; quidnunc
I don't know anyone arguing that slavery was right or just, but however wrong it was, it was clearly legal and protected by the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence was not law and many of those who signed it were slave owners.
Lincoln said, "in our greedy chase to make profit of the Negro, let us beware, lest we 'cancel and tear to pieces' even the white man's charter of freedom"
Lincoln, CW 2:276
Translation for the intellectually challenged:
The White Man's Charter of Freedom = The Declaration of Independence
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ON SLAVERY
* * *
496 posted on 09/14/2003 5:40 AM CDT by nolu chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 490 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
==========
To: quidnunc
* * *
In other words, Lincoln was right and embracing a Conservative tradition (i.e., recognizing the true origin of rights).
* * *
490 posted on 09/14/2003 3:01 AM CDT by TheWriterInTexas (Under Seige - MWCF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
==========
Of course, Non-Seq's response [546] to being documented as a plagiarist and a liar is, "I suppose that there was a point in there somewhere, but I'm damned if I can find it."
Of course, what could one expect from the Minister of Propaganda?
You obviously have more experience barking than I do as I have none, so I don't see I can legitimately argue the point with you.
I think that Jefferson realized that a permanent state of revolution was not equal to a permanent state of bloodshed and violence. All that was required to maintain liberty was the threat - that is, the revolutionary spirit that Wlat and his crew waste so much time arguing against.
Virginia secessionists delivered what they promised. Reflecting the firm southern consensus on the revenue tariff, the Confederacy enacted tariff schedules within the 20 to 15 percent range.
This is false and indicates either the author's mathematical ineptitude or a willful skewing of the CSA tariff's actual numbers. The CSA tariff schedule taxed 431 articles with a high of 25%. On average, that and other high level rates were outliers to the tariff's range. Only 12 articles fell in that top category and many of them were luxury goods. As economists Robert McGuire and Norman van Cott noted when analyzing the CSA trade position, the only good that arguably had clear protectionist elements to it was Louisiana sugar - but one of the 431 articles on the schedule. The remainder all fell well below 25% and not predominantly in the 15-20% range, but rather in the 10-15% range. That gave the CSA an average rate of about 13% - one of the lowest in the world.
Their breakdown of the tariff act history of the CSA is similarly skewed and statistically misrepresented: On February 9 (four days before the Virginia Secession Convention opened), the provisional Confederate Congress passed a tariff—almost identical to the U. S. Tariff of 1857—that imposed an ad valorem duty of 24 percent on most manufactured goods.
Once again their statistics are either mathematically inept or willfully misleading. The 1857 tariff, which was universally considered a free-trade tariff, imposed an average rate of 18-19% by the standard calculations - not 24% (see either the US Census Bureau or Taussig 1910).
Nine days later, the Confederate Congress amended this act to expand the free list of goods to include most food products as well as arms, ammunition, and gunpowder. On March 15—when the Virginia convention was still meeting—the Confederacy lowered the duty on pig iron and other iron products to 15 percent. In May of 1861, after Virginia had joined the Confederacy, the Confederate Congress implemented a new tariff schedule with duties ranging from 25 percent to 5 percent.
Their statistics are once again misleading. Range stats are particularly useless when outliers are present because those outliers suggest a wider expanse than is actually present (for example, if a tariff on thirty goods taxed five of them at 2%, fifteen of them at 4%, five of them at 6%, four of them at 8% and one of them at 75% it would produce a tariff range of 2% through 75%, suggesting that tariffs were high. But in reality 29 of the 30 items would be taxed at under 10%, making the tariff on the whole a very low one). This was clearly the case with the CSA tariff where only 12 of 431 articles fell in the top range of 25%. The overwhelming majority of the remainder were in the 5 to 15% range and the tariff as a whole had an average rate of 13%, or about half that of its top rate.
For the manufactured goods that that the Confederacy was most likely to import—iron products, textiles, boots and shoes, furniture, and wagons—the ad valorem duty was pegged at 15 percent. Although significantly lower than the U. S. Tariff of 1857 and the Morrill Tariff of 1861, the Confederate tariff nevertheless fell far short of Unionist predictions of free trade.
That is not the case at all. The 15% rate, which was among the lowest in the world at the time, caused a panic up north when it was adopted as northerners feared that goods would be imported into the south at that low rate then smuggled across the border, undermining the Morrill act. When analyzing tariffs of the 19th century we often forget that they were also THE primary source of government revenue at the time. So a 15% import tax was not high by any standards of the day, and something in the 10-15% range was generally a minimum range for even a relatively low-expense government to operate, much less one involved in a war.
There is good reason to believe that a peacetime Confederate tariff might have been even higher.
There is little if anything to indicate this, and in fact existing evidence suggests that the exact opposite would be true. A central tenet of the confederate economic strategy (barring wartime interference) was to gain the trade market that the north was alienating from itself through protectionism. The confederates anticipated that, absent a war, the trade that was chased out of New York (it literally halved overnight upon the passage of the Morrill act) would go to Charleston instead due to the trade-friendly tariff rates that the CSA would enact. The south would thereby become a center of economic wealth while the north exiled itself from the very same thing through protectionism. This strategy was openly advocated by the leading secessionists (almost all of whom were free traders) and in the major southern publications such as DeBow's Review and the Charleston Mercury. To believe that they would have pursued the opposite of this policy despite all the advocacy of it throughout the secession crisis is a gratuitously claimed and wholly unsubstantiated absurdity.
I believe the heart of the problem with this article is that its authors are not economists but rather historians. There is nothing wrong per se with that but the argument that they are trying to make does require at least some degree of economic analysis to be valid. But in this case two historians are attempting to make that economic argument without a sufficient understanding of the field. They are out of their league and it shows.
Ah, but GOP has already established the fact that the Morrill tariff was implemented before the war started. Therefore, you are in fact alleging that they passed the tariff knowing that the war would decrease tariff income. To say the tariff decreased that income is about as cogent as arguing that the Titanic sank because it hit whale before it hit the iceberg. IN wartime, the consumption of common consumables is decreased. Consider what happened to sugar in WWII. The argument that a few cents here or there on a tax that in total represented only a few cents on the dollar is ridiculous by any economic evaluation. To argue as you do that a tax that raised some 20 to thrity million from a GNP over 1.5 billion would be too much to bare is just silly.
Zealotry in action.
Yes, that explains your motives quite aptly. Can I pull this back on topic by asking why it was that Lincoln refused all attempts to negotiate the debt?
Certainly. First of all, the south didn't negotiate for the hundreds of millions they took, they just took them and then made a pretense of negotiating payment. The reason it was absurd to honor such a suggestion was that it would have acknowledged that felony crime was lawful, which it isn't. Secondly, under no stretch of anyone's imaginiation was the south in an shape financially to begin to pay what it had taken, not just in the months before the war, but in all the years leading up to it. If some homeless and jobless guy with no credit steals your car and then offers tp you for it on time, are you obligated to take his note? I think not.
Not at all, republics have existed throughout history wherein the territorial governers have maintained their power through force of arms and subjugation of the people. They did not enjoy freedom, yet lived in a republic - to which you would reply "Specious nitpicking, back in your hole."
CA's gun prohibition is "government is working as designed"? What a clownish attitude.
Is this a serious? California does not have a protection built into their constitution that 46 other states do, and you're telling me that it was not done on purpose? Take a look at the history of your state, why do you suppose it does not contain that clause? My suspicion is that the Midwest states left it out because they knew that were there an explicit RKBA within the state, they could not implement laws such as Illinois 'black codes' and keep guns out of the hands of ethnic minorities. Do you suppose heavy oriental immigration into CA may have had a similar effect?
You cry and whine about CA doing to you exactly what she had in mind for others at the formation of the state, then demand that somehow Washington do something, and, by corallary, Iowans (like me) help shoulder the burden. Like I said, CA government is working exactly as designed, only the target of it's prohibitions has changed.
Your disclaimer to not "like it" is merely more BS. -- You just spent a paragraph telling me to like it or leave it, your favorite specious ploy.
Yeah, I don't even know why I'm replying. After all, you can already read my thoughts. Maybe I'll just freepmail you my password so that you can go around telling others what I think. In this case, you happen to be right. Californian's problems with the government as they established it are not my problem, and I could give a crap less whether they decided to draw a letter of the alphabet out of a hat and drown everyone who's last name began with it.
I gave no "implicit agreement" to a violation of an inalienable right. -- You are a fool to believe that this is even possible.
So what then, every generation gets to re-ratify the constitution, bill of rights, and all amendments? The fact is that government is handed down from age to age and the only means for alteration are the amendment process and revolution. You seem unwilling to carry out either, so you just complain and demand that the rest of the country do something about it. Your claim that your rights were violated is (to cop a word from you) specious at best. If you didn't know that CA was anti-gun when you moved there, then you're either 100 years old or don't watch the news much.
Don't come into my neighborhood and demand that the age of consent is 14 because that was the case for your previous residence. It was a decision that you made, just like I said in an earlier post.
You are a constitutional scofflaw
Sorry to disappoint, but that is simply not the case.
----------------------------------------
Beg all you want. Your problem is your deiberate 'confusion'. You are attempting to 'tar baby' libertarians as being socialistic, which is an irrational ploy
Of course, you are wrong about this, and it is idiotic to continue your rambling. Go over to google and type in 'left libertarian' and you will see that this is not something I just made up. Really, those with smarts here are starting to get embarassed for you.
I tried to give summary before, but you just demanded that there's no such thing. Let me help you once again: Left Libertarians are people like you. They want to consolidate power with the federal government and use it to "protect our liberty."
If you need an example, I can name two:
1. Roe V. Wade,
2. Texas v. White
Expect that we will be seeing a lot of federal legislation soon to reinforce the Texas v White decision and insure that states aren't carrying out "jim crow" against the homosexuals.
Bizarre comment
I'm afraid you'll have to do better. First you espouse anarchy, then say that it's bizarre for me to call it anarchy?
Yep, ~criminal~ activities are constitutionally punished.
Criminal activities like owning an assault rifle? Oh wait, no, not those criminal activities. Seems as though you want to be the only one setting arbitrary standards. The arbitrary standards of others are totally invalid, however they meet the requirements set forth in the California constitution for legal enforcement, yet you should be exempt? What is your argument again?
We had that debate over two hundred years ago, and ratified our agreements. -- You scofflaws insist that our agreement can be violated by individual states. Why you presist in this insane denial of your own inalienable rights is beyond all rationality
You've become silly. The state conventions ratified a plan for federal government of our republic.
The circulars created formidable bureaucratic regulations to collect the tariff, with those importing goods via railways facing particularly onerous requirements.
So exactly what were those "onerous" requirements? Well, for one a railroad operator had to present not one but (gasp!) three lists of what his cargo contained at the revenue post! I mean, after all - how dare they require freight shippers to supply their cargo lists at the customs post upon entering a country! Why they should be able to simply march on in, hand a small bag of coins that they themselves have concluded to be sufficient for the duties, and continue on their merry way. Cause we certainly can't burden them with that "onerous" requirement of actually having to provide paper copies of their shipping cargo!
But wait - it got worse. The cargo had to be in a separate hold from the passengers! After all, how dare they not let the train operaters throw them in all together! And how dare we tell airlines today that they must put their cargo in a separate hold from the passengers up above. Why, by golly, there's room for a crate of chickens under every seat plus three pineapples and a box of coal in every overhead bin!
And if that were not outrage enough, get a load of what those evil confederate bureaucrats with their onerous regulations did next. They stuck a lock on the cargo container and (oh horror!) put it in a warehouse! After all, why would any shipper want to pay his tariff fee with anything other than cash on hand? Why on earth would he want to warehouse the stuff thereby giving him time to sell his merchandise and then pay the tariff as it was taken out of the warehouse and its lock removed? I mean, doesn't every merchant travel around the country with a large coffee can of gold under his mattress just ready to pay tariffs?
And then they even made the poor overburdoned importers obtain a bond pledging they would pay the duties when they removed their goods from that evil onerous warehousing system that let them import their goods closer to the margin and with greater economic benefit without having to carry large ammounts of advance cash on their person!
But get this - the poor merchants were not the only ones who had to face the "onerous" regulators. The customs agents dared to impose themselves upon ordinary passengers by conducting inspections of bags for smuggled goods! One can only imagine the pains those passengers must have suffered. After all, can you even fathom the horros that would be imposed upon travellers if, say for example, they had to declare their bag's contents to be free of dutiable goods and, if reasonable suspicion indicated it was necessary, submit it for inspection to the airport customs agent on every single international flight into the United States? Who knows - in all the horrors of that policy those poor overburdened travellers would even have to fill out a form! Such a system would be an outrage, I dare say! And if the United States Congress ever tried imposed that burdensome and onerous weight on the backs of international travellers why, why I'd get my senator to filibust...oh wait. We already do have that system in place. Nevermind...
Oh really? In early 1861 Senator John Slidell of Louisiana stood on the floor of the United States Senate and offered, on behalf of his state, to negotiate a settlement. The yankees refused to talk with him.
At that same time the state of South Carolina authorized a negotiating team and sent their Attorney General to Washington for the purpose of negotiating a settlement with the north. The yankees refused to meet with him.
A few weeks later the newly organized CSA government sent a three man team including a US Congressman, a former Governor of Louisiana, and the mayor of Mobile Alabama to Washington for the purpose of negotiating a settlement and delivering payment according to any settled terms. The yankees refused to meet with them.
After the CSA team had arrived in Washington and found the new Lincoln administration unwilling to negotiate, two sitting US Senators who had not yet seceded (Louis T. Wigfall of Texas and Robert M. T. Hunter of Virginia) offered to serve as intermediaries between the CSA negotiators and the Lincoln administration. Lincoln refused to meet with even the sitting senators.
After Lincoln refused even the senator's offer, a sitting justice of the US Supreme Court offered to act as an intermediary between the CSA negotiators and the Lincoln administration on a strictly informal basis. Lincoln refused to meet and, by way of Seward, conveyed false indications of his policy towards Fort Sumter to both the justice and the CSA negotiators.
Finding the new administration completely unwilling to engage in any form of diplomatic settlement to the secession crisis whatsoever, the CSA negotiators then returned to Montgomery. Upon return John Forsyth, one of the negotiators and mayor of Mobile, informed the confederate government of the situation he faced:
"There is little that I can add to letters and telegrams previously dispatched. We never had a chance to make Lincoln an offer of any kind. You can't negotiate with a man who says you don't exist"
Hmmmm? Seems to me that on Friday your dismissed them because they were "economists" (like Tommy DiLusional) not historians. Now you say they don't know anything about economics because you don't agree with their interpertations of Confederate customs inspections which even if they are wrong, has nothing to do with the question at hand.
But with all of your rants and attacking the messanger bluster, you have done absolutly nothing to show where they are wrong in saying that the Confederate tariff was indeed a protectionist tariff which blows the legs off the Lost Cause Myth that the war was about tariffs, not slavery.
You are grasping at straws. The war was about slavery, not tariffs.
If the BOR was done away with, our "republic" would still stand. The BOR is the foundation for our freedom, not our republic.
Specious nitpicking.
Not at all, republics have existed throughout history wherein the territorial governers have maintained their power through force of arms and subjugation of the people. They did not enjoy freedom, yet lived in a republic - to which you would reply "Specious nitpicking, back in your hole."
No, I'll reply that you are insane to say a ~republic~ maintains its "power through force of arms and subjugation of the people"...
-------------------------------------
CA's gun prohibition is "government working as designed"? What a clownish attitude.
Is this a serious? California does not have a protection built into their constitution that 46 other states do, and you're telling me that it was not done on purpose?
Yep, I believe it was simply an oversight. In the Ca of 1848 the RKBA's was a given. Everyone carried, at will.
Take a look at the history of your state, why do you suppose it does not contain that clause? My suspicion is that the Midwest states left it out because they knew that were there an explicit RKBA within the state, they could not implement laws such as Illinois 'black codes' and keep guns out of the hands of ethnic minorities. Do you suppose heavy oriental immigration into CA may have had a similar effect?
No, I doubt it did, as "heavy oriental immigration into CA" did not start till the gold rush. You've proven yourself a bigoted fool.
You cry and whine about CA doing to you exactly what she had in mind for others at the formation of the state,
Another bizarre claim..
then demand that somehow Washington do something, and, by corallary, Iowans (like me) help shoulder the burden. Like I said, CA government is working exactly as designed, only the target of it's prohibitions has changed.
Weird. -- You imagine CA's founders designed its constitution to be able to prohibit guns. Incredible...
------------------------------------
Your disclaimer to not "like it" is merely more BS. -- You just spent a paragraph telling me to like it or leave it, your favorite specious ploy.
Yeah, I don't even know why I'm replying. After all, you can already read my thoughts. Maybe I'll just freepmail you my password so that you can go around telling others what I think. In this case, you happen to be right.
Yep, it's merely more BS--- didn't I just say that?
Californian's problems with the government as they established it are not my problem, and I could give a crap less whether they decided to draw a letter of the alphabet out of a hat and drown everyone who's last name began with it.
More proof that you're a scofflaw. Thanks.
---------------------------------------
--- the people of CA did not include RKBA in their BOR at the state level. By living there, you grant implicit agreement with their governing documents, which have allowed them the leeway to restrict weapons.
More bull. -- I moved here as a citizen of the USA, with a 2nd amendment RKBA's, which has since been violated by unconstitutional state acts, which I fought since they were proposed. I gave no "implicit agreement" to a violation of an inalienable right. -- You are a fool to believe that this is even possible.
So what then, every generation gets to re-ratify the constitution, bill of rights, and all amendments? The fact is that government is handed down from age to age and the only means for alteration are the amendment process and revolution.
Exactly my argument. CA cannot violate my RKBA's by fiat prohibitions.
You seem unwilling to carry out either, so you just complain and demand that the rest of the country do something about it. Your claim that your rights were violated is (to cop a word from you) specious at best. If you didn't know that CA was anti-gun when you moved there, then you're either 100 years old or don't watch the news much.
How dumb you are. - I moved to CA in '58, right after bearing army arms, --- and I can assure you there were few or no 'anti-gun' laws in the state. The feds 'ruled' with the NFA of '34, which 'taxed' all the evil weapons of the day.
Don't come into my neighborhood and demand that the age of consent is 14 because that was the case for your previous residence. It was a decision that you made, just like I said in an earlier post.
You're goofy. I made no such 'demand'.
--------------------------------
You are a constitutional scofflaw.
Sorry to disappoint, but that is simply not the case.
Your own words belie you.
----------------------------------------
Beg all you want. Your problem is your deiberate 'confusion'. You are attempting to 'tar baby' libertarians as being socialistic, which is an irrational ploy
Of course, you are wrong about this, and it is idiotic to continue your rambling. Go over to google and type in 'left libertarian' and you will see that this is not something I just made up. Really, those with smarts here are starting to get embarassed for you. I tried to give summary before, but you just demanded that there's no such thing. Let me help you once again: Left Libertarians are people like you. They want to consolidate power with the federal government and use it to "protect our liberty." If you need an example, I can name two: 1. Roe V. Wade, 2. Texas v. White Expect that we will be seeing a lot of federal legislation soon to reinforce the Texas v White decision and insure that states aren't carrying out "jim crow" against the homosexuals.
Bizarre comments
I'm afraid you'll have to do better. First you espouse anarchy, then say that it's bizarre for me to call it anarchy?
I didn't "espouse anarchy"... You are lying in your desperation to refute my rational comments.
-------------------------------------
Yep, ~criminal~ activities are constitutionally punished.
Criminal activities like owning an assault rifle? Oh wait, no, not those criminal activities.
Merely owning such a rifle is CRIMINAL in your mind, Gianni? Thank you, you've proved my point. Case closed.
Seems as though you want to be the only one setting arbitrary standards. The arbitrary standards of others are totally invalid, however they meet the requirements set forth in the California constitution for legal enforcement, yet you should be exempt? What is your argument again?
We had that debate over two hundred years ago, and ratified our agreements. -- You scofflaws insist that our agreement can be violated by individual states. Why you presist in this insane denial of your own inalienable rights is beyond all rationality
You've become silly. The state conventions ratified a plan for federal government of our republic.
Indeed they did, and they agreed to be bound by the supreme law, -- which is our constitution, as amended. [See Art. VI]
Clearly rational people made decisions in which majorities could regulate the behaviour of others. This is why child molesterers are in prison.
Yep, ~criminal~ activities are constitutionally punished.
Public activities can be 'regulated' by reasonable community standards.
Other that that we are at liberty. -- Until a Gianni type legislates away our freedoms.
Criminal activities like owning an assault rifle? Oh wait, no, not those criminal activities.
Merely owning such a rifle is CRIMINAL in your mind, Gianni? Thank you, you've proved my point. Case closed.
You are a constitutional scofflaw.
Je was already a thief. As I pointed out, it was impossible to recognize him without giving a felony the onus of being a legal act. Doesn't take much of a lawyer to figure that one out.
At that same time the state of South Carolina authorized a negotiating team and sent their Attorney General to Washington for the purpose of negotiating a settlement with the north. The yankees refused to meet with him.
Even later for them. Same issue. The time to negotiate was before the illegal seizure of property belonging to all of the states.
A few weeks later the newly organized CSA government sent a three man team including a US Congressman, a former Governor of Louisiana, and the mayor of Mobile Alabama to Washington for the purpose of negotiating a settlement and delivering payment according to any settled terms. The yankees refused to meet with them.
Of course. They had no right to steal the property in the first place. At a minimum, it was their obligation to return it before attempting to open any discussion on the matter. Since they did not, there was no alternative but to regard them as felons.
After the CSA team had arrived in Washington and found the new Lincoln administration unwilling to negotiate, two sitting US Senators who had not yet seceded (Louis T. Wigfall of Texas and Robert M. T. Hunter of Virginia) offered to serve as intermediaries between the CSA negotiators and the Lincoln administration. Lincoln refused to meet with even the sitting senators.
If the men had asked Hunter and Wigfall to represent them at trial for their crimes, that would have been a different matter, but they didn't.
After Lincoln refused even the senator's offer, a sitting justice of the US Supreme Court offered to act as an intermediary between the CSA negotiators and the Lincoln administration on a strictly informal basis. Lincoln refused to meet and, by way of Seward, conveyed false indications of his policy towards Fort Sumter to both the justice and the CSA negotiators.
Our government still has a standing policy not to negotiate with criminals with the purpose of facilitating their criminal activity.
Finding the new administration completely unwilling to engage in any form of diplomatic settlement to the secession crisis whatsoever, the CSA negotiators then returned to Montgomery. Upon return John Forsyth, one of the negotiators and mayor of Mobile, informed the confederate government of the situation he faced:
"There is little that I can add to letters and telegrams previously dispatched. We never had a chance to make Lincoln an offer of any kind. You can't negotiate with a man who says you don't exist"
While individual states had an implicit right to secede, the formation of a combination was another matter, as was the aborgation of the responsibility of the Federal government to assure a Republican form of government in states that had not legitimately voted to secede.
Besides, any such negotiations would only have been a sham, as the south could never afford to pay back it's debts to the Union. Still can't today. How were they ever to do it then?
Whether or not you contend that any of the southern states left legitimately by popular consent, even one state in the CSA by any other means invalidated it's existence, even if the Constitution did not forbid combinationd formed by secessionary states. Lincoln had no choice.
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.