Tammy Bruce: Lincoln vs. Obama -- The incredible tale of two libraries

This is a story of priorities and hypocrisy, brought to us by a president who saved the Union and was murdered for it, and a president whose policies and malevolence damaged both the nation and the world, and who is being rewarded for it.

The Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library Foundation is in trouble. It is auctioning off non-Lincoln related artifacts in an effort to pay back a loan that is coming due. You see, the Lincoln Library doesn’t make a lot of money or attract enough major donors to operate. This is odd, considering President Lincoln is a “favorite” president for so many of today’s modern politicians.

Lincoln wasn’t just a regular touchstone, as an example, for the now super wealthy Barack Obama, he was used to help get Mr. Obama elected as president. Mr. Obama’s affinity for, and similarity to, Mr. Lincoln was made clear to us by his sycophantic legacy media.

“In the last couple of years, several best-selling books have focused on the life and political skills of the nation’s 16th president. And one man in particular has taken a particular interest in not just reading about the Illinois politician, but also modeling himself politically after him. That man: Barack Obama, who will be sworn in as the nation’s 44th — and first African-American — president Tuesday …,” gushed CNN on Jan. 19, 2009.

The New York Times told us, “Not since Lincoln has there been a president as fundamentally shaped — in his life, convictions and outlook on the world — by reading and writing as Barack Obama.” Obama the bookworm. And even better than Lincoln.

And why would they want that? This sounds like the old saying about Russians who didn't want a cow for themselves, they just wanted their neighbor's cow to die.

Your idea was that it's all about money (and if it's not it's about power and ego).

That's when it comes to Abraham Lincoln and people from New York City.

But for you, the Confederates are choirboys, saintly types who never do anything out of self-interest.

Grow up and educate yourself.

If it were less profitable to do it some other way, what need for protectionist laws and tariffs? Do not their very existence serve as proof that costs would have been cut without them?

Tariffs were low after 1846. Southern states didn't have a legitimate grievance over existing tariff rates. And secessionists in Congress didn't care about the new Morrill rates, because they pulled out of Congress, rather than fight the rate hikes.

Two things you leave out of the picture:

1) The CSA was going to tax exports. This would make their cotton more expensive and encourage foreign processors to seek other sources.

It would also mean more of them money from cotton exports would end up in the pockets of the government, rather than those plantation owners you care so much about. Net result: less money for private investment in productive industry.

Government could well have played a larger role in the new CSA's economy than it did in the US economy. That was the case under Jefferson Davis's "war socialism" but it could conceivably have been the case even without war.

2) Confederate tariffs would apply to all imports from the United States. In practice, this would mean that Southerners in the CSA would pay more in tariffs, not less.

I know you want to think that American goods were junk in comparison to what came from Europe, but consumers, North and South, didn't think that way.

CSA products would have to pay US tariffs if sold in US markets. European goods imported through the CSA would have to pay two tariffs if sold in the US. The US was internally a free trade zone that encouraged industry. Cut it into two or more pieces and industries would have smaller home markets and fewer opportunities to show a profit.

I only know this being true of backward third world countries. I don't know of any western style countries that did worse on their own.

Educate yourself, or if you can't find some one who will.

Why did some societies become "backward third world countries"?

Why did Argentina, a country settled largely by Europeans and one of the richest countries in the world at one point, become "backward" and "third world"? By thinking they'd become fabulously wealthy if they cut out the middlemen.

Why did Russia, again a rapidly developing economy before the revolution eventually become an basket case? Why did non-White China and Japan become such great economic successes? Where were countries like Italy and Spain economically just a few generations back and where would they be without the EU?

Use your head -- if you can. It wasn't written in stone that some countries would be rich and others poor. Good and bad policy choices and opportunities made a difference. You can't pronounce it as dogma that the Confederacy would be an economic success, especially since cotton prices would eventually come down.

But of course, nothing anybody says will ever convince you ...

Um, you know Lampster I don’t know what religion you are but I’m a Catholic, ok? And my Lord And Savior Jesus Christ, who takes away the sins of the world never needed to ‘’virtue signal’’. Got it? He is virtue itself.

I link you to the parable of the Pharisee, and you think i'm accusing Jesus of "virtue signaling"?

Did you read the parable of the Pharisee? What was the Pharisee doing?

Here, read it again, and see if you can figure out who is doing the virtue signaling. Here's a hint. It isn't Jesus.

“Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank thee that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I get.’ 13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Jeez, ‘’x’’ is right about you. You’re a brick f**king wall alright.

Your idea was that it's all about money (and if it's not it's about power and ego).

It's about both.

But for you, the Confederates are choirboys, saintly types who never do anything out of self-interest.

You mistake me. I have little doubt that the wealthy of Charleston would have became the exact same sort of pretentious Controlling bastards that we now have running the country from New York. I make no claim that they are morally superior to the robber barons of New York, I think people are people, and they will always behave like people.

My point here is that they were exercising a right to self determination, while the Northerners were trying to suppress their right of self determination. The boundary line at determining fault is based on who was trying to oppress who. The Southerners were not trying to invade New York, or any other Northern territory. They were no threat to the United States, and they should have been left alone to seek whatever form of government they wished, even if they were a bunch of evil bastards.

One's right to self determination is not based on a subjective standard of "evil." It exists for any group of people, even people with whom we disagree.

Tariffs were low after 1846. Southern states didn't have a legitimate grievance over existing tariff rates.

Tariffs were just part of their problem. Various laws passed by the Northern coalition had jiggered trade so that it all went through New York, and according to one of BroJoeK's sources, 40% of that income was siphoned off as a consequence. Usage of the word "tariffs" minimizes the larger economic picture. It was bigger than just the losses caused by tariffs.

1) The CSA was going to tax exports. This would make their cotton more expensive and encourage foreign processors to seek other sources.

You can only claim that it would make it more expensive by giving us some numbers, and comparing it to the losses caused by the taxation of imports and the cost to the South of all the trade going through New York. (where investors were also getting profits.)

You can't make a blanket statement that because they were going to tax exports, this would have made cotton more expensive than what they already had with the Union. That is highly unlikely. Even with a tax on exports, they would have likely had significantly reduced costs elsewhere, and significantly reduced taxes on the things their money would buy from Europe.

Once again, you are trying to take a small piece of the picture, and make it into the entire story without taking into account the other bits.

It would also mean more of them money from cotton exports would end up in the pockets of the government, ...

This is true. Taxes put money in the pockets of the government, but it is a necessary evil if one is to have a government.

rather than those plantation owners...

That is non sequitur. The fact that they are getting taxed does not necessarily mean they will have less money in their pockets. They were already getting taxed on the back end from import tariffs, so putting it on the front end (exports) will only cost them money in their pockets if the tax rate exceeded that which they were already paying on the back end.

I think their taxes would have come out cheaper over all, and I also think their cost of doing business would have become dramatically cheaper when they could use foreign shipping to carry their trade, and when they didn't have to drop off profits in New York.

... you care so much about.

And here you are throwing another nasty ad hominem at me. No, I don't care about wealthy plantation owners. I merely recognize that they had a right to do what they wanted, even if they were evil @$$holes.

2) Confederate tariffs would apply to all imports from the United States. In practice, this would mean that Southerners in the CSA would pay more in tariffs, not less.

I very greatly doubt that. I think you are just throwing out another non sequitur in the hopes I won't notice that your claim has no underlying support.

I've never heard "Socialism" referred to as "middlemen" before. Argentina at one time had something like the third most powerful economy in the World, and then the fools voted in Socialism, and it all went to sh*t.

Why did Russia, again a rapidly developing economy before the revolution eventually become an basket case?

Why did Russia, a rapidly developing economy before the revolution, eventually become a basket case?

Um, I'll take Communist revolutions for $1,000 Alex! Seriously, I can't believe you asked that question, and on a conservative website to boot!

Why did non-White China and Japan become such great economic successes?

Uh, Capitalism? (Of course China went through a *LONG* period of terrible economic depression while they were Communist.)

You can't pronounce it as dogma that the Confederacy would be an economic success, especially since cotton prices would eventually come down.

Sure they would have eventually come down, but what do you suppose would have happened to all that capital that would have been created before that happened?

Do you think people would just put it in the bank and swim in it like Scrooge McDuck? You would have to be a spectacularly stupid sort of rich man to let money do nothing but sit in a bank.

That money would have gotten invested, and those investments would have paid dividends into the future. The entire social/economic structure would have been raised as a consequence of capital and investment created by that larger flow of money into their system.

The boundary line at determining fault is based on who was trying to oppress who. The Southerners were not trying to invade New York, or any other Northern territory. They were no threat to the United States, and they should have been left alone to seek whatever form of government they wished, even if they were a bunch of evil bastards.

They wanted to break off all the slave territory they could. They wanted Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Maryland, even Arkansas. Weakening the US in other ways would help them to achieve this. Davis, Stephens and the others weren't idealists seeking "self-determination." They were government guys playing Realpolitik and seeking to increase the sphere of their power and the viability of their new state.

Various laws passed by the Northern coalition had jiggered trade so that it all went through New York, and according to one of BroJoeK's sources, 40% of that income was siphoned off as a consequence.

So you say. But maybe New York City was more efficient at what it did and the effects of such laws was trivial. And really, I doubt BroJoe would agree with you that money was being "siphoned off."

You can't make a blanket statement that because they were going to tax exports, this would have made cotton more expensive than what they already had with the Union.

That is not at all what I said. I said, taxes on cotton would make European producers look to other sources. There was no great bonanza coming by cutting out New York. Most likely money would go to London businessmen, rather than to New Yorkers. But the deflection of trade resulting from export taxes and revulsion at slavery would have had major repercussions for the Confederate economy.

I very greatly doubt that. I think you are just throwing out another non sequitur in the hopes I won't notice that your claim has no underlying support.

On the contrary. Southerners used a lot of products produced in the North. Those products likely had lower shipping costs than products from Britain or elsewhere. They were probably more adapted to North American conditions. Slapping a 10% tariff on those goods would make many goods Southerners bought and used everyday more expensive. Dismissing that argument as a non-sequitur just indicates how unserious you are.

My point in citing Argentina, Russia, China and Japan was that what you call "the third world" isn't a given. It's something that was created by government policies. Argentina thought it was being exploited by British capitalists, so it turned toward demagoguery and populistic state policies that may or may not have been "socialistic." Those policies ruined the economy.

Similar ideas about commercial middlemen and capitalistic exploiters ruined Russia. You are pedaling the idea that New York capitalists were exploiting the Old South. It's likely that any government that followed your view would wreck the economy with its attempts to expropriate or redirect existing flows of commerce. Your stupid and childish mockery doesn't address the issues involved.

That did not happen in the West Indies before sugar prices went down. It didn't happen in other countries when rubber or coffee or some other commodity was riding high. It was quite the opposite: providing a single raw material for industrialized countries was a good way to ensure poverty, rather than wealth.

It is impossible to prove a counterfactual -- to prove authoritatively how things would be if some factors were different. You have to allow for a range of possibilities. I'm not saying definitely that the Confederacy would have been an economic basket case. But that was a real possibility. Ignoring possibilities and dogmatically insisting that you know what would have happened makes your argument and posts ridiculous.

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.