Posted on 04/29/2002 10:04:22 PM PDT by davidjquackenbush
Only because DiLorenzo's "secondary sources", Greg Loren Durand and CrownRights.com never mentioned any of that. ;~))
"We recognize the Negro as God and God's Book and God's Laws in nature tell us to recognize him - our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude...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"
Or is racism OK for Davis and not OK for Lincoln? You may have to ask billbears on that one. He hasn't answered me on it yet.
So it was, and so it is with the great Democratic party, which, from the days of Jefferson until this period, has proven itself to be the historic party of this nation. While the Whig and Democratic parties differed in regard to a bank, the tariff, distribution, the specie circular and the sub-treasury, they agreed on the great slavery question which now agitates the Union. I say that the Whig party and the Democratic party agreed on this slavery question while they differed on those matters of expediency to which I have referred.
Up to 1854 the old Whig party and the Democratic party had stood on a common platform so far as this slavery question was concerned. You Whigs and we Democrats differed about the bank, the tariff, distribution, the specie circular and the sub-treasury, but we agreed on this slavery question and the true mode of preserving the peace and harmony of the Union.
Some one else can post the other four references to the tariff from the seven debates. The next step would be to actually read the documents in full with reference to a calendar and the whole body of Lincoln's words and deeds, and in comparison to other documents of their day. That's a lot of work that I'm not about to do.
In any case, Lincoln did think about the tariff. Politicians do have to think about the issues of the day. If he received a letter from a tariff advocate or had to give a speech before a pro-tariff group, he would have to address the subject. But a brief examination of the record does suggest that the tariff was much less on Lincoln's mind in the late 1850s and 1860s than it was in his youth in the 1830s and 1840s. The database yields few or no references to the tariff by Lincoln during his Presidency, though he may have used other words to refer to import duties.
The tariff was an important issue in American history. It was even explosive in the 1830-1 nullification crisis. But it would be a mistake to view this issue through the lens of 20th century conflicts over freedom versus socialism. The founders all accepted that tariffs would finance the federal government. Having a protective tariff did not imply having a powerful welfare state. Di Lorenzo's idea that because Hamilton or Clay or Lincoln or McKinley favored a protective tariff they were socialists or statists in some way that their opponents weren't, is not something that most other observers, at the time or now, would accept.
That was comically pitiful, your posting Dilorenzo's column in which he stomps a mudhole in your ass and walks it dry. Thanks for the laugh.
Not true at all. Lincoln always opposed slavery, was willing because of the constitution to allow it where it existed, but just like Washington, Madison, and the others founders who even before the Constitution, firmly opposed banned the expansion of slavery to the territories. He believed, correctly I might add, that slavery would have died on its own if confined to the states where it then existed.
The slaveocracy scum you support broke the Union over the issue of expansion. Lincoln was 100% consistantly opposed to expansion from his earliest days in politics. That is all documented quite well and DiLorenzo is nothing but another liar scaming the "Lost Cause" fools who think the South will rise again.
Only because he was a white separatist who wanted to keep blacks, slave or free, out of the midwest.
President Lincoln proposed voting rights for blacks. That is hardly the work of a white separatist.
Whatsamatter? Not going to post to me any more?
Walt
Lincoln was a megalomaniacal, corporate lawyer who used extra-constitutional brute force to destroy others rights to property and self-determination, to further concentrate and expand federal power. All masterfully and conveniently wrapped in the moral cloth of furthering his own special enlightened vision of race relations.
What a POLITICIAN! What a TYRANT!
Clinton was an amateur by comparison.
Only because he was a white separatist who wanted to keep blacks, slave or free, out of the midwest.
Well, you are wrong, of course.
I believe the record will show no references from President Lincoln at all to colonization, compensated emancipation or anything similar after black soldiers fought under Old Glory.
He was a pretty fair-minded guy.
Walt
Would you please consider providing me with a few paragraphs synopsis of Whig policy concerning the funding of the FEDGOV, as it would save my aching eyeballs and would be greatly appreciated?
If you would also include your assessment of Lincoln with regard to the extent to which he implemented, expanded, or curtailed such Whig-like economic policies, I would be much obliged.
Maybe, maybe not. But what the hell is your point? That Lincoln did not have 20th century morals? Fredrick Douglass didn't agree with you, but even if you are right, So what? If that makes Lincoln a bad man, where the hell does that leave your Confederate heroes who said that blacks were sub-human? Where does that put Justice Taney who you guys love to quote on the Merryman case who said in Scott that Blacks, free or slave, could never be citizens because they were not humans? Where does it leave Jeff Davis, Alexander Stephens, Judah Benjaman, Robert Toombs, Nathan Bedford Forest, and all the other slavers who have monuments, roads and schools named for them and even mountainsides carved in their likeness all over Dixie? Your heroes did not even recognize blacks as anything more than a horse or cow, yet you have the nerve to criticize Lincoln because he didn’t think they were as smart as whites!
Lincoln recognized their humanity even if he didn't think them equal. He said they deserved all the protections of the constitution as anyone else. He said that they were entitled to the fruits of their labor and life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, while the Confederacy that you worship was dedicated, according to its most ardent defenders, to a single proposition --- the maintenance and expansion of Negroe Slavery and a lifetime in chains.
Choose your side ---- a flawed Lincoln who favored freedom even for people he may or may not have thought to be his equal, or the Confederates who attempted to create the first nation in history dedicated by their own words, to slavery of those same people.
You can't have it both ways.
Yet he did not ignore whole sections of the Constitution, as Davis did. He did not nationalize whole sectors of the economy, as Davis did. He was not appointed to office or run unopposed in a sham election, as Davis did. When it comes to megalomaniacal power grabbing Lincoln was an amature compared to Jefferson Davis.
Taney never said that Blacks were not humans.
No, but he came awfully darned close to it.
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.