Republican History Revealed

To: justshutupandtakeit

I can say nothing to refute your off the wall rant more effective, than to suggest that people reread it! You well illustrate my point, that your position is hate-driven.

But I will point out some obvious things, which even you will agree with, if you will stop and catch your breath, and stop having a veritable tantrum:

When you suggest that Andrew Jackson would have gone on the rampage you suggest, you conveniently ignore the fact that Jackson was a slaveholder, himself. He was not working his own estate at the Hermitage. When Jackson joked about hanging John C. Calhoun, who was his intellectual superior, he was angry about the Tariff nullification attempt. It had nothing to do with slavery.

As for Hamilton & Lincoln & the Constitution? The Constitution specifically recognizes slavery. You may wish that it did not. But it did--specifically in providing for the fugitive slave laws, that secured the return of runaway slaves.

But it is not your preoccupation with radical assessment of American Societies of the middle 19th Century, which offends American Conservatives. It is your support for monolithic structures--similar to Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. You would be as offensive, if you were advocating forcing New England to live under Southern social values, as you are suggesting the converse.

America was never intended to be a Nazi style monolith. It was never intended to force one social view on all Americans. And it is your intemperate refusal to allow the diversity, an acceptance of which made America possible, originally, that makes your rant totally unacceptable to thinking Conservatives, North or South.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

221 posted on 07/24/2003 3:01:47 PM PDT by Ohioan

To: justshutupandtakeit

Thanks for posting those interesting graphs.

You are most welcome.

I think we differ very little on the main thrust of this data, but I suppose our differences merit a bit more discussion.

The only statement of yours with which I disagree is that there is some sort of provable, direct correlation between statewide educational levels and military recruitment. The DoD study (at least the portions I cited in post #178) specifically rejects this notion--"no one factor can explain variations in enlistment rates between different sections of the country; they are more likely attributable to a wide array of economic, social, and demographic factors." If you draw a different conclusion from the information I posted, it would appear to be based on assumptions made at variance with the DoD study.

Now, I agree with you that there might be some possible correlation lurking out there involving educational levels and military recruitment, but this study does not seem to provide evidence for that proposition. Furthermore, as a matter of speculation, I doubt whether this variable's influence on recruitment can be separated easily from other factors which weigh on the decision to enlist.

Lastly, I should point out this statement of yours:

Southerners have always been a disproportionate percent of the armed forces. Its culture was strongly pro-military even around the time of the Slavers' Revolt.

Now, I must admit, this I don't understand. "Culture" explains historical levels of Southern over-representation in the military, but present-day levels are clearly attributable to disparities in statewide education availability?

222 posted on 07/24/2003 3:25:39 PM PDT by bourbon

To: justshutupandtakeit

the last sentence of post #222 should read: "disparities in statewide educational availability." Please excuse the error.

223 posted on 07/24/2003 3:30:57 PM PDT by bourbon

To: justshutupandtakeit

You have attempted to pass these distortions of Hamiltonianism before and this latest attempt is no more accurate.

It's no distortion at all. Hamilton made his strong inclination toward economic interventionism perfectly clear. Here's an excerpt Alexander Hamilton's famous Report on Manufactures of 1791, the DEFINING DOCUMENT of Hamiltonian economics. It is laden with calls for protectionism, federal expenditures, and widespread government economic intervention. That is not capitalism, fake-it. That is interventionism and Hamilton was by definition an interventionist. Live with it:

In order to a better judgment of the means proper to be resorted to by the United States, it will be of use to advert to those which have been employed with success in other countries. The principal of these are--

I. Protecting duties

Protecting duties--or duties on those foreign articles which are the rivals of the domestic ones, intended to be encouraged.

Duties of this nature evidently amount to a virtual bounty on the domestic fabrics since by enhancing the charges on foreign articles, they enable the national manufacturers to undersell all their foreign competitors. The propriety of this species of encouragement need not be dwelt upon; as it is not only a clear result from the numerous topics which have been suggested, but is sanctioned by the laws of the United States in a variety of instances; it has the additional recommendation of being a resource of reevenue. Indeed all the duties imposed on imported articles, though with an exclusive view to revenue, have the effect in contemplation, and except where they fall on raw materials wear a beneficent aspect towards the manufactures of the country.

II. Prohibitions of rival articles or duties equivalent to prohibitions

This is another and an efficacious mean of encouraging national manufactures, but in general it is only fit to be employed when a manufacture, has made such a progress and is in so many hands as to insure a due competition, and an adequate supply on reasonable terms. Of duties equivalent to prohibitions, there are examples in the Laws of the United Staets, and there are other cases to which the principle may be advantageously extended, but they are not numerous.

Considering a monopoly of the domestic market to its own manufacturers as the reigning policy of manufacturing nations, a similar policy on the part of the United States in every proper instance, is dictated, it might almost be said, by the principles of distributive justice; certainly by the duty of endeavoring to secure to their own citizens a reciprocity of advantages.

III. Prohibitions of the exportation of the materials of manufactures

The desire of securing a cheap and plentiful supply for the national workmen, and, where the article is either peculiar to the country, or of peculiar quality there, the jealousy of enabling foreign workmen to rival those of the nation, with its own materials, are the leading motives to this species of regulation. It ought not to be affirmed, that it is in no instance proper, but it is certainly one which ought to be adopted with great circumspection and only in very plain cases. It is seen at once, that its immediate operation, is to abridge the demand and keep down the price of the produce of some other branch of industry, generally speaking, of agriculture, to the prejudice of those, who carry it on; and though if it be really essential to the prosperity of any very important national manufacture, it may happen that those who are injured in the first instance, may be eventually indemnified, by the superior steadiness of an extensive domestic market, depending on that prosperity: yet in a matter, in which there is so much room for nice and difficult combinations, in which such opposite considerations combat each other, prudence seems to dictate, that the expedient in question, ought to be indulged with a sparing hand.

IV. Pecuniary bounties

This has been found one of the most efficacious means of encouraging manufactures, and it is in some views, the best. Though it has not yet been practiced upon by the government of the United States (unless the allowances on the exportation of dried and pickled fish and salted meat could be considered as a bounty) and though it is less favored by public opinion than some other modes.

Its advantages, are these--

It is a species of encouragement more positive and direct than any other, and for that very reason, has a more immediate tendency to stimulate and uphold new enterprises, increasing the chances of profit, and diminishing the risks of loss, in the first attempts.

It avoids the inconvenience of a temporary augmentation of price, which is incident to some other modes, or it produces it to a less degree; either by making no addition to the charges on the rival foreign article, as in the case of protecting duties, or by making a smaller addition. The first happens when the fund for the bounty is derived from a different object (which may or may not increase the price of some other article, according to the nature of that object) the second, when the fund is derived from the same or a similar object of foreign manufacture. One percent duty on the foreign article converted into a bounty on the domestic, will have an equal effect with a duty of two percent, exclusive of such bounty; and the price of the foreign commodity is liable to be raised, in the one case, in the proportion of one percent; in the other, in that of two percent. Indeed the bounty when drawn from another source is calculated to promote a reduction of price, because without laying any new charge on the foreign article, it serves to introduce a competition with it, and to increase the total quantity of the article in the market.

Bounties have not like high protecting duties, a tendency to produce scarcity. An increase of price is not always the immediate, though, where the progress of a domestic manufacture does not counteract a rise, it is commonly the ultimate effect of an additional duty. In the interval, between the laying of the duty and a proportional increase of price, it may discourage importation, by intefering with the profits to be expected from the sale of the article.

Bounties are sometimes not only the best, but the only proper expedient, for uniting the encouragement of a new object of agriculture, with that of a new object of manufacture. It is the interest of the farmer to have the production of the raw material promoted, by counteracting the interference of the foreign material of the same kind. It is the interest of the manfuacturer to have the material abundant and cheap. If prior to the domestic production of the material, in sufficient quantity, to supply the manufacturer on good terms; a duty to be laid upon the importation of it from abroad, with a view to promote the raising of it at home, the interests both of the farmer and manufacturer will be disserved. By either destroying the requisite supply, or raising the price of the article, beyond what can be afforded to be given for it, by the conductor of an infant manufacture, it is abandoned or fails; and there being no domestic manufactories to create a demand for the raw material, which is raised by the farmer, it is in vain, that the competition of the like foreign article may have been destroyed.

It cannot escape notice, that a duty upon the importation of an article can no otherwise aid the domestic production of it, than giving the latter greater advantages in the home market. It can have no influence upon the advantageous sale of the article produced, in foreign markets; no tendency, therefore to promote its exportation.

The true way to conciliate these two interests, is to lay a duty on foreign manufactures of the material, the growth of which is desired to be encouraged, and to apply the produce of that duty by way of bounty, either upon the production of the material itself or upon its manufacture at home or upon both. In this disposition of the thing, the manufacturer commences his enterprise under every advantage, which is attainable, as to quantity or price, of the raw material: And the farmer if the bounty be immediate to him, is enabled by it to enter into a successful competition with the foreign material; if the bounty be to the manufacturer on so much of the domestic material as he consumes, the operation is nearly the same; he has a motive of interest to prefer the domestic commodity, if of equal quality, even at a higher price than the foreign, so long as the difference of price is any thing short of the bounty which is allowed upon the article.

Except the stable and ordinary kinds of household manufactures, or those for which there are very commanding local advantages, pecuniary bounties are in most cases indispensable to the introduction of a new branch. A stimulus and a support not less powerful and direct is generally speaking essential to the overcoming of the obstacles which arise from the competitions of superior skill and maturity elsewhere. Bounties are especially essential, in regard to articles, upon which those foreigners, who have been accustomed to supply a country, are in the practice of granting them.

The continuance of bounties on manufactures long established must almost always be of questionable policy: because a presumption would arise in every such case, that there were natural and inherent impediments to success. But in new undertakings, they are as justifiable, as they are oftentimes necessary.

There is a degree of prejudice against bounties from an appearance of giving away the public money, without an immediate consideration, and from a supposition, that they serve to enrich particular classes, at the expense of the community.

But neither of these sources of dislike will bear a serious examination. There is no purpose, to which public money can be more beneficially applied, than to the acquisition of a new and useful branch of industry; no consideration more valuable than a permanent addition to the general stock of productive labor.

As to the second source of objection, it equally lies against other modes of encouragement, which are admitted to be eligible. As often as a duty upon a foreign article makes an addition to its price, it causes an extra expense to the community, for the benefit of the domestic manufacturer. A bounty does no more: But it is in the interest of the society in each case, to submit to a temporary expense, which is more than compensated, by an increase in industry and wealth, by an augmentation of resources and independence; and by the circumstance of eventual cheapness, which has been noticed in another place.

It would deserve attention, however, in the employment of this species of encouragement in the United States, as a reason for moderating the degree of it in the instances, in which it might be deemed eligible, that the great distance of this country from Europe imposes very heavy charges on all the fabrics which are brought from thence, amounting from 15 to 30 percent on their value, according to their bulk.

A question has been made concerning the constitutional right of the government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement, but there is certainly no good foundation for such a question. The national legislature has express authority ``To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare'' with no other qualifications than that ``all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States, that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to numbers ascertained by a census or enumeration taken on the principles prescribed in the Constitution,'' and that ``no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.'' These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary, and indefinite; and the objects to which it may be appropriated are no less comprehensive, than the payment of the public debts and the providing for the common defense and ``general welfare.'' The terms ``general welfare'' were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which preceded; otherwise numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union, to appropriate its revenues should have been restricted within narrower limits than the ``general welfare'' and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the national legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general interests of learning of agriculture, of manufactures, and of commerce are within the sphere of the national councils as far as regards an application of money.

The only qualification of the generality of the phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be general and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the general welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude which is granted too in express terms would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorized in the Constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.

V. Premiums

These are of a nature allied to bounties, though distinguishable from them, in some important features.

Bounties are applicable to the whole quantity of an article produced, or manufactured, or exported, and involve a correspondent expense. Premiums serve to reward some particular excellence or superiority, some extraordinary exertion or skill, and are dispensed only in a small number of cases. But their effect is to stimulate general effort. Contrived so as to be both honorary and lucrative, they address themselves to different passions; touching the chords as well of emulation as of interest. They are accordingly a very economical mean of exciting the enterprise of a whole community.

There are various societies in different countries, whose object is the dispensation of premium for the encouragement of agriculture, arts, manufactures and commerce; and though they are for the most part voluntary associations, with comparatively slender funds, their utility has been immense. Much has been done by this mean in Great Britain; Scotland in particular owes materially to it a prodigious amelioration of condition. From a similar establishment in the United States, supplied and supported by the government of the Union, vast benefits might reasonably be expected. Some further ideas on this head, shall accordingly be submitted, in the conclusion of this report.

VI. The exemption of the materials of manufactures from duty

The policy of that exemption as a general rule, particularly in reference to new establishments, is obvious. It can hardly ever be advisable to add the obstructions of fiscal burdens to the difficulties which naturally embarrass a new manufacture; and where it is matured and in condition to become an object of revenue, it is generally speaking better that the fabric, than the material should be the subject of taxation. Ideas of proportion between the quantum of the tax and the value of the article, can be more easily adjusted, in the former, than in the latter case. An argument for exemptions of this kind in the United States, is to be derived from the practice, as far as their necessities have permitted, of those nations whom we are to meet as competitors in our own and in foreign markets.

There are however exceptions to it; of which some examples will be given under the next head.

The laws of the Union afford instances of the observance of the policy here recommended, but it will probably be found advisable to extend it to some other cases. Of a nature, bearing some affinity to that policy is the regulation which exempts from duty the tools and implements, as well as the books, cloths and household furniture of foreign artists, who come to reside in the United States; an advantage already secured to them by the laws of the Union, and which, it is in every view, proper to continue....

VIII. The encouragement of new inventions and discoveries

The encouragement of new inventions and discoveries at home, and of the introduction into the United States of such as may have been made in other countries; particularly those, which relate to machinery.

This is among the most useful and unexceptionable of the aids, which can be given to manufactures. The usual means of that encouragement are pecuniary rewards, and, for a time, exclusive privileges. The first must be employed, according to the occasion, and the utility of the invention, or discovery: For the last, so far as respects ``authors and inventors'' provision has been made by law. But it is desirable in regard to improvements and secrets of extraordinary value, to be able to extend the same benefit to introducers, as well as authors and inventors; a policy which has been practiced wtih advantage in other countries. Here, however, as in some other cases, there is cause to regret, that the competency of the authority of the national government to the good, which might be done, is not without a question. Many aids might be given to industry; many internal improvements of primary magnitude might be promoted, by an authority operating throughout the Union, which cannot be effected, as well, if at all, by an authority confined within the limits of a single state.

But if the legislature of the Union cannot do all the good, that might be wished, it is at least desirable, that all may be done, which is practicable. Means for promoting the introduction of foreign improvements, though less efficaciously than might be accomplished with more adequate authority, will form a part of the plan intended to be submitted in the close of this report.

It is customary with manufacturing nations to prohibit, under severe penalties, the exportation of implements and machines, which they have either invented or improved. There are already objects for a similar regulation in the United States; and others may be expected to occur from time to time. The adoption of it seems to be dictated by the principle of reciprocity. Greater liberality, in such respects, might better comport with the general spirit of the country; but a selfish and exclusive policy in other quarters will not always permit the free indulgence of a spirit, which would place us upon an unequal footing. As far as prohibitions tend to prevent foreign competitors from deriving the benefit of the improvements made at home, they tend to increase the advantages of those by whom they may have been introduced; and operate as an encouragement to exertion.

IX. Judicious regulations for the inspection of manufactured commodities

This is not among the least important of the means, by which the prosperity of manufactures may be promoted. It is indeed in many cases one of the most essential. Contributing to prevent frauds upon consumers at home and exporters to foreign countries--to improvement quality and preserve the character of the national manufactures, it cannot fail to aid the expeditious and advantageous sale of them, and to serve as a guard against successful competition from other quarters. The reputation of the flour and lumber of some states, and of the potash of others has been established by an attention to this point. And the like good name might be procured for those articles, wheresoever produced, by a judicious and uniform system of inspection; throughout the ports of the United States. A like system might also be extended with advantage to other commodities.

X. The facilitating of pecuniary remittances from place to place

The facilitating of pecuniary remittances from place to place is a point of considerable moment to trade in general, and to manufactures in particular; by rendering more easy the purchase of raw materials and provisions and the payment for manufactured suplies. A general circulation of bank paper, which is to be expected from the institution lately established will be a most valuable mean to this end. But much good would also accrue from some additional provisions respecting inland bills of exchange. If those drawn in one state payable in another were made negotiable, everywhere, and interest and damages allowed in case of protest, it would greatly promote negotiations between the citizens of different states, by rendering them more secure; and, with it the convenience and advantage of the merchants and manufacturers of each.

XI. The facilitating of the transportation of commodities

Improvements favoring this object intimately concern all the domestic interests of a community; but they may without impropriety be mentioned as having an important relation to manufactures. There is perhaps scarcely any thing, which has been better calculated to assist the manufactures of Great Britain, than the ameliorations of the public roads of that kingdom, and the great progress which has been of late made in opening canals. Of the former, the United States stand much in need; and for the latter they present uncommon facilities.

The symptoms of attention to the improvement of inland navigation, which have lately appeared in some quarters, must fill with pleasure every breast armed with a true zeal for the prosperity of the country. These examples, it is to be hoped, will stimulate the exertions of the government and the citizens of every state. There can certainly be no object, more worthy of the cares of the local administrations; and it were to be wished, that there was no doubt of the power of the national government to lend its direct aid, on a comprehensive plan. This is one of those improvements, which could be prosecuted with more efficacy by the whole, than by any part or parts of the Union. There are cases in which the general interest will be in danger to be sacrificed to the collision of some supposed local interests. Jealousies, in matters of this kind, are as apt to exist, as they are apt to be erroneous.

The following remarks are sufficiently judicious and pertinent to deserve a literal quotation. ``Good roads, canals, and navigable rivers, by dimishing the expense of carriage, put the remote parts of a country more nearly upon a level with those in the neighborhood of the town. They are upon that account the greatest of all improvements. They encourage the cultivation of the remote, which must always be the most extensive circle of the country. They are advantageous to the town by breaking down the monopoly of the country in its neighborhood. they are advantageous even to that part of the country. Though they introduce some rival commodities into the old market, they open many new markets to its produce. Monopoly besides is a great enemy to good management, which can never be universally established, but in consequence of that free and universal competition, which forces everybody to have recourse to it for the sake of self-defense. It is not more than fifty years ago that some of the countries in the neighborhood of London petitioned the Parliament, against the extension of the turnpike roads, into the remoter counties. Those remoter counties, they pretended, from the cheapness of labor, would be able to sell their grass and corn cheaper in the London market, than themselves, and they would thereby reduce their rents and ruin their cultivation. Their rents however have risen and their cultivation has been improved, since that time.''

Specimens of a spirit, similar to that which governed the counties here spoken of present themselves too frequently to the eye of an impartial observer, and render it a wish of patriotism, that the body in this country, in whose councils a local or partial spirit is least likely to predominate, were at liberty to pursue and promote the general interest, in those instances, in which there might be danger of the interference of such a spirit.

The foregoing are the principal of the means, by which the growth of manufactures in ordinarily promoted. It is, however, not merely necessary, that the measures of government, which have a direct view to manufactures, should be calculated to assist and protect them, but that those which only collaterally affect them, in the general course of the administration, should be guarded from any peculiar tendency to injure them...

...The remaining objections to a particular encouragement of manufactures in the United States now require to be examined.

One of these turns on the proposition, that Industry, if left to itself, will naturally find its way to the most useful and profitable employment: whence it is inferred, that manufactures without the aid of government will grow up as soon and as fast, as the natural state of things and the interest of the community may require. {217}

Against the solidity of this hypothesis, in the full latitude of the terms, very cogent reasons may be offered. These have relation to the strong influence of habit and the spirit of imitation -- the fear of want of success in untried enterprises -- the intrinsic difficulties incident to first essays towards a competition with those who have previously attained to perfection in the business to be attempted -- the bounties premiums and other artificial encouragements, with which foreign nations second the exertions of their own Citizens in the branches, in which they are to be rivalled. [298]

Experience teaches, that men are often so much governed by what they are accustomed to see and practice, that the simplest and most obvious improvements, in the [most] ordinary occupations, are adopted with hesitation, reluctance and by slow gradations. The spontaneous transition to new pursuits, in a community long habituated to different ones, may be expected to be attended with proportionably greater difficulty. When former occupations ceased to yield a profit adequate to the subsistence of their followers, or when there was an absolute deficiency of employment in them, owing to the superabundance of hands, changes would ensue; but these changes would be likely (989) to be more tardy than might consist with the interest either of individuals or of the Society. In many cases they would not happen, while a bare support could be ensured by an adherence to ancient courses; though a resort to a more profitable employment might be practicable. To produce the desireable changes, as early as may be expedient, may therefore require the incitement and patronage of government." - Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures, Dec. 5, 1791

224 posted on 07/24/2003 4:18:36 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist

To: justshutupandtakeit; billbears

Your comments about Hamilton not only indicate a collosal ignorance (but great familiarity with the LIES of his enemies) of the man but are a direct slap in the face to George Washington and every man who fought for our independence. You also need to look at the meaning of mercantilism before trying to use it in a sentence. Just because GOPcrapitalist says he was a mercantilist not only does not make it true but is almost a guarantee it is false.

The only lies about Hamilton around here are coming straight from you, fake-it. Hamilton was indisputably an economic interventionist with a strong flare for mercantilism. He liked taxes, protectionist tariffs, centralized monetary policy, so-called "internal improvements" policies, and practically every other anti-capitalist, anti-laissez faire, and anti-conservative form of government economic intervention known in his day. He was very much a direct heir to the mercantilists of Europe and a precursor to the leftist Keynesian interventionists of today. But you don't need to take my word for it to see the truth in everything I just said. Alex himself laid it all out in detail in the defining document of his economic philosophy:

http://www.union.edu/PUBLIC/ECODEPT/kleind/eco024/documents/hamilton/mfg_text.doc

225 posted on 07/24/2003 4:24:36 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist

To: Grand Old Partisan

First off, there was no such thing as "yankee forces" -- they were the United States Army and United States Navy. Disparagement of the U.S. military is what enemies of our country do.

Cut the semantical bullsh*t. It bears no relevance on this conversation and serves only as a means for you to distract attention away from the real issue of your stats. You know very well what I am talking about when I say "yankee army" or "union army" or something of the sort, just as you know what I am talking about when I say "confederate army" or "rebel army." The technical name for various units may be "United States Army" or "Confederate States Army" or "Army of Northern Virginia" or "Army of the Potomac" etc etc etc, but in common usage terms such as "yankee" and "confederate" or "union" and "rebel" more than suffice.

In discussing whether blacks in rebellious states were loyal to the United States Government or to the Confederacy, the relevant number is that of blacks from CSA states who fought for the United States Government versus the pathetic handful (if that) of southern blacks stupid enough to have fought for their slavemasters.

Not necessarily. It is a matter of fact that the overwhelming majority of slaves did not even fight in the war, thus making the numbers who did an unrepresentative sample. It is also a matter of fact that those southern slaves who fought on the yankee side came almost entirely from states that fell early in the war, such as Tennessee and parts of Louisiana, while states that held their territory till the end, such as Texas, saw virtually no blacks serving in the yankee armies. Thus, once again, any numbers would be unrepresentative as a sample of those portions of the south.

And slave and conscripted "free" blacks working as ditch diggers and teamsters do not count.

Then will you also exempt from counting the ex-slaves who were for all practical purposes pressed into service in the yankee armies upon their "liberation"?

In discussing the loyalty of the overall southern populace, then the relevant number is that of the blacks from all southern states who fought for the United States Government.

Then define for me the southern states. Does that count unionist slave states like Maryland and Delaware? Does it count those who split between the north and south, like Missouri and Kentucky? Or does it count only the uncontested CSA proper - the first 11 seceded states. It is surely misleading of you to suggest that loyalty to the confederacy in states such as, oh, say, Texas and Alabama and Georgia was weak based upon statistics listing the black soldiers from Maryland and Kentucky.

And then there is the issue of the totals you keep claiming, as in 200,000. As I have already documented to you, there were 178,000 blacks in the US army and, at most, 18,000 in the navy giving a grand total from ALL states that is LESS THAN the number you attribute to the south alone. I have also already documented to you that significant portions of those numbers - roughly half - come from "union" states and of those several thousand come from deep north states like Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania.

226 posted on 07/24/2003 4:40:40 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist

To: Grand Old Partisan

Alexander Hamilton would be very proud of you!

Sadly, he probably would. Advocating government economic interventionism while simultaneously claiming that it's free market capitalism has long been a favorite trick among fans of big government.

227 posted on 07/24/2003 4:52:31 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist

To: Grand Old Partisan

Worshipping the Confederate Lost Cause is a million miles away from being a conservative

The only worship going on here is for your book, Partisan.

228 posted on 07/24/2003 6:23:29 PM PDT by stainlessbanner

To: mac_truck; GOPcapitalist

Gee fellas, which is it?

Which party gets 90%+ of the Black vote? There's probably some good articles on FR for you to read about younger Blacks being more conservative than their parents - I've read a few. Both comments were correct, just different responses to the same ignorant comment.

229 posted on 07/24/2003 6:29:53 PM PDT by stainlessbanner

Just noticed you have the Bonnie Blue on your profile page - closet Confederate?

230 posted on 07/24/2003 6:34:21 PM PDT by stainlessbanner

LOL! YOu are right on that one.

I am a New Englander that served in the military and I can tell you, I met about 3 people in the service that were from Massachusetts the entire time I was there.

I have to say that I loved living down south and I loved serving with Southerners. IMHO, they are some of the finest people around. Of course, I am being general. The Northeast tends to look down its nose at the south and I dislike this habit very much. Truth be told though, "Yankees" are not exactly showered with love in the south.

Since I hate Massachusetts more than many of them, it did not bother me very much.

The Northeast is basically filled with a bunch of whining, snobby jerks. I call Massachusetts the "Sissy State." These people need "Big Brother" to advise them on every facet of thier lives. Native folks of New Hampshire are some of the most Conservative people around and I love NH more then I love the South. Unfortunately, the "MAssholes" are ruining it for everyone.

Thus ends my rant. :D

231 posted on 07/24/2003 6:45:00 PM PDT by Arioch7

To: Grand Old Partisan

[GOP] Aren't you the guy who refers to Presoident Abraham Lincoln as a pimp?

Don't Jump threads - If you get involved in an argument in one thread, it's considered poor manners to restart the previous argument in the middle of an unrelated thread.

Yes, on another thread in response to another poster who repeatedly compares Abraham Lincoln to God and Jesus, and upon any dissenting opinion calls people, and groups of people, names. Indeed, his manner of posting has landed him in timeout. He shares your habit of using the word traitor. He has attacked many, including myself, as being anti-American. I'm sure this is difficult for you to comprehend, but for a military retiree such as myself, that is an insult.

As you are well aware, the litany of Lincoln quotes documenting him as a White Supremecist would fill a book. He did not give lip service to the race issue until it offered him political opportunity.

As you are well aware, Lincoln sought out and appointed James Mitchell as Agent of [black] Emigration. James Mitchell was provably one sick, twisted racist. His sick pamphlet, addressed to Lincoln and printed as an official U.S. Government document by the Government Printing Office, at taxpayer expense, is located HERE. A TRANSCRIPT is here. The link to the image files of the original pamphlet goes to The Abraham Lincoln Papers at the Library of Congress.

Aren't you the guy who wrote a book where, on page 12 thereof you refer to, "Frederick Douglass, the black abolitionist and friend of Abraham Lincoln..."?

Aren't you the guy who, in said book, neglects to mention the following quotes of Abraham Lincoln's friend, Frederick Douglass?

Illogical and unfair as Mr. Lincoln's statements are, they are nevertheless quite in keeping with his whole course from the beginning of his administration up to this day, and confirm the painful conviction that though elected as an anti-slavery man by Republican and Abolition voters, Mr. Lincoln is quite a genuine representative of American prejudice and Negro hatred and far more concerned for the preservation of slavery, and the favor of the Border States, than for any sentiment of magnanimity or principle of justice and humanity"
The Life and Writing of Frederick Douglass,
edited by Philip S. Foner, 4 Vols, New York, 1955, vol 3, page 268

Frederick Douglass said:
With the single exception of the question of slavery extension, Mr. Lincoln proposes no measure which can bring him into antagonistic collision with the traffickers in human flesh, either in the States or in the District of Columbia .... Slavery will be as safe, and safer, in the Union under such a President, than it can be under any President of a Southern Confederacy"
The Life and Writing of Frederick Douglass, edited by Philip S. Foner,
4 Vols, New York, 1955, vol 2, page 527

Lincoln never met a Black law he didn't like. Referring to the Illinois Exclusion law, Douglass expressed his outrage for an act which "cooly" proposed to "sell the bodies and souls of the blacks to increase the intelligence and refinement of the whites [and] to rob every black stranger who ventures among them to increase their literary fund."

Douglass's indictment of Lincoln: "The treatment of our poor black soldiers -- the refusal to pay them anything like equal compensation, though it was promised them when they enlisted; the refusal to insist upon the exchange of colored prisoners when colored prisoners have been slaughtered in cold blood, although the President has repeatedly promised thus to protect the lives of his colored soldiers -- have worn my patience threadbare. The President has virtually laid down this as the rule of his statesmen: Do evil by choice, right from necessity" (FD 3:404, 406-7)

Frederick Douglass attacked Lincoln's logic and his racism, saying that "a horse thief pleading that the existence of the horse is the apology for his theft or a highway man contending that the money in the traveler's pocket is the sole first cause of his robbery are about as much entitled to respect as is the President's reasoning at this point."

"Mr. Lincoln takes care in urging his colonization scheme to furnish a weapon to all the ignorant and base, who need only the countenance of men in authority to commit all kinds of violence and outrage upon the colored people of the country." (FD 3:267)

Frederick Douglass told Charles Sumner: "If slavery is really dead in the District of Columbia ... to you, more than to any other American statesman, belongs the honor of this great triumph of Justice, Liberty, and Sound Policy" (FD 3:233-4)

On July 4, 1862, Douglass said: "our weak, faltering and incompetent rulers in the Cabinet ... and our rebel worshipping Generals in the field" were "incomparably more dangerous to the country than dead traitors like former President James Buchanan..." (FD 3:250)

August 1862, "...ABRAHAM LINCOLN is no more fit for the place he holds than was JAMES BUCHANAN, and that the latter was no more the miserable tool of traitors and rebels than the former is allowing himself to be."

"Lincoln was not, in the fullest sense of the word, either our man or our model. In his interests, in his associations, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man. He was preeminently the white man's President, entirely devoted to the welfare of the white people of this country."

Lincoln was "scrupulous to the very letter of the law in favor of slavery, and a perfect latitudinarian as to the discharge of his duties under a law favoring freedom."

In a January 25, 1865 speech, Douglass said that the system of forced labor inaugurated in Louisiana by General Banks, with Lincoln's approval, "practically enslaves the Negro, and makes the Proclamation of 1863 a mockery and delusion."

232 posted on 07/24/2003 7:08:53 PM PDT by nolu chan

Tonight, UNSPUN with AnnaZ and Guest Hostess DIOTIMA!

This Thursday
July 24th, 2003 ~ 10pmE/7pmP

with
Guest Hostess
Diotima

"Of Bias and Babes"

Matthew Scheffield
of
RatherBiased.com
discusses SeeBS's latest scandalous behavior

and

Tom Schneider
of
JerseyGOP.com

will discuss the latest Republican Babes
(and other less frivolous things, maybe)

Plus
as always

CRB's
and
Bone-headed Lieberals

Click HERE to LISTEN LIVE while you FReep!

Click HERE for the RadioFR Chat Room!

Miss a show? Click HERE for the RadioFR Archives!

233 posted on 07/24/2003 7:09:19 PM PDT by Bob J (Freerepublic.net...where it's always a happening....)

I have visited every state in New England and enjoyed each state in varying degrees, but I have enjoyed them nonetheless. I met very few jerks during my travels up there, and I was generally treated very pleasantly. The only people I tend to have beefs with are the elitist liberals. I have found that average, everyday New Englanders (y'know the kind of folks that elitist NYers and Bostonians snicker at) are wonderful people.

As for individual states, I would have to say that NH is my favorite state in New England, followed pretty closely by Vermont. I like the real vermonters not the disaffected NY hippies who moved there in the 60s and 70s and trashed the state. :-)

234 posted on 07/24/2003 7:30:48 PM PDT by bourbon

To: justshutupandtakeit

Still with the ludicrous claim that Black SOLDIERS fought, not orderlies, valets, bootblacks, teamsters, blacksmiths but SOLDIERS?

Given your hate-driven vitriol, you probably deny the many contributions of black Americans during the War for Independence. They too fought for slave-owners and slave-States despite British offers of immediate emancipation. Over five thousand black Americans fought in George Washington's Army. According to your line of logic, that would impossible. But it's true, they did. Their honor and glory is theirs forever, and all the propagandists and hate-mongers that dare to pick up a pen can't take it from them. The same is true of their descendants who fought for the Confederate Army. Here's what a REPUBLICAN (gasp) member of the US Sanitary Commission reported after being caught behind lines prior to the battle of Antietam. He observed Stonewall Jackson's Corps as it moved through the town of Frederick, Maryland:

"Over 3,000 Negroes must be included in this number [64,000]. These were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms, but also in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc. Most of the Negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabers, bowie knives, dirks, etc...and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederate Army." - Chief Inspector Lewis Steiner, 'Report from Antietam'

Tennessee authorised by State law the enlistment of "male persons of color between the ages of 15 and 50" in June of 1861. And yes, many were actual soldiers. The 14th Tennessee Volunteer Infantry (CSA) for example, listed numerous "men of color" on their Roll of Honor, including one who was killed in action carrying the unit's colors during the charge of Pickett, Pettigrew, and Trimble at Gettysburg. There are many memoirs and unit histories written by union veterans that testify to their encounters with armed and fighting black Confederate soldiers. Next time you visit Arlington Cemetery you might want to check out the Confederate Memorial. It was erected in 1912 and was sculpted by a jewish Confederate veteran named Moses Ezekiel. On one of its panels is a scene of Confederate soldiers marching off to war. One of them is black, with clear African features.

235 posted on 07/24/2003 8:29:18 PM PDT by thatdewd

Nice post, dewd. First-hand factual accounts are hard to refute. Don't expect a response, those people don't take kindly to the facts.

236 posted on 07/24/2003 8:41:41 PM PDT by stainlessbanner

To: Grand Old Partisan

I attempted to verify your claim of the name 'radical republicans' but was unable to come up with anything. I had always been told it was due to their radical reconstruction policies, and that seems to be the gist of everything else I found this eve. Would be interested in learning more if you have a source.

237 posted on 07/24/2003 8:50:26 PM PDT by Gianni

To: justshutupandtakeit; GOPcapitalist

Takeit: I have now seen you refer to this 80million that H created 'out of thin air' about a hundred times. I've looked around a bit, not too seriously, but haven't found any good info. Was this credit? Are you suggesting that Hamilton was the first to suggest we all live high on the hog at the expense of future generations?

I'm genuinely interested in more info on this, in spite of my smart-assedness. Creating 80 mil "out of thin air" is a talent I would definitely like to learn more about :)

238 posted on 07/24/2003 8:53:26 PM PDT by Gianni

To: stainlessbanner

Thanks, SB. I've been away for awhile, but it seems some things haven't changed much around here. Except for the shameless merchandising that has been added to the revisionists' agenda, that is. :)

239 posted on 07/24/2003 9:11:52 PM PDT by thatdewd

To: stainlessbanner

Just noticed you have the Bonnie Blue on your profile page - closet Confederate?

That or schizo. His mental characteristics are supportive of the latter.

240 posted on 07/24/2003 9:13:53 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794