Could 'Honest Abe' be a Tar Heel?

Raleigh News and Observer ^ | Apr 20, 2008 | Matt Ehlers

[investigateworld]

Good points about the railroads. I believe it was about 1882(ish) that the 35th Parallel line was completed. (Needles to Mojave was the last leg. Presently operated by BNSF but built by Southern Pacific)

The Ives Expedition surveyed it out about 1855 or so?

[wideawake]

The Ives Expedition surveyed it out about 1855 or so?

Good memory - it was 1857. That really is a neat little chapter of US history.

[investigateworld]

I thought the collapsible boats across the Colorado River was a slick trick.

Southern Pacific supplied the telegraph pole that was used in the first lynching in the county.

[stainlessbanner]

They had no economic interest in war:

Bankers and businessmen had no economic interest in the conflict? Now I've heard it all.

[Ditto]

And as I recall, after he became successful in Springfield, he loaned his father a good sum of money.

[wideawake]

Bankers and businessmen had no economic interest in the conflict? Now I've heard it all.

Bankers and railroad magnates had more to gain from peace and war.

I did not say all businessmen: after all, there are some businesses that can always profit from warfare: munitions companies, equipment companies etc. Cannon manufacturers were quite happy.

But bankers prefer low risk and high returns.

There is no riskier situation than war for lenders. Not only does the rate of default on debt skyrocket in wartime, but the value of currency often declines as well.

Moreover, war interrupts commerce between the warring parties (bad for railroads and shipping), creates sabotage (bad for railroads) and usually involves government commandeering of resources at below-market prices (bad for railroads).

[wideawake]

My apologies - “peace than war” not “peace and war.”

[investigateworld]

I suspect all lenders hate 'risk' unless there is major compensation for same.

Recall that the Federal Gov required the losing states to repudiate all debts that were used to finance the CW. (Now off to IHOP)

[wideawake]

Recall that the Federal Gov required the losing states to repudiate all debts that were used to finance the CW

The majority of such debts were "patriotic" loans made to the CSA by people who considered themselves citizens of the CSA.

As far as they were concerned, they were making a donation to the cause, and any repayment would have been an unexpected bonus.

The 14th Amendment made sure that no tax revenue was funneled to such individuals under color of the states repaying such loans - because such claims began rolling in in the months after the surrender of the Army Of Tennessee.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

And you are sadly misinformed and under educated. It was the CSA that reinforced the Constitution, the advice of Thomas Jefferson and many other early patriots.

Too bad Davis didn't see fit to be bound by the reb constitution when push came to shove. Talk was cheap when it came to the Confederates.

Lincoln was at the mercy of usual suspects, the railroad and banking magnates and their desire for encompassing power over the existing and future states.

And Davis was at the mercy of people who believed that humans as property was a good thing and their desire to spread slavery over the existing and future states.

[varina davis]

Your reply does not surprise me. Your role as a Union apologist was undoubtedly reinforced by your government revisionist schooling.

I simply don’t have time to correct your lack of education, so I’ll hope you have time to catch up on your reading about The War Between the States — from both sides of that Late Unpleasantness.

[x]

"This is a lot of hokum," said Allen Guelzo, director of the Civil War era studies program at Gettysburg College.

"Bunkum" would have been a better word. Or simply "Bunk." It comes from a congressman who began every speech saying that he spoke for the people of Buncombe County (North Carolina).

People assumed that Lincoln couldn't have been born to humble parents, and that Tom Lincoln's people were quite humble.

The first assumption is questionable. It reflects the class prejudices of the day.

As for the second, the Lincolns had gone through ups and downs in over a century of westward movements. They were quite prosperous a century before when they lived in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Moving west had made them rough on the edges.

Also there's a love for the illegitimacy angle. Either because it discredits Lincoln or because it's romantic. But why should an illegitimate ancestor shame an illustrious descendant? And if you think illegitimacy is romantic, you can still speculate about Lincoln's mother's family, the Hankses, about whom little is known.

[Froufrou]

Risk is minimal that you won’t get Rooty Tooty compensated?

The people who really hate risk are the insurance people. Never mind that’s what they’re in business for...

[Ditto]

And if you think illegitimacy is romantic, you can still speculate about Lincoln's mother's family, the Hankses, about whom little is known.

Trace back far enough, and we are all 'romantics.' ;~))

[Ditto]

...the advice of Thomas Jefferson...

Thomas Jefferson sure didn't see eye to eye with the Confederates.

It was Lincoln who was the disciple of Jefferson, not the Confederates who rejected all that Jefferson stood for.

The new constitution [Confederate States of America] has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted.

The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition.

This, our new government,[Confederate States of America] is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
-- Alexander Stevens, Vice President, Confederate States of America.

[wideawake]

Your reply does not surprise me.

If it didn't, then you would be able to rationally answer my argument.

Your role as a Union apologist

I proudly plead the case of the United States against all historical and contemporary enemies, foreign and domestic.

If you denigrate me for defending the USA, what country do you represent?

was undoubtedly reinforced by your government revisionist schooling.

I have never spent a day as a student in a government school. I was privately educated from my first day of pre-kindergarten to my last day of graduate school.

I simply don’t have time to correct your lack of education,

Another weak answer by a person who is demonstrably unqualified to comment on anyone else's education.

The South was both legally and morally wrong in attempting to secede and the federal government was both legally and morally obligated to prevent secession.

The only side that was economically motivated to initiate war was the slave state coalition, since their primary motivation was to open new markets for human flesh.

Free state entrepreneurs, on the whole, stood to lose substantially from war - which is why the bulk of US business interests supported the Peace Democrats and backed a McClellan presidential candidacy in 1864, and why US banking interests privately negotiated with New York City mayor Fernando Wood to declare neutrality.

[wideawake]

Excellent post.

Stephens, Rhett, Atchison, Toombs - and even their ideological godfather Calhoun - advocated an ideology specifically based on race, not on universal natural rights like Jefferson, Washington and Franklin.

The whole notion of "states rights" (an oxymoron) was a fig leaf. Just try and get a single apologist for the Confederacy to delineate which specific "rights" of any of the slave states were being violated by the federal government.

They have no concrete answer - just vague generalities.

[Ditto]

"...and why US banking interests privately negotiated with New York City mayor Fernando Wood to declare neutrality."

And why Fernando Wood and his brother instigated the so-called New York "draft riots" of 1863 in a desperate attempt to save the investments of the New York bankers in the slave economy.

Those riots were every bit as orchestrated as the Chicago convention riots of a 105 years later were.

There is nothing new in history.

[rustbucket]

And why Fernando Wood and his brother instigated the so-called New York "draft riots" of 1863 in a desperate attempt to save the investments of the New York bankers in the slave economy.

Hey, Ditto. What you say might be true. Could you provide some backup for your statement?

[Ditto]

Some links to the Draft riots. The Wood brothers had a long history of whiping up mobs to do their bidding.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/05/remembering-the-draft-riots/

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/05/remembering-the-draft-riots/