Posted on 03/20/2013 9:57:49 AM PDT by mnehring
Zo has strong words for neo-confederate libertarians, especially those who infiltrated the CPAC conference. He reminds viewers why some libertarians have no place in the conservative movement, and why Republicans should embrace the vision of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass.
(Video at link)
(Excerpt) Read more at pjtv.com ...
Hehehehehehehehe.....
Concurring bump. Strides have already been made with key appointments of people like Condi Rice and the great Clarence Thomas. Too bad Condi's such a rhino .... but then she came up as helpmeet to Colon Bowel, who really is a Manor Bush Original RiNO.
Enough people like J.C. Watts and Charles Barkley and Ken Hamlin have made some noise for conservatives in the black community, that I think we'll start to get our harvest in the coming generation as dazed and confused blacks begin to shake off the ACLU blinders and the James Carville- Vernon Jordan nitrous oxide.
They were absolutely correct. I'm convinced Lincoln and his inner circle of Illinois and Massachusetts pols, and certain New York businessmen like J.M. Forbes and Lewis Tappan (whose names, still famous today, prove their establishmentarian impulses and dynastic ambitions), came to office with a secret war policy, which was presented back-to-front as opposition to the extension of slavery, but was instead a determination to destroy the moneyed classes of the South economically and politically .... and, as it turned out, physically as well. Which worked for the Lincoln party. (Nothing wrong with being flexible! -- </s>)
That is the point. The Republican Party's real platform was to attack and totally destroy the South, take the Government into receivership, and seize control, total control, of the country's fortunes, turning the federal republic of enumerated powers into an autocratic, centralized and illimitable one: Hamilton's old ideal of "Empire without the King".
Or do you think it all happened by accident, as a series of extemporaneous responses to unforeseen events: that the Republic "lurched uncontrollably" </off John McLaughlin> into a centralized nation-state run by a delimited "Who's Who" of elite politicians and businessmen, into whose phalanx-like Gilded-Age ranks nobody managed to break until Grover Cleveland won the White House?
But abolitionism did not begin with Congregationalists ministers in the mid-1600s.
It wasn't about abolition. It was about what Yankees thought about Southerners, which they demonstrated beyond recall -- "there are certain things that, once they are said, nothing else need be said" (said my old boss in 1973) -- when John Brown was executed in 1859, and Massachusetts Gov. Nathaniel Banks responded by standing up six regiments, fully armed and equipped for the field, ready to go to Virginia to put down the South.
Abolitionism began centuries earlier..... So, abolitionism arrived in America before the first slaves did.
Not really. It was never a political issue before Northern apologists for the Tariff of Abominations (1828) started reaching around for clubs with which to beat the South and divide the West from the South, the better to isolate the South and subdue it, and chain its economy to Henry Clay's American System and its Yankeephile taxes, tariffs, and capital-infrastructure subsidies.
Really?! What do you call waiting for Congress to go home, then launching a major war that ends with the South in ashes?
In 1870, 20% of the Mississippi state budget went for prostheses for war veterans.
In what skittles-and-unicorns sense is that not "expansion of federal powers"?
Something like the Knights of the Golden Circle, a secret society bent on secession and the expansion of slave territory that actually existed? Or the Order of the Lone Star, another pro-slavery expansionist group that actually existed?
There were all sorts of underground groups at the time. I suppose just about everybody was conspiring with somebody about something, but your imaginary conspiracy doesn't really work. The concern at the time was standing up to the "slave power" not crushing the South. That would have been more than anyone could have conceived of at the time.
Forbes and Tappan were businessmen and supporters of abolition, but crushing the moneyed classes of the South would have been biting off too much for them to chew (The Forbeses had their hands full investing in the West). Illinois politicians of the day, most of whom weren't passionately anti-slavery or anti-South, still had a feeling of being Western outsiders or outliers, poor cousins of the Easterners. They weren't ready to remake the country even if they wanted to. Massachusetts politicians weren't enthusiastic about Lincoln or their Illinois peers. In general, Eastern politicians looked down on the Westerners. It would have taken a lot to bring the two groups together in some secret plot.
I guess the idea is "if something happened somebody somewhere had to have planned for it to happen and made it happen." The problem is that the trajectory that looks obvious, natural, or unavoidable now was anything but at the time. There were too many steps involved in getting where we eventually went, and too many things that had to happen in a certain way and could otherwise have happened very differently. The result that looks "inevitable" now often is one that was unthinkable before hand.
Also, it's a very victim-based thing. One side is always the passive object of somebody else's evil scheming. Always making one's own group out to be weak and victimized is actually quite demeaning to one's group. "Stab in the back" thinking is something you really ought to examine carefully before accepting. It means ignoring the historical strengths and weaknesses of one's own group and avoiding one's group's own responsibility for what eventually happened.
Not really. It was never a political issue before Northern apologists for the Tariff of Abominations (1828) started reaching around for clubs with which to beat the South and divide the West from the South, the better to isolate the South and subdue it, and chain its economy to Henry Clay's American System and its Yankeephile taxes, tariffs, and capital-infrastructure subsidies.
I thought the Compromise of 1820 happened before that. And the earlier compromises in the Constitution. Pretty clearly it was an issue before 1828. But look at your date. By 1828 it was clear that slavery was an institution that was on its way out in the North, and growing in the South so it was inevitable that abolition would become a sectional issue after 1830 in a way that it may not have been before.
Clay was himself a Southerner and Westerner. He had plenty of supporters in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Louisiana. There were also manufacturers elsewhere in the South who supported his program. And what was slavery anyway but the very greatest of subsidies?
Most of the opposition for the Tariff of Abominations came from the South, but most of the support came from the Middle Atlantic and Western states (New England wasn't a main supporter of that tariff). It's clear, though, that the West wasn't always opposed to protective tariffs -- or infrastructure subsidies (that didn't involve unpaid slave labor).
A delusional fairytale.
They would be able to sell what they made overseas in any case. A tariff might cut into foreign goods that they could buy, but if that was really important to them, they could have stayed and fought the tariff. Rates would have gone up, but nowhere near as much as they eventually did.
Slavery was a side issue at best and Lincoln did not care one way or the other although it was a tool to stick to to the Confederates.
Bleeding Kansas? John Brown? Dred Scott for that matter? Was all that about trade and tariffs? Slavery -- the expansion of slavery -- was the big issue of the 1850s.
I guess it all depends on what you believe and who writes the history, since the South lost, sometimes they were seen as the villains. It really comes down to two things, who won and whose ox is being gored.
The victors write the history. But the vanquish write the legends and myths. Except in this case, an awful lot of "Northern victor's history" was written from a very pro-Southern point of view. Whatever historians are saying now, for over fifty years in the early 20th century they were a lot friendlier to the secessionists than Northerners at the time were or Americans today are.
I still think on the trade and States rights issues, the Confederates were right. Chattel slavery was dying, I think the Confederates would have given it up around the time Brazil did, the 1880’s, certainly by 1900 or if your an extreme pessimist, 1920’s.
Maybe, maybe not. That is a long time if you are a slave. And what replaced slavery would have been pretty similar. But that big historical clock that has Brazil abolishing slavery in the 1880s may have been a result of our Civil War. If the slave owners had won, it might well have set back abolition in other countries.
As to the two countries living side by side, who knows, maybe over time, it would be like the US and Canada and had WWI and WWII happened without too many butterflies, we could have been allies, I’m sure we would have been during the Cold War.
Not so sure. There was going to be a major race conflict in the South at some point and who's to say how that would have turned out.
Maybe I misstated a little bit but what hurt the South was the high tarrifs the North put on imported manufactured and other goods that the South wanted to buy.
True, Lincoln became a defacto dictator, we had an income tax and habus corpus was suspended. That alone was a huge expansion of Federal powers. Thank God a lot of it was stopped after the war but it did set a stage to what we have seen 50 years later and even today. I know myself, I was born here in PA, but I do, or would have, a lot of sympathy for the Confederates, well, I guess I come from the “Alabama part” of PA. B-) Lincoln did not really care which way to go on the slave issue, it was a side issue at best, like having a sinus or lung infection as a result of having a bad case of the flu, it was just another weapon in the war.
Northerners paid exactly the same tariffs as southerners, and there were few if any products that southerners wanted to buy that weren’t also popular among northerners. Also, tariffs in 1860 were the lowest they’d been in 30 years. 15%, if I remember correctly.
Wouldn’t it be nice if we only paid taxes to the federal government when we purchased imported goods, and at that rate? What horrible oppression!
You need to get you neo-confederate story straight. The claim is that northerners oppressed southerners because protective tariffs were placed on some goods to protect manufacturers from “unfair competition” from foreigners.
Since a larger percentage of northerners than southerners benefited from these protective tariffs, southerners claimed oppression. Supposedly enough to justify secession and risk of war. (This claim, to may knowledge, was made only after losing the war, when defense of slavery was no longer a respectable reason for secession, even in the South.)
To view this as horrible oppression by one section of the other requires ignoring a large number of inconvenient facts. I bring up those only on the top of my mind.
Most northerners, like most southerners, were farmers or anyway in the rural economy. A smaller percentage to be sure, but still a considerable majority.
Protective tariffs were originally proposed because the USA had serious problems during the War of 1812 when they discovered the drawbacks of being dependent on foreign sources for essential military equipment, especially when you foe was that main supplier. The original idea was to build up an armaments industry for national defense reasons. Of course it got twisted into semi-corruption, but that was the original idea.
The main proponent of protective tariffs for most of the 1800s was Henry Clay, a southerner and large slaveowner.
If the South had won it independence, I’m sure they would have put in some kind of protective tariff, despite it being prohibited in their Constitution. Or perhaps you believe they would have been eternally willing to submit to the risks of a blockade shutting off essentiual military supplies?
The total federal budget for 1860 was $60,000,000. Are you seriously contending that such a sum, spread out among $30M+ people, constituted excessive taxation justifying secession and probable war? Really? That was less than $2 per capita. I realize a dollar was worth a lot more than, but it wasn’t worth THAT much more.
White southerners were so far from being economically oppressed by northerners that they were significantly more prosperous on average than northerners were. The ratio 2:1 sticks in my mind, but that could well be off.
You got some things sorta right and others just outright wrong.
An article by John Kuhn at the Charleston Mercury gives a much clearer and more accurate analysis of the events you speak of.
How did the Tariff of Abominations so severely divide the country? By 1828, the North had become more and more industrialized. In other words, it largely left its agricultural roots and became a great producer of products and goods. On the other hand, the South maintained its agrarian roots, growing much of the nation’s food as well as exporting a tremendous amount of agricultural products to Europe. As the North grew in factories and production, more people moved to the North. Meanwhile, the voting base in the South did not grow. When the North picked up increasingly more votes in Congress due to the population growth, it was in a position to assert its will. Unfortunately, it started to wield its power unjustly. The greatest manifestation of this was the Tariff of 1828.
Many European goods were still much less expensive than the same goods from the North. In 1828, Congress (against the will of the Southern minority) imposed a tax on many European goods so that those goods would now be more expensive and U.S. citizens would then have to purchase the more expensive goods from the North. This meant Europe sold much less of their products to the U.S. and had much less money to purchase agricultural products from the South. Worse yet, Southerners also had to pay more for the goods they needed to farm and to live, so their cost of agricultural production went up.
This artificially drove up the cost of Southern agricultural products. Because Europe was the number one market for Southern agricultural goods, the South suddenly lost its market for its products. Therefore, the new tariffs made the North artificially wealthy and financially damaged the South — NOT EXACTLY EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION (emphasis added. No nationalist would remain a nationalist if he were on the losing end of this equation.
JCalhoun’s reaction to the Tariff of Abominations was immediate. He became an Anti-Federalist and wrote the South Carolina Exposition and Protest. In this protest, Calhoun stated that if the Tariff of 1828 was not repealed, SC would secede. He also introduced his Doctrine of Nullification, the basis of which came from the states’ rights arguments of famous Anti-Federalists James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Calhoun argued that the several states were not bound to stay under the Federal government if their rights were trampled under the U.S. Constitution. In other words, a state always had the right to nullify any act of Congress that violated the U.S. Constitution, and if Congress did not thereafter repeal said act, then the state had the right to secede.
Rather than abolish the unjust tariffs, Congress proceeded to slightly mitigate the tariffs with new tariffs in 1832. At that point, the South Carolina Legislature acted upon Calhoun’s protest and passed the Ordinance of Nullification, stating that the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were null and void within the state of SC. Unbelievably, Congress also passed the Force Bill, which authorized the president to organize troops against SC if she did not enforce the tariffs. The War of Northern Aggression was only averted at that point by Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky, who offered a new compromise that would lessen the tariffs on SC.
However, the inherent problem remained that Congress had no problem continuing to pass legislation that benefited the Northern states at the expense of the Southern states simply because they had the votes and the power to do so. This smoldering inequality eventually led to the state of SC acting on December 20, 1860, to secede from the Union. Shortly thereafter, ten more Southern states seceded and created a new country, the Confederate States of America. This would not have happened if Congress did not abuse its power by treating its states and citizens unequally.
Because of all of this, John C. Calhoun is widely recognized as the Father of Secession. He established that the Southern states should not be subjected to continued unequal treatment under the U.S. Constitution. When unequal treatment continued unabated, on December 20, 1860, SC became the first state to secede from an oppressive Union. Therefore, may the 150th anniversary of this date be recognized as one of the fundamental milestones on the arduous path to true equality in the U.S.
Pretty much blows the “equal tariffs” nonsense out of the water. While individuals may have paid the tariff equally on the goods they purchased, the IMPACT of the tariffs upon the respective economies was profoundly unfair and unequal.
Now, let’s fast forward to today while remembering “Unbelievably, Congress also passed the Force Bill, which authorized the president to organize troops against SC if she did not enforce the tariffs.” If this concept does not seem to be disturbingly similar to the power grab Obama is engaged in today then you aren’t paying attention. Those who defend Lincoln’s tyrannical actions are, by extension, tacitly supporting Obama’s dream of becoming dictator.
Whine all you want, but THAT is the simply truth. And it is why we Southerners continue to “fight.” It has nothing to do with the WBTS and everything to do with federalism vs. state’s rights. Lincoln gave us Wilson who gave us FDR who gave us Obama. Southerners got it then and get it today. Lincoln apologists are still stone cold stupid, in denial, or liberal minions to Obama.
Not so much. There were still a lot of farms in the North that supplied the factory towns with food. Even down into my parents' time that was true. That was in the East. In the antebellum period agriculture was still on top and growing in what we now call the Middle West.
The South could have followed that model as well -- factories and workshops plus farms. Instead, important areas of the South threw themselves into cotton production. It was easy money. Especially if you had slaves to do the real work. Industry didn't develop very much, but the South wasn't really the nation's bread basket either.
Pretty much blows the “equal tariffs” nonsense out of the water. While individuals may have paid the tariff equally on the goods they purchased, the IMPACT of the tariffs upon the respective economies was profoundly unfair and unequal.
The assumption was that different regions would develop both agriculture and manufactures. In George Washington's day that was a sound assumption. Industry was just getting started in different regions of the country. Decades later, it wouldn't be, in part because of the cotton boom, in part because of the general decay of the Tidewater region, in part because cold weather and poor soil in the Northeast encouraged industrialization.
The important thing, though, is that the Southern states mostly got their way on tariffs right down to 1861. Once the Democrats got solidly behind low tariffs and acquired a following in all states they could generally keep tariffs from rising too high. From 1829 to 1859 they controlled the Senate and the House for all but 6 years, the presidency for all but 8 years. So long as the Democrats remained united and in Congress tariffs weren't going to go very high.
Lincoln gave us Wilson who gave us FDR who gave us Obama.
Best to check again on who gave us Wilson and FDR ...
Heck, my family voted for Roosevelt too, at least the first two times, but at 97% or 98% you guys do have a lot to answer for.
99 percent of your post is just opinion...yours...without any supporting documentation. Admittedly, I did not document most of the post I made...but I do admit it.
Not sure what I have to answer for. I voted for none of those people. And suggest you check again on who gave us Wilson and FDR. Here’s a hint: try to figure it out without applying party affiliations but at socialist/progressive orientations. Lincoln, Wilson, FDR and Obama...peas in a pod.
LOL! Lee’sGhost; living in BloJoe’s head rent free.
Oh, the irony ;-)
Oh the stupidity.
;-)
I know, right? But it’s OK - we still like you in spite of your “special needs”.
Dealing with gay tag-team trolls isn’t a special need, it’s a skill.
;-)
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.