Posted on 05/13/2003 6:17:13 AM PDT by VMI70
This past weekend, my son and I went on his troop's annual father-son hike. His troop is one of many in the Robert E. Lee Council of the Boy Scouts of America, which is headquartered in Richmond, VA.
On Sunday, during the church service at the end of the hike, it was announced that the Council directors had voted to change its name from The Robert E. Lee Council, which has been in use for many decades, to something else.
This morning, the news broke on the local radio station: WRVA 1140 AM, Richmond's Morning News with Jimmy Barrett.
Besides, they could have staved off the meltdown by printing bogus money and enforcing its worth at gunpoint, now couldn't they?
This compact?
"As you doubtless know, the separation of powers in that Pact with the Devil we call our Constitution, gives only Congress the right to raise and spend money."WhiskeyPapa, 11/15/02
SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/786927/posts?page=432#432
I would point out that not a single country in the entire world offically recognized the legitimacy of the confederate government.
I take what GOP says with a grain of salt. Why don't you try and sway me? You are correct that the southern economy was dependent on exports. Millions of bales of cotton and other goods flowed out of New Orleans and Mobile and Savannah and Charleston destined for European shores. Yet if you look at the tariff revenues for those same ports almost nothing from Europe was flowing in. Why were those ships showing up empty to be loaded if such a vast amount of imports were destined for southern consumers? It's a simple question and should be handled with a simple answer. How can you say that the tariff was abusive when such a small percentage was shouldered by southern consumers?
Did any recognize the colonial government during revolution?
I'm not talking about money. They ratified and assented to a Constitution to which they are bound.
How could one say the income tax is abusive when their portion is miniscule(sp?) in comparison with that of Bill Gates?
You are way off.
Quit spreading lies and half-truths, Walt. That letter you refer to was actually a proposal by Lee to the CSA Congress to begin an emancipation program in exchange for military service.
Only a Lincoln-worshipping south hater of your caliber and dishonesty could take a letter where Lee advocated emancipation and turn it into praise of slavery.
That's probably less likely than you may think. Walt is an avowed liberal Democrat who voted for Bill Clinton and Al Gore. I've seen him publicly blame George Bush for 9/11. More recently I encountered him on a thread where he called George W. Bush a "retard," among other things.
We're heading down the Whiskeypapa path whereby an instrument of the people's will - the Constitution - once ratified, takes precedent over that very thing that created it. The argument is troubling, to say the least.
To demand approval from the whole of the body politic prior to secession, one would have to believe that the will of the people meant the will of the people of respective states for the purpose of ratification and amendment, but something entirely different for the purpose of secession.
Nowhere have I incurred two disparate definitions.
That's hardly an answer. A more correct analogy would be how can you say the tax was abusive when you paid so much less than everyone else with the same income?
Far be it from me to dispute you on what constitutes a half-truth, GOP, but let the letter speak for itself:
HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF NORTHERN VIRGINIA,
January 11, 1865.
Hon. ANDREW HUNTER,
Richmond, Va.:
DEAR SIR: I have received your letter of the 7th instant, and without confining myself to the order of your interrogatories, will endeavor to answer them by a statement of my views on the subject. I shall be most happy if I can contribute to the solution of a question in which I feel an interest commensurate with my desire for the welfare and happiness of our people.
Considering the relation of master and slave, controlled by humane laws and influenced by Christianity and an enlightened public sentiment, as the best that can exist between the white and black races while intermingled as at present in this country, I would deprecate any sudden disturbance of that relation unless it be necessary to avert a greater calamity to both. I should therefore prefer to rely upon our white population to preserve the ratio between our forces and those of the enemy, which experience has shown to be safe. But in view of the preparations of our enemies, it is our duty to provide for continued war and not for a battle or a campaign, and I fear that we cannot accomplish this without overtaxing the capacity of our white population.
Should the war continue under existing circumstances, the enemy may in course of time penetrate our country and get access to a large part of our negro population. It is his avowed policy to convert the able-bodied men among them into soldiers, and to emancipate all. The success of the Federal arms in the South was followed by a proclamation of President Lincoln for 280,000 men, the effect of which will be to stimulate the Northern States to procure as substitutes for their own people the negroes thus brought within their reach. Many have already been obtained in Virginia, and should the fortune of war expose more of her territory, the enemy would gain a large accession to his strength. His progress will thus add to his numbers, and at the same time destroy slavery in a manner most pernicious to the welfare of our people. Their negroes will be used to hold them in subjection, leaving the remaining force of the enemy free to extend his conquest. Whatever may be the effect of our employing negro troops, it cannot be as mischievous as this. If it end in subverting slavery it will be accomplished by ourselves, and we can devise the means of alleviating the evil consequences to both races. I think, therefore, we must decide whether slavery shall be extinguished by our enemies and the slaves be used against us, or use them ourselves at the risk of the effects which may be produced upon our social institutions. My own opinion is that we should employ them without delay. I believe that with proper regulations they can be made efficient soldiers. They possess the physical qualifications in an eminent degree. Long habits of obedience and subordination, coupled with the moral influence which in our country the white man possesses over the black, furnish an excellent foundation for that discipline which is the best guaranty of military efficiency. Our chief aim should be to secure their fidelity.
There have been formidable armies composed of men having no interest in the cause for which they fought beyond their pay or the hope of plunder. But it is certain that the surest foundation upon which the fidelity of an army can rest, especially in a service which imposes peculiar hardships and privations, is the personal interest of the soldier in the issue of the contest. Such an interest we can give our negroes by giving immediate freedom to all who enlist, and freedom at the end of the war to the families of those who discharge their duties faithfully (whether they survive or not), together with the privilege of residing at the South. To this might be added a bounty for faithful service.
We should not expect slaves to fight for prospective freedom when they can secure it at once by going to the enemy, in whose service they will incur no greater risk than in ours. The reasons that induce me to recommend the employment of negro troops at all render the effect of the measures I have suggested upon slavery immaterial, and in my opinion the best means of securing the efficiency and fidelity of this auxiliary force would be to accompany the measure with a well-digested plan of gradual and general emancipation. As that will be the result of the continuance of the war, and will certainly occur if the enemy succeed, it seems to me most advisable to adopt it at once, and thereby obtain all the benefits that will accrue to our cause.
The employment of negro troops under regulations similar in principle to those above indicated would, in my opinion, greatly increase our military strength and enable us to relieve our white population to some extent. I think we could dispense with the reserve forces except in cases of necessity.
It would disappoint the hopes which our enemies base upon our exhaustion, deprive them in a great measure of the aid they now derive from black troops, and thus throw the burden of the war upon their own people. In addition to the great political advantages that would result to our cause from the adoption of a system of emancipation, it would exercise a salutary influence upon our whole negro population, by rendering more secure the fidelity of those who become soldiers, and diminishing the inducements to the rest to abscond.
I can only say in conclusion that whatever measures are to be adopted should be adopted at once. Every day's delay increases the difficulty. Much time will be required to organize and discipline the men, and action may be deferred until it is too late.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
R. E. LEE,
General
It's interesting to note that even though so many southern supporters claim that there were tens of thousands, nay, hundreds of thousands of black soldiers with the confederate army Lee still speaks of his preference for an all-white army. Curious, don't you think? And it is also interesting to note that when the legislation was finally passed to enlist free blacks and slaves into combat roles, it contained nothing about freedom for the slaves following their service. Imagine, the confederacy is in such dire straights that it is turning to conscripting slaves as combat troops and it still cannot bring itself to threaten the sanctity of its peculiar institution by offering them their freedom for their sacrifice.
You are peddling labor union style nonsense, Non-Seq. As you have been informed many many many times, trade economics simply don't work that way. Here's what economist Tom DiLorenzo had to say about your argument:
"A more subtle explanation for how protectionism harms Americans comes from an understanding of what international trade economists call the "pass-through effect" of a tariff. As explained by Wilson Brown and Jan Hogendorn in their text, International Economics (p. 119), as tariffs cause prices to rise,
"Importers pass on [most of] their costs to buyers, and industrial buyers pass those costs on in the form of higher prices. . . . Consumers, hit directly or indirectly, include the inflationary price increases in their wage and salary demands. Everybody tries to pass the tax to someone else. The only group that is powerless to pass the costs on further are the exporters, who have to sell at world prices, and swallow those costs. In essence, a tax on imports becomes a tax on exports (emphasis added)."
A tax on imports harms American exporters the most of all.... Southerners clearly understood that they were being made into tax slaves by the North, and by Lincoln, who announced in a February 15 1861 speech in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, that "The tariff is to the government what a meal is to the family." John C. Calhoun had long been a crusader for free trade and his ideas, drawn from Adam Smith and the great classical economists, were widely accepted in the South (see my article, "Calhoun’s Cause: Free Trade," on Mises.org). As he explained 1828, as part of his protest of the "Tariff of Abominations":
"Almost every man to the North, let his employment be what it may, manufacturer, labourer, farmer, capitalist, land holder, &c. &C. hopes to receive more from the Tariff by the increased price of his labour, or his property than what he pays in duties as a consumer. The very object is a protection to what is called the home industry. But what is our case. Our industry tho’ at home, by our own hands and on our own soil, is engaged in cultivating the great staples of the country for a foreign market, in a market where we can receive no protection, and where we cannot receive one cent more to indemnify us for the heavy duties we have to pay as consumers" (in Clyde Wilson, ed., The Essential Calhoun, p. 190)
Thus, because of the "pass-through effect" of tariffs it doesn’t really matter where the tariff is collected – New York, Boston, Charleston, or New Orleans – in determining the incidence of the tariff. It is the economic effects of the tariff that are important, not the collection point. (Some critics of The Real Lincoln have incorrectly argued that since there was more shipping coming in and out of Northern ports than Southern ones in 1861, the export-dependent South was not being exploited by the tariff. Such arguments ignore economics altogether and rely instead on a trivial and irrelevant statistic."
Fine by me! You'll notice that Walt never posts it when he makes his claim, or at most excerpts that one line while neglecting the rest.
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.