Posted on 04/29/2002 10:04:22 PM PDT by davidjquackenbush
if i'm right about secession, the division will be peaceful and the independent nations will learn to live/trade together as good neighbors.
quit kidding yourself-the UN is powerless, unless most of the the member states decide to do something,then the UN blue helmets will be IRRELEVANT.
i for one think the UN will wither and die, as more and more countries see it for what it really is = a collossal FAILURE and a waste of money.
as for the new and much improved Southron Republic, of which i write and dream, will chose NOT to be a superpower but rather to be: anti-imperialist,pro-free trade,religious, neutralist in foreign policy BUT armed to the teeth for defense,have few taxes, well-controlled borders and a willingness to stay out of other nations business. i think we will resemble the Swiss Republic, but with a much warmer climate!
for that day of dixie FREEDOM,sw
Really? Why then did you not bother to put in the rest of the quote I supposedly "left out" of the picture?
In fact, if you wanted to discuss it, all you had to do was ask as I am happy to provide the entire letter.
In fact, looking at the letter's in its entirity, Lincoln does NOT, as you suggest, assert that this position is, as you put it in a fabrication of your own that seems to come out of nowhere, "no longer" Lincoln's agenda. To the contrary, he goes on to advocate a tariff and expresses his desire that the issue and implementation of a tariff will occur in the near future.
For the record, here is the part of the letter I quoted:
"I was an old Henry Clay tariff whig. In old times I made more speeches on that subject, than on any other. I have not since changed my views."
Immediately following that last period, Lincoln continues with the following, which in no reasonable way resembles what you asserted it to be in your earlier fraudulent accusation of faulty truncation.
"I believe yet, if we could have a moderate, carefully adjusted, protective tariff, so far acquiesed in, as to not be a perpetual subject of political strife, squabbles, charges, and uncertainties, it would be better for us."
In other words, Lincoln first says he's an old tariff Whig whose views have not changed. Next he advocates implementing a tariff, yet not a word about it no longer being his agenda or anything of the sort. The letter continues, again immediately from where the previous quote left off, with a comment on the political viability of the issue.
"Still, it is my opinion that, just now, the revival of that question, will not advance the cause itself, or the man who revives it."
In short, pushing the issue as part of his campaign would be too divisive and cost him votes. But Lincoln does not stop there. Quite to the contrary, he continues in anticipation of the tariff becoming reality. Immediately from where the last quotation left off, which might I add again had nothing even remotely suggesting the tariff was no longer his issue as you fraudulently asserted, Lincoln continues:
"I have not thought much upon the subject recently; but my general impression is, that the necessity for a protective tariff will, ere long, force it's old opponents to take it up;"
Lincoln expresses hope of the protective tariff becoming a politically viable necessity in the near future. Continuing from the semi-colon where we left off, Lincoln writes:
"and then it's old friends can join in, and establish it on a more firm and durable basis. We, the old whigs, have been entirely beaten out on the tariff question; and we shall not be able to re-establish the policy, until the absence of it, shall have demonstrated the necessity for it, in the minds of men heretofore opposed to it." ...a reiteration of the previous lines. Lincoln advocates the tariff's "old friends," himself included, being able to take it up in the near future when it is politically viable. He then concedes again that it is not politically viable as a campaign issue (this particular letter of his was in response to a request that he campaign on the issue) at the time and that if he were to make it so, it would hurt him as his position, the Whig position, was in the minority at the time. Then he expresses hope again that necessity would require its reestablishment in the future. I think it is safe to add that at this future point, Lincoln would not have hesitated to take up the tariff issue, as happened a year later after the Morrill bill passed.
"Agenda" means, more or less, "things to be done". But Lincoln clearly says that the issues of slavery is, at the time of his writing, so much more important than anything else that he is pretty much willing to let Whigenomics slide -- that is, to remove it from his list of things to be done.
Really? Cause the issue of slavery does not appear anywhere at all in the entirity of the letter from which my original quote was taken. Nor does he give any indication that he is willing to drop the tariff issue. To the contrary, he expresses hope of instituting it in the near future. In light of these facts, and the rest of the quote (the substance of which I have posted for your review above) it is clear that you do not have a clue as to what you are talking about. I may safely say that you are making things up. Some would say that you are lying.
I don't think this is a nuance. It is a subtlety, but that's not a bad thing. Details of this kind do matter,
Sure they do, as does getting the details right. You got them wrong and in fact appear to have simply MADE THEM UP instead of seeking them out.
Were I to say such a thing and were someone to characterize getting a Ferrari as my "agenda", I would just laugh, since, like LIncoln in the passage referred to above I had just pretty much renounced it as an agenda item, while admitting it was still an desire.
You may have renounced your agenda, but Lincoln did not. You made up the claim that he did and asserted it to have followed that quote, even though it did not.
In fact, Lincoln's career after the 1859 letter I quoted indicates continued support for the tariff.
In more than one case after that letter, Lincoln pledged his support of the pro-tariff plank of the 1860 Republican platform. He continued to do so after the election.
In a February 15, 1861 speech devoted almost entirely to advocating the tariff, Lincoln stated:
"In the Chicago Platform there is a plank upon this subject, which should be a general law, to the incoming administration. We should do neither more nor less than we gave the people reason to believe we would, when they gave us their votes. That plank is as I now read: 'That, while providing revenue for the support of the General Government by duties upon imposts, sound policy requires such an adjustment of the imposts as to encourage the development of the industrial interest of the whole country, and we commend that policy of national exchanges which secures to the working men liberal wages, to agriculture remunerating prices, to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate reward for their skill, labor and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence.'"
That was just weeks before his inauguration at a time when the Morrill bill was a big issue.
In that same speech, Lincoln even proclaimed the tariff issue a top issue priority, stating "if the consideration of the Tariff bill should be postponed until the next session of the National Legislature, no subject should engage your representatives more closely than that of a tariff."
This is not to say that many aspects of Lincoln's economic thinking are not troubling. They are.
I'll agree. Perhaps most troubling is his rudimentary version of the labor theory of value, which appeared all over his political career. The first recorded indications of it came around 1847 on some of his speech notes that have survived. He mentioned it again in the 1861 speech I just quoted to you, and at another date during one of his state of the union addresses.
They're also irrelevant.
Now that's pretty convenient of you, don't you think? I believe Lincoln's advocacy of tariffs during his later career as well as it being the dominant issue of his early career makes it relevant in the very least.
Selective quoting is just one of his tools (and, unfortunately, one of those of some of his defenders).
Really? Because selective Lincoln quoting seems to be one of the, if not the, favorite tool of Lincoln defenders on this forum. A close second favorite of theirs is McPherson quoting.
When the whole record is displayed, a much more complex picture of Lincoln is painted, and in the very least it is not near as pretty.
We also are obliged to enjoy the outright fabrications (Lincoln to the legislature in 1857 - 1857??), the passing of blame to unverifed secondary sources
Actually, Ferrier's own source conceded that the 1857 thing was an error originally made by a secondary source that DiLorenzo cited.
and the gnostic insistence that his thesis stands whether or not the facts he uses to support it are really facts.
I know of no such silly insistence, though I do readily admit to expressing the valid concern that his 300 page work cannot simply be blown off upon 4-5 oft repeated exercises in downright obsessive pettyness. Several DiLorenzo critics have asserted there to be "dozens" of errors, but they always repeat the same 4-5 complaints, some of which are blurred and interpretive at best. Why is that and where are these supposed "dozens" of others?
I would have thought that far, far better arguments could be made for the anti-Lincoln POV. As far as I'm concerned the most troubling argument AGAINST the neo-reb position is that the facts they advance to support their stand are so unreliable.
With all due respect, I do not think you have much room to talk considering the embarrassing exercise you employed to start off this very post to which I am responding. Just thought I'd pass that along.
May I conclude that post to be your endorsement of Mad Dawg's fabrication, which itself is more egregious than the worst of what you allege against DiLorenzo?
He claimed I had intentionally left out something important from that Lincoln quote, you know. But when one goes to the full letter from which I quoted, sure enough - what Mad Dawg claimed was there isn't there. Nor is anything even remotely like it. He made it all up. And you just endorsed him for it.
I also noticed you linked to your article about the need to check the footnotes and sources. Do you ever take your own advice?
Funny. You whine about DiLorenzo then endorse a blatant fabrication. You whine about DiLorenzo checking his sources then forget to do so yourself before endorsing Mad Dawg's fabrication. Even more amazing, you do the latter right before you post a link to your own article touting the necessity of checking footnotes!
Looks like you've inadvertently beaten yourself at your own game, Richard.
This is the second letter, which Lincoln says expresses the same thoughts as the first.
*******
Dr. Edward Wallace:
Springfield, Ills. May 12. 1860
My dear Sir
Your brother, Dr. W. S. Wallace, shows me a letter of yours, in which you in which you request him to inquire if you may use a letter of mine to you, in which something is said upon the Tariff question. I do not precisely remember what I did say in that letter; but I presume I said nothing substantially different from what I shall say now.
In the days of Henry Clay I was a Henry Clay-tariff-man; and my views have undergone no material change upon that subject. I now think the Tariff question ought not to be agitated in the Chicago convention; but that all should be satisfied on that point, with a presidential candidate, whose antecedents give assurance that he would neither seek to force a tariff-law by Executive influence; nor yet to arrest a reasonable one, by a veto, or otherwise. Just such a candidate I desire shall be put in nomination. I really have no objection to these views being publicly known; but I do wish to thrust no letter before the public now, upon any subject. Save me from the appearance of obtrusion; and I do not care who sees this, or my former letter.
Yours very truly
A. LINCOLN
*****
I'll follow with the first in a moment.
I give it with no comment.
*****
Dr. Edward Wallace: Clinton, Oct. 11th. 1859
My dear Sir:
I am here, just now, attending court. Yesterday, before I left Springfield, your brother, Dr. William S. Wallace, showed me a letter of yours, in which you kindly mention my name, inquire for my tariff views; and suggest the propriety of my writing a letter upon the subject.
I was an old Henry Clay tariff whig. In old times I made more speeches on that subject, than on any other. I have not since changed my views. I believe yet, if we could have a moderate, carefully adjusted, protective tariff, so far acquiesed in, as to not be a perpetual subject of political strife, squabbles, charges, and uncertainties, it would be better for us.
Still, it is my opinion that, just now, the revival of that question, will not advance the cause itself, or the man who revives it.
I have not thought much upon the subject recently; but my general impression is, that the necessity for a protective tariff will, ere long, force it's old opponents to take it up; and then it's old friends can join in, and establish it on a more firm and durable basis.
We, the old whigs, have been entirely beaten out on the tariff question; and we shall not be able to re-establish the policy, until the absence of it, shall have demonstrated the necessity for it, in the minds of men heretofore opposed to it.
With this view, I should prefer, to not now, write a public letter upon the subject. I therefo[re] wish this to be considered confidential.
I shall be very glad to receive a letter from you.
Yours truly
A. LINCOLN---
******
There you have the evidence of the private letters of any consequence.
I'll get the Pittsburg speech, too, if you want to see it. That and a speech in New Haven are all that exist, containing any significant mention of tariffs, in the several years just before Lincoln's inauguration.
Regards,
Richard F.
There is nothing at all surprising in any American Statesman of the first 100 years of the Republic thinking, with Locke and Smith, that labor lies at the basis of rights in property and human economic activity, and that it gives things their real value.
Cheers,
Richard F.
There's definately hope, Richard, though it would entail your removal of a self imposed roadblock that you have given all indications of an intent to keep.
I think I will simply post the two letters of Lincoln to Wallace, without commentary, and encourage anyone who wishes to think it out see the evidence himself.
That's fair enough. I'll gladly add some more that he wrote as well.
Private & confidential
G. Yoke Tams, Esq Springfield, Ills--- Sep. 22. 1860
My dear Sir: Your letter asking me ``Are you in favor of a Tariff & Protection to American Industry?'' is received. The convention which nominated me, by the 12th. plank of their platform, selected their position on this question; and I have declared my approval of the platform, and accepted the nomination. Now, if I were to publicly shift this position, by adding or subtracting anything, the convention would have the right, and probably would be inclined, to displace me as their candidate. And I feel confident that you, on reflection, would not wish me to give private assurances to be seen by some, and kept secret from others.
I enjoin that this shall, by no means be made public. Yours Respectfully A. LINCOLN
-----------------
To James E. Harvey
(Private and confidential.)
October 2, 1860.
My dear Sir: To comply with your request to furnish extracts from my tariff speeches is simply impossible, because none of those speeches were published. It was not fashionable here in those days to report one's public speeches. In 1844 I was on the Clay electoral ticket in this State (i.e., Illinois) and, to the best of my ability, sustained, together, the tariff of 1842 and the tariff plank of the Clay platform. This could be proven by hundreds---perhaps thousands---of living witnesses; still it is not in print, except by inference. The Whig papers of those years all show that I was upon the electoral ticket; even though I made speeches, among other things about the tariff, but they do not show what I said about it. The papers show that I was one of a committee which reported, among others, a resolution in these words:
``That we are in favor of an adequate revenue on duties from imports so levied as to afford ample protection to American industry.''
But, after all, was it really any more than the tariff plank of our present platform? And does not my acceptance pledge me to that? And am I at liberty to do more, if I were inclined? Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.
Actually, there are others where Lincoln uses terminology other than tariff. I've only had time to search briefly, but things like revenue collection, duties, and variations of the word protect are mentioned in other Lincoln works. A major theme with him was during the secession crisis, where Lincoln repeatedly spoke and wrote of the need to "collect the duties" or "collect the revenues" of seceding states. The theme continued into the war, where all of his blockade writings and speeches emphasized the same point over and over and over. The reason he kept giving was that secession had impeded the collection of duties on foreign imports. We can suppose that, in light of the fact that tariffs had just been hiked to the highest level in decades, this meant significant revenue. I'll have to spend some time, but can pull them and post them if you like.
I also find it interesting that the new haven speech is the only one I know of where Lincoln even comes close to the assertion that the tariff issue should be set aside to address the slavery issue.
All of the letters have him advocating the tariff in various degrees. Some are direct and open, others he stands behind the tariff plank of the platform. Some have him expressing hopes that he will be able to do so politically in the near future. Add the Pittsburgh speech, where he advocates in no less than direct terms the taking up of the issue as a major priority in congress, and it becomes clear that Lincoln was not willing to simply let the issue drop to address the slavery one.
All I can say is, not to me.
I, starting out attributing neither great vice nor great virtue to Lincoln and reading what you and rdf put up, see a man who says that he approves of the kind of tariffs you discuss and that if the opportunity should present itself he would press for them. Further, the party that nominated him has a tariff plank and he does not disavow it.
But in the letters rdf put up he seems to say that he does not see success with the tariffs until those who are currently opposed to them should cease to be so.
You offer: "I believe yet, if we could have a moderate, carefully adjusted, protective tariff, so far acquiesed in, as to not be a perpetual subject of political strife, squabbles, charges, and uncertainties, it would be better for us."
That shows that Lincoln likes tariffs. Tariffs - terrif. You continue:
In other words, Lincoln first says he's an old tariff Whig whose views have not changed. Next he advocates implementing a tariff, yet not a word about it no longer being his agenda or anything of the sort.
I'm sorry that does not seem to be an advocation of implementation. He merely says again that he things they're good.As I tried to say, I can like something and wish for it, and not be ready to take steps to get it. If I win the lottery, then a Ferrari goes on the agenda. If political situation changes, then tariffs go back on the agenda.
You continue:
The letter continues, again immediately from where the previous quote left off, with a comment on the political viability of the issue.
"Still, it is my opinion that, just now, the revival of that question, will not advance the cause itself, or the man who revives it."
That sounds to me like he's taking it off the agenda. Reviving the issue now won't work. It remains a long term goal but nothing he wants to work toward at the time of writing. It's not on the list of things to do right now.
You continue describing and quoting how Lincoln imagines and hopes, in essence, that sooner or later the issue could be added to the agenda; and you write:
I think it is safe to add that at this future point, Lincoln would not have hesitated to take up the tariff issue, ....
In other words, he might put it back on the agenda later.
I was mistaken about the MENTION of slavery, but I still maintain that that was the issue that pushed the tariff off the agenda.
The reason I say the tariff issue and its merits are irrelevant is that I notice that these threads tend to wander from the lousy way DiLorenzo supports his thesis to the thesis itself. From here it looks like the argument about Lincoln is a convenient distraction from the discussion of DiLorenzo's scholarship.
Actually, Ferrier's own source conceded that the 1857 thing was an error originally made by a secondary source that DiLorenzo cited.
My point exactly.
With no sources to hand and little time to search them, had I any, I made an error. When it was pointed out. I noted it. When my language was misunderstood as making an accusation against you, I clarified and expressed regret for the infelicity of my expression. DiLorenzo describes his shelf of 60 or so volumes (as I recall) of books about Lincoln. I missed the time, if any, when he took responsibility for his errors. I think I stand up against him pretty well.
That he does. He also asserts his own personal hopes that the opportunity to do so will arise in the near future. And when it did arise, he pressed for it as he said and identified it as a major priority the speech I quoted.
Further, the party that nominated him has a tariff plank and he does not disavow it.
He did not disavow it because he agreed with it. That agreement with the tariff plank predated the tariff plank as evidenced by the letters and by Lincoln's earlier career in the Whig party and Illinois legislature where he was a top advocate for the tariff.
But in the letters rdf put up he seems to say that he does not see success with the tariffs until those who are currently opposed to them should cease to be so.
Yes, and it's a perfectly consistent political statement. He did not see success for them because, at the time he wrote that letter, free trade dominated and the protectionists were in a minority in congress. Keep reading though. Right after that he says he anticipates this opposition will fall in the very near future making it possible to install a tariff.
And that's exactly what happened in 1860-61.
That shows that Lincoln likes tariffs.
As does his political history prior to that 1859 letter. If you would like, I'll post some of the statements from years prior when Lincoln was a prominent tariff advocate.
I'm sorry that does not seem to be an advocation of implementation.
Sure it is. It comes with the qualifier of political viability, but that is a given. A tariff could not be implemented and sustained if it were politically impossible in the congress' makeup to do so.
He merely says again that he things they're good.
Then says that when it becomes possible to pass one, they should do it.
As I tried to say, I can like something and wish for it, and not be ready to take steps to get it.
Or you can like something and wish for it, then prepare yourself to achieve it at some future date when achieving it becomes possible. That is what Lincoln did.
If I win the lottery, then a Ferrari goes on the agenda. If political situation changes, then tariffs go back on the agenda.
In that case, so to speak, Lincoln won the lottery. Only he also knew at the time of that letter that his chances of winning were pretty good as opposed to a shot in the darkness of you simply buying a lotto ticket.
That sounds to me like he's taking it off the agenda.
Something can remain on the agenda even though its advancer knows it to be years in the making. A communist definately has his goal of communism on his agenda, though often he knows that achieving it, if at all, will be years in the making.
Reviving the issue now won't work. It remains a long term goal but nothing he wants to work toward at the time of writing.
To the contrary. By consciously allowing the issue to mature, which is what he is doing, he is working toward achieving it. Like a good politician he knew making a bunch of noise about something he wanted wasn't always the best way to get it. Instead he strategized, and consciously so based upon that letter as evidence, of achieving it in the near future by allowing the issue to ripen and to be ready when that day comes. As history shows, that is exactly what happened - Lincoln got his tariff.
I was mistaken about the MENTION of slavery, but I still maintain that that was the issue that pushed the tariff off the agenda.
And I'll disagree, noting that the tariff was never truly pushed off the agenda. Lincoln simply decided it had a better chance if he was patient and took advantage of the right time - a political strategy, and one that later worked for him. As for the issue that made the tariff unviable in 1859 (and also viable in 1861), it was not slavery. It was Congress. More specifically it was Congress' makeup and the fact that, as of 1859, free trade was the policy. That was no longer the case shortly after though. As of 1861, the tariff had become the policy.
The reason I say the tariff issue and its merits are irrelevant is that I notice that these threads tend to wander from the lousy way DiLorenzo supports his thesis to the thesis itself. From here it looks like the argument about Lincoln is a convenient distraction from the discussion of DiLorenzo's scholarship.
It does get away from DiLorenzo, but I don't see any harm to that. DiLorenzo is still being discussed here and elsewhere. But with this, we're simply exploring an issue in greater depth that pertains to Lincoln himself. With no sources to hand and little time to search them, had I any, I made an error. When it was pointed out. I noted it.
Thank you. Your directness about that is appreciated.
Surely you must acknowledge the difference between Locke's theory of property and the later development of the labor theory of value concept. The two are not anywhere near the same thing, and from what Lincoln's works include, all suggestions are that his leanings were toward the latter, not that using Locke as a role model is anything better.
The most specific commentary Lincoln gives on the subject is found in some notes he made for a speech around the time of his congressional term. Locke's concerns lie with the establishment of property. The labor theory's concern lies with securing to the laborer the fruits of his production that have purported been removed from him by the employment process and those who carry out the business of that place of employment. Lincoln's own wording of it put it as the following: "To [secure] to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government." Lincoln divided labor into three categories, asserting only the first's legitimacy and of the rest classifying them as "heavy pensioners upon the first, robbing it of a large portion of it's just rights." Lincoln saw the tariff policy as the means by which the government achieved this "worthy object."
I notice you also maintain your latch onto John Locke, also mentioning Smith. Please note that with Smith I do not take issue. His economic thinking is indisputably of practical origin. It functions about as well as can be expected in its congruence with common sense and liberty, and the capitalist principles that derived from it are clearly the preferable of the economic theories available.
But with Locke, i've said it before and I'll say it again, it is difficult to have him without the undesirable consequences of empiricism. Always keep that in mind while reading him. And if you really want to see what it's all about, read David Hume's Enquiry.
Moreover, I don't think our to and fro about these things does us or anyone else any good.
As to the past, I think the national consensus about Lincoln, that he was wise and great, is true.
Concerning current political matters, I suspect that we agree about much, and we should work for the good we can do in our own times.
Best to you and all,
Richard F.
I only ask that you explore it further. My own first experience with Locke was one embracing much of his theories, which I had continued to do until fairly recently. Aways back I studied David Hume in an overview and then thoroughly, reaching the problems he creates, how he creates them, and what havoc they have caused ever since.
Shortly thereafter I turned my attention to combatting Hume's arguments by attempting to poke holes in them - something I still work on. In a way, Hume is a sort of point in the history of thought upon which things turn, therefore overturning what has come of his system lies in deconstructing that system.
All the while it became increasingly prominent how significantly the works of Hume rested upon those of Locke, themselves sharing in the same disastrous results. This, along with the prodding of friends similarly versed in Locke, pushed inevitably to the question of his theory of government's relationship to the inescapable problems created by empiricism. I now conclude that his clear basis in empiricism renders it impossible to escape empiricism, and the problems it creates, when one latches onto Locke just as is the case with Hume.
An alternative, as I have noted, must be found in a refinement of the theories other than Locke.
Not that there isn't anything to be gained from reading Locke or Hume and quite to the contrary. This is especially so with Hume, who advocates little more than Locke's system realized to its logical ends. A philosophy professor I once studied under often remarked that he had turned more people to Christianity by making them read Sartre than any Christian philosopher, simply by exposing them to a straight forward expression of the bleak alternative. I believe the same is true with Hume, and therefore by him Locke. Locke, and even sometimes Hume, are used as shelters for conservatives, claimed as our own philosophical foundings much as the left picks its icons of Marx, Sartre, Nietzsche, and the feminist theorists. But in reality, they are merely predecessors. Locke leads to Hume. Hume leads to skeptical chaos. Kant attempts to recover chaos and ends up worstening the decline into chaos. Nietzsche collapses Kant, forwarding chaos. Chaos comes to reign, forwarding cultural relativism and economic Marxism. Then the thinly vieled left wing system pursued as a means of facilitating "anything goes" style leftism, itself maintained by nothing more than might makes right, emerges complete.
That's where "intellectual" leftism is today and that's what we're up against. Since it is what we're up against, we must beat it with the alternative. And that alternative cannot be found in Hume, and inescapably by him Locke, which is an integral part of the source of what we're up against in the first place. We will never beat the bilge that remains in the wake of post-modernism by latching onto that which brought about post-modernism in the first place, as it will always end up as exactly that which we are supposedly trying to combat.
And that is why I reject Locke and urge fellow conservatives who think they've found something in him to examine him more closely before concluding him to be the answer. He is not. And we are never going to advance over the left as a movement if we are all convinced that he is.
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.