The Tariff as a cause is defended

[Gary G]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo199.html

(I guess it depends on whether you stand on the side on big government- big business collusion or individual liberty)

[ironfoot]

When I read your link, I thought to myself "Where are his sources? It seems his assertions are unsupported."
This site found the same thing:

http://hidhist.wordpress.com/lincoln/thomas-j-dilorenzos-the-real-lincoln-a-rebuttal/

[subdjoe]

When I read your link, I thought to myself "Where are his sources? It seems his assertions are unsupported."
This site found the same thing:

http://hidhist.wordpress.com/lincoln/thomas-j-dilorenzos-the-real-lincoln-a-rebuttal/

And?  

ADDED:  How about posting a rebuttal with information from an unbiased and verifiable source? 

[Ga.windbreak]

To say that this or that caused the war is to excuse the bloodletting of a million or more souls. It was a power struggle which did not have to end in war. War was Lincoln's answer to that power struggle, he turned what was a bloodLESS action, the firing on Ft Sumter, into the bloody "SAVING" of the Union! His own recorded words tell us that he wants the South to fire the "FIRST" shot and he will use any ruse to cause that to happen so that he will have the moral high ground.  Just how can one have morals to cause a war? Presidents have used that tactic ever since to plunge this nation into war because they said it was necessary. Remember the Maine, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin action, and so on!

One man held the reins, one man called the shots, that one man believed that it would take less than 90 days to end it all, yet 150 years later we are still debating the root causes. If that one fact alone doesn't give you cause to question the sanity of Lincoln's actions much less his morality then nothing that anyone writes or says here will make a difference to you. He surely was no saint.

[Gary G]

When I read your link, I thought to myself "Where are his sources? It seems his assertions are unsupported."
This site found the same thing:

http://hidhist.wordpress.com/lincoln/thomas-j-dilorenzos-the-real-lincoln-a-rebuttal/

Dr. DiLorenzo is refuting an undocumented article in the Washington Post. He actually links two sources. For multiple sources of documentation of his statements, you might want to read his books.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Thomas+Dilorenzo&x=11&y=23

Ga. Windbreak, most wars are fought for perceived economic reasons. This war was too. The Tariff as a cause. (a and not the)
You are right about Lincoln. We have had many presidents lead this country away from our roots. Lincoln was of the first of the worst. He was the total opposite of a Jefferson.

[ironfoot]

To say that this or that caused the war is to excuse the bloodletting of a million or more souls. It was a power struggle which did not have to end in war.

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure." Lincoln


http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm


Can a free democracy endure? Not if those who are unhappy with the results of an election can nulify the election by secession.

[Gary G]

To say that this or that caused the war is to excuse the bloodletting of a million or more souls. It was a power struggle which did not have to end in war.

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure." Lincoln


http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm


Can a free democracy endure? Not if those who are unhappy with the results of an election can nulify the election by secession.

A nation conceived in liberty - meaning people are free to do as they please as long as the don't violate another's liberty.
Lincoln aborted liberty when he said you can't leave and made war on them.

The U.S. was not created as a democracy, but as a republic. The founders considered democracy as mob rule, hence the Bill of Rights and the electoral process. In a republic people are governed by laws, not by other people.

Succession would not nullify the election as you have stated. Lincoln would still have been the president of the U.S.

[ironfoot]

To say that this or that caused the war is to excuse the bloodletting of a million or more souls. It was a power struggle which did not have to end in war.

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure." Lincoln


http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm


Can a free democracy endure? Not if those who are unhappy with the results of an election can nulify the election by secession.

A nation conceived in liberty - meaning people are free to do as they please as long as the don't violate another's liberty.

But keeping slaves does violate other people's liberty.

Lincoln aborted liberty when he said you can't leave and made war on them.

Lincoln tried to keep slavery from expanding into the territories, and because of that the south seceded.

The U.S. was not created as a democracy, but as a republic. The founders considered democracy as mob rule, hence the Bill of Rights and the electoral process. In a republic people are governed by laws, not by other people.

The US is a representative democracy.

Succession would not nullify the election as you have stated. Lincoln would still have been the president of the U.S.

Lincoln was elected President of the whole US, not part of it.

[subdjoe]

To say that this or that caused the war is to excuse the bloodletting of a million or more souls. It was a power struggle which did not have to end in war.

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure." Lincoln


http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm


Can a free democracy endure? Not if those who are unhappy with the results of an election can nulify the election by secession.

How would 7 states leaving the Union have ended democracy in the states remaining in the Union?  Please be specific. 

[williamlayton]

I promised to leave this discussion board because my thoughts angered some.
I did not promise not to read.
I will post this thought and leave, again.
In the period we are discussing---there was great clamor to expand---grow, both in territory and production.
This tariff was an intrumental piece of legislation to reduce the effect/affect of European influence in America and protect American manufactureing.
Europe---England---had not given up hopes of gaining influence in the South---the South was most willing, not seeingthe dangers that Lincoln saw. This is open to conjecture only if you do not recognize that the very thing Lincoln was afraid of is actually happening today with free trade agreements.
It was very clear to ALL, that expansion was going to happen---Who would control this expansion.
England was in favor of a loose Confederation because it allowed them the ability to move back into the picture and be a player in this expansion. you may not want to recognize the truth of this---but a loose, and loose it was, Confederation would have given England the direct ability to control/gain control of this epansion and connetc western America with Western Canada----this of course would have boxed democracy in.
What would America look like today if all this had been turned around and the war had not been fought.
I studied the facts as a discourse to a degree and this is the picture I found painted on the canvass below the picture that we have in front of us today, so it is not just idle chatter on my part.
you boys have fun---but think.
Blessings

[ironfoot]

To say that this or that caused the war is to excuse the bloodletting of a million or more souls. It was a power struggle which did not have to end in war.

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure." Lincoln


http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm


Can a free democracy endure? Not if those who are unhappy with the results of an election can nulify the election by secession.

How would 7 states leaving the Union have ended democracy in the states remaining in the Union?  Please be specific. 

After an election in a representative democracy, all know who the elected leaders are. You can't veto the results of the election by choosing to no longer be part of the republic.

[subdjoe]

How would 7 states leaving the Union have ended democracy in the states remaining in the Union?  Please be specific. 

After an election in a representative democracy, all know who the elected leaders are. You can't veto the results of the election by choosing to no longer be part of the republic.

I'll ask it again - How would 7 states leaving the Union have ended democracy in the state remaining in the Union?  You make the claim that some states leaving the Union would have destroyed democracy in those remaining.  Please state exactly how. 

[Ga.windbreak]

Lincoln was elected President of the whole US, not part of it.

Then he should have acted like it!

[subdjoe]

Lincoln was elected President of the whole US, not part of it.

Then he should have acted like it!

He was still president of all of it.  It was just that some political entities had left it, so it was a bit smaller. 

[ironfoot]

Lincoln was elected President of the whole US, not part of it.

Then he should have acted like it!

He was still president of all of it.  It was just that some political entities had left it, so it was a bit smaller.

That doesn't make sense.
Elections don't mean anything if people do not abide by the results.
What of those people in the secedeing states who voted for Lincoln?
Few as they may have been, Lincoln was elected overall.
What right did others have to disregard their votes and secede and take those Lincoln supporters along with them?
Lincoln did act like he was President of the whole country, and did not allow part of it to ignore the results of an election.

[subdjoe]

Yet again - HOW did 7 states leaving the union eliminate democracy in the states that remained in the union?  I don't know how to make that any simpler.  You made the claim that those states leaving somehow destroyed democracy in the remaining union, please be specific as how it was destroyed. 

[williamlayton]

Because those 7 states became 7 nations.
This was an opportunity for invasion as they could not stand alone and would have been easy prey for a foreign nation to reinvent itself in this nation.
Nothing stays stagnant--it is continually in motion.
your thoughts are seen thru rose colred glasses.
Blessings

[subdjoe]

So, that ended democracy in the states that remained?  Just because maybe a foreign nation MIGHT have invaded the Confederacy, democracy was destroyed in the US?  Democracy vanished because of that?

And it seems as if that new nation, with the addition of 4 more who joined it after Lincoln marched on the others, did a pretty fair job of fending off a much larger and much more industrial foe for four years.  And in both nations democracy seemed to be intact. 

[williamlayton]

Well--you must look elswhere to defend that it was a democracy.
A democracy of 7 nations is a conferacy and is not a true democracy. A democracy of a Republic would indicate a binding that cannot be broken by another member--as is a Republic.
A Conferderacy can be broken by any member at any time---or the Confederacy can bend to the will of any member Republic as power so dictates.
See the example of the USSR.
What must be recognized, IM studied O, is that it was so decentralized, at this stage, it was actually under control of the will of one nation.
It is a much more detailed study that meets the eye. In my opinion--the Confederacy was not well thought thru and was/is a pie in the sky thought that could not work.
Blessings

[subdjoe]

Well--you must look elswhere to defend that it was a democracy.
A democracy of 7 nations is a conferacy and is not a true democracy. A democracy of a Republic would indicate a binding that cannot be broken by another member--as is a Republic.
A Conferderacy can be broken by any member at any time---or the Confederacy can bend to the will of any member Republic as power so dictates.
See the example of the USSR.
What must be recognized, IM studied O, is that it was so decentralized, at this stage, it was actually under control of the will of one nation.
It is a much more detailed study that meets the eye. In my opinion--the Confederacy was not well thought thru and was/is a pie in the sky thought that could not work.
Blessings

Which, while interesting conjecture about what would have happened to the Confederacy (and I don't buy your claim that it was 7 totally independent nations), again, avoids answering or explaining Irons assertion that democracy was destroyed in the Union.  Can one of you support that claim?  What would have changed in VT, OH, VA, PA, NY, CA, IA, MA, etc. to cause there to be no democracy ever again in them? 

I feel as if I'm asking "How much is 2 + 3?" and first I get "Banana" as an answer.  I ask again and get "Psalm 22 in the Septuagent numbering."  So, again I ask, and get told "Treaty of Worms."  But I don't seem to be getting "5" as an answer.

[williamlayton]

Respectfully---it is because you are getting answers that do not agree with your conclusions.
Certainly it is an opinion of mine--conjecture, if you want. It comes from looking at history and what happened elsewhere--then applyingthose results with what these folks failed to remember.
Ask the folks of Wales if they consider GB a democracy.
I am not saying that the USA is perfect--it is a Republic and that means a lot. We are a Republic.
The Confederacy---by any defintion--was not a Republic---Virginia considered itself a Republic--as did the other nations.
If you take that further, Could a County become a Republic--a nation.
If you suggest that this is silly---let's take a look at Texas during the civil war.
Angelina County declared it was not a secessionist county and was abolitionist.
West Central Texas---the German and Chec communities were against secession and formed some unionist militias. Sam Houston resigned office because he was against secession.
Blessings
 

[subdjoe]

Respectfully---it is because you are getting answers that do not agree with your conclusions.
Certainly it is an opinion of mine--conjecture, if you want. It comes from looking at history and what happened elsewhere--then applyingthose results with what these folks failed to remember.
Ask the folks of Wales if they consider GB a democracy.
I am not saying that the USA is perfect--it is a Republic and that means a lot. We are a Republic.
The Confederacy---by any defintion--was not a Republic---Virginia considered itself a Republic--as did the other nations.
If you take that further, Could a County become a Republic--a nation.
If you suggest that this is silly---let's take a look at Texas during the civil war.
Angelina County declared it was not a secessionist county and was abolitionist.
West Central Texas---the German and Chec communities were against secession and formed some unionist militias. Sam Houston resigned office because he was against secession.
Blessings

No, it isn't that the answers either agree or disagree with my conclusions.  It is that neither you nor Iron have been able, or willing, to say what changed in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,  Kentucky,  Maine, Maryland,  Massachusetts,  Michigan, Minnesota. Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania,  Rhode Island,  Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin that ended democracy in them and in the union in which they remained.  You throw out conjecture about the Confederacy being invaded by someone else, and give examples of other confederations and republics that have failed, but have not addressed how those 7 states leaving eliminated democracy in the states still in the Union. 

Heck, if you are going to look at various counties and say "See! They were pro union, but forced to leave!  That destroyed democracy!" why not go whole hog with your reductio ad absurdum and go down to city, or maybe even city block, level?   

By the way, the Confoederatio Helvetica seems to have worked quite well for just a few years. 

[williamlayton]

Well, I think I did and aome others also.
It changed it because it presentd a threat of disolving the Republic and presented the ability of another nation being formed that would disrupt the Republic which was established as the UNITED STATES--not united republics.
Blessings

[AtlLaw]

Seems to me America was a Confederation before it became a Republic...   

[williamlayton]

Yes it was and it dropped the confederation for a Republican one nation.
Blessings

[subdjoe]

Well, I think I did and aome others also.
It changed it because it presentd a threat of disolving the Republic and presented the ability of another nation being formed that would disrupt the Republic which was established as the UNITED STATES--not united republics.
Blessings

HOW???  How, how, HOW did it do that?  Seems like California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,  Kentucky,  Maine, Maryland,  Massachusetts,  Michigan, Minnesota. Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania,  Rhode Island,  Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin (and I should throw in VA, TN, NC, AR, and take out WV - since those didn't leave the Union until Abe was sending troops to attack the deep south) had a pretty solid union going there.  HOW would those 7 states leaving have disrupted the US?   Please be specific on EXACTLY what happened politically in the states that remained in the Union that destroyed their democracy.   

You are throwing out potentials.  Heck, you can make the argument that Canada and Mexico (france), bordering on the US as they do, "presented the ability of (an)other nation(s) being formed that would disrupt the Republic."  But that doesn't seem to have happened. 

Please give me something concrete that backs up Irons statement that having those 7 states leave peacefully destroyed, or would have destroyed, democracy in the states that stayed in the Union.  Not, "well, they were 7 totally separate and independent republics (which they weren't) and all could/would have attacked the US." (seems that until Abe had several times refused to remove US troops from SC soil, and was just hours away from reinforcing and reprovisioning a US fort on SC soil, all they wanted to do was remove themselves from the Union.  And had been trying to negotiate in good faith with the federals stonewalling the talks).   Or "They could have been taken over by some other nation as a staging ground for invasion of the US."  What ACTUALLY HAPPENED?  Seems like state and national elections still went on.  Congress still met.  SCOTUS was still there.   

ADDED:

And I'm going to keep asking this same question as long as you and Iron keep dodging it with things like (some hyperbole and exaggeration for effect: "Well, with every county in those southern states being independent republics Russia would have taken them over and then invaded the US unless of course they attacked the US first. And besides, no confederation ever anywhere at anytime has ever worked."  None of those diversions that keep being offered touch on the question of what actually happened that destroyed democracy in the states that remained in the Union as Iron claimed happened. 

[SouthernByGrace]

 

Lincoln was elected President of the whole US, not part of it.

Yeah, but he was not elected BY all of it. He wasn't even on the ballot in most Southern states, so the South did not elect him. King George was King of ALL of Great Britain, and ALL the American Colonies. So, what is your point? This country was founded on Secession. The very formation of this country was a secessionist act. So what if Lincoln was elected President of all or part of the U.S. History is replete with just this sort of separation. This was not a one-time thing.

Before the Revolutionary War started, all the military property (forts and outposts) belonged to England. After the War started, ownership of that property shifted to the Colonies, and later to the US Government. What happened at Ft. Sumter is no different than what happened at Valley Forge.

I want somebody to show me just ONE instance where a secession movement destroyed the government of the country being seceded from. The LARGEST secession movement in history happened when the Soviet Union collapsed. Every one of those countries had to secede from the USSR in order to gain its independence yet, NOT ONE of those nation's secession has caused Russia, the mother of the Union, to dissolve. Russia still has a functioning government today. And NOT ONE of those seceded countries has been taken over by an outside country in an effort to destroy Russia.

It's funny how the US has always been an advocate for secession throughout history, except for this once. The US even CREATED secession movements in places like Panama, which was a colony of Colombia. Even with the full military backing of the US, Colombia did not fall due to Panama's secession. In fact, the US has backed more secession movements than any other nation on earth. Why was the secession of the Southern states any different form all the others? Because not one of those other nations was paying the overwhelming majority of the taxes for running of the US Government!! The Southern states WERE!!!

SBG

DEO VINDICE

[williamlayton]

Well it didn't because it was decidedby a Civil War.
Blessings

[SouthernByGrace]

Why, HELLO williamlayton!!! Nice to see you're still in fine fettle. How have you been?   

SBG

[Gary G]

There is one secession act that we often forget. That was when the American colonies seceded from England. We call it the Revolution and most see it as a good thing. It certainly didn't destroy England. Now the right to the self determination of a people must be allowed or the result is war; something that helps neither part and destroys the wealth of both.