We are getting old.

[Mikebert]

(09-30-2016, 12:17 PM)Galen Wrote:

(09-30-2016, 07:21 AM)Odin Wrote:

(09-26-2016, 12:28 PM)Galen Wrote:

(09-26-2016, 06:53 AM)Odin Wrote:

(09-26-2016, 03:32 AM)taramarie Wrote: I am well aware of the real cause for the war. But they used idealism (free black slaves) to justify the war and use people for what they really wanted. Not unlike religious wars.

The Civil War WAS about slavery, Tara, that is accepted by every legitimate historian. Galen is peddling extremist far-right wacko propaganda. The Civil War started because people in the southern states believed that they had a right to own other human beings.

Do you even know who Thomas DiLorenzo is?

A far-right crackpot who peddles Neo-Confederate BS. His crap ends up on Reddit's /r/BadHistory board a lot. Most of the posters on that board are actual historians, by the way.

Have you actually read his work and then followed up on his sources?  If not then you don't know anything.

Oh, for Christ's sake. http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/stephens

Alexander Stephens (VP of the Confederacy) Wrote: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. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind -- from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics; their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just -- but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

[Galen]

(09-30-2016, 03:49 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(09-30-2016, 12:17 PM)Galen Wrote:

(09-30-2016, 07:21 AM)Odin Wrote:

(09-26-2016, 12:28 PM)Galen Wrote:

(09-26-2016, 06:53 AM)Odin Wrote: The Civil War WAS about slavery, Tara, that is accepted by every legitimate historian. Galen is peddling extremist far-right wacko propaganda. The Civil War started because people in the southern states believed that they had a right to own other human beings.

Do you even know who Thomas DiLorenzo is?

A far-right crackpot who peddles Neo-Confederate BS. His crap ends up on Reddit's /r/BadHistory board a lot. Most of the posters on that board are actual historians, by the way.

Have you actually read his work and then followed up on his sources?  If not then you don't know anything.

O for Christ's sake. http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/stephens

Lincoln was the one to start the war by re-enforcing Fort Sumter.  Prior to that it was the South Carolina that was providing them with food.  It was the Union that rejected the which was sent to negotiate the price of federal property and the amount of the federal debt they were to pay.  The Corwin Amendment had already passed both the Senate and House of Representatives.  Seven of the Southern States had seceded by this time and did not vote on the amendment.  It would not have passed unless the northern States were willing to vote for it.  Lincoln himself in his First Inaugural Address made it very clear that he had no intention to interfere with the institution of slavery.  Since the political elites of both the Union and the Confederacy were in agreement about slavery than there had to be another reason for the war.

Just for the record I won this argument against a very politically correct history professor at Portland State University about three years ago.  After I showed him a large number of source documents on the matter from prior and during the War Between the States he forced to admit that I was right about the causes of the that war.  He was not happy about it.  I am well aware of how the Confederacy felt about the issue but it was the Union that started the war.

Like I said to Odin, read his work and then the source documents written by those of that time before commenting on this.  Until you have you know nothing about the subject.

[Einzige]

Fucking LMAO at passing off Thomas "Tarrifs Everywhere" DiLorenzo as a serious historian.

Teenage angstitarianism ahoy.

God, libertarians are worthless.

From Alexander Stephens' Cornerstone Speech:

Quote: But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other-though last, not least: the new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among 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 the time. The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly used 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 idea of a Government built upon it-when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

[Eric the Green]

(10-01-2016, 12:47 AM)Galen Wrote:

(09-30-2016, 03:49 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(09-30-2016, 12:17 PM)Galen Wrote:

(09-30-2016, 07:21 AM)Odin Wrote:

(09-26-2016, 12:28 PM)Galen Wrote: Do you even know who Thomas DiLorenzo is?

A far-right crackpot who peddles Neo-Confederate BS. His crap ends up on Reddit's /r/BadHistory board a lot. Most of the posters on that board are actual historians, by the way.

Have you actually read his work and then followed up on his sources?  If not then you don't know anything.

O for Christ's sake. http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/stephens

Lincoln was the one to start the war by re-enforcing Fort Sumter.  Prior to that it was the South Carolina that was providing them with food.  It was the Union that rejected the which was sent to negotiate the price of federal property and the amount of the federal debt they were to pay.  The Corwin Amendment had already passed both the Senate and House of Representatives.  Seven of the Southern States had seceded by this time and did not vote on the amendment.  It would not have passed unless the northern States were willing to vote for it.  Lincoln himself in his First Inaugural Address made it very clear that he had no intention to interfere with the institution of slavery.  Since the political elites of both the Union and the Confederacy were in agreement about slavery than there had to be another reason for the war.

Elites have ultimately to bend to the popular will, if it's strong enough. The southern hotheads were hell-bent on arming themselves and seceding after the Harper's Ferry episode, from what I have read. The northern abolitionists were pushing the North into war, and Lincoln (who was at heart one of them and had said the union could not continue half-slave and half-free) was being pushed too. The north could have allowed Ft. Sumpter to be seized, I suppose, or negotiated a deal. It's quite plausible to say that the North started the war, since they wanted to preserve the union and many there wanted to end slavery. The southern rebels by seceding and arming and seizing federal property certainly provoked the north into action, so both sides are to blame. Certainly without slavery there would have been no war.

[Galen]

(10-01-2016, 01:22 AM)Einzige Wrote: Fucking LMAO at passing off Thomas "Tarrifs Everywhere" DiLorenzo as a serious historian.

How would you know?  Have you read the source documents?  I suspect that you haven't.  Lincoln didn't give a shit about slavery until 1862 which was after a long string of defeats suffered by the Union army.  Prior to that he was indifferent to the issue at best.

[Galen]

(10-01-2016, 02:27 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-01-2016, 12:47 AM)Galen Wrote:

(09-30-2016, 03:49 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(09-30-2016, 12:17 PM)Galen Wrote:

(09-30-2016, 07:21 AM)Odin Wrote: A far-right crackpot who peddles Neo-Confederate BS. His crap ends up on Reddit's /r/BadHistory board a lot. Most of the posters on that board are actual historians, by the way.

Have you actually read his work and then followed up on his sources?  If not then you don't know anything.

O for Christ's sake. http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/stephens

Lincoln was the one to start the war by re-enforcing Fort Sumter.  Prior to that it was the South Carolina that was providing them with food.  It was the Union that rejected the which was sent to negotiate the price of federal property and the amount of the federal debt they were to pay.  The Corwin Amendment had already passed both the Senate and House of Representatives.  Seven of the Southern States had seceded by this time and did not vote on the amendment.  It would not have passed unless the northern States were willing to vote for it.  Lincoln himself in his First Inaugural Address made it very clear that he had no intention to interfere with the institution of slavery.  Since the political elites of both the Union and the Confederacy were in agreement about slavery than there had to be another reason for the war.

Elites have ultimately to bend to the popular will, if it's strong enough. The southern hotheads were hell-bent on arming themselves and seceding after the Harper's Ferry episode, from what I have read. The northern abolitionists were pushing the North into war, and Lincoln (who was at heart one of them and had said the union could not continue half-slave and half-free) was being pushed too. The north could have allowed Ft. Sumpter to be seized, I suppose, or negotiated a deal. It's quite plausible to say that the North started the war, since they wanted to preserve the union and many there wanted to end slavery. The southern rebels by seceding and arming and seizing federal property certainly provoked the north into action, so both sides are to blame. Certainly without slavery there would have been no war.

The Union had a choice.  They could either allow the southern states to go or keep them in by force.  The Confederacy clearly intended a peaceful separation but the Union would not allow it.  If you bother to read the Constitution, which clearly you haven't, you would see there is nothing in it that prevent a state from seceding.  Prior to 1865 it was commonly understood that the union was a voluntary association and the states were in fact sovereign nations in their own right.  You might want to read the text of Virginia's ratification of the Constitution.

Truth is southern secession was a last resort measure because they could see no other way to preserve what they saw as their rights.  By the way Fort Sumpter was never in any danger of being seized, if it was the Confederacy would never have sent a peace commission in the first place.

[Mikebert]

(10-01-2016, 12:47 AM)Galen Wrote: Lincoln himself in his First Inaugural Address made it very clear that he had no intention to interfere with the institution of slavery.

He sure did.  But the South did not believe him.  Read the Cornerstone speech. It lays out the Confederate position clearly.  The South had capitulated to the North in the Compromise of 1850, allowing the North to obtain a majority in both Houses of Congress, which would enable the North to free the slaves by Federal law if they so chose.  As a measure of good faith the North agreed to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.  Problem was most Northerners did not give a shit about Southern planter property rights and the law was often ignored.  Not only that, but there was a whole network of terrorists who at their peak were stealing on the order of $150 million annually in today's money from Southern farmers.

Sure Republican and Democratic elites did not want war anymore than their modern counterparts want Donald Trump.  But the elites cannot always succeed in getting their masses to believe what they want them to.  Plenty of Northerners believed elements of the slave power conspiracy.  For their part, Southerners believed that the Republican party was secretly controlled by a cabal of Radical Republicans who wanted to abolish slavery.  Many suspected Lincoln was secretly one of them.  With so much at stake* Southerners could not afford to believe Northern promises, which could easily be lies.

When you consider that just a few years after 1860, lo and behold, a posse of Radical Republicans had indeed emerged and somehow Lincoln's war aims had shifted from restoring the union to abolishing slavery.  This confirmed Southern belief that Lincoln was lying--the North would never allow them to keep their slaves.  Particularly now that states had had the temerity to secede.  This was like the signing of the Declaration of Independence.  By July 1776 there was no way the colonists and the British government could avoid war.  The same was true in April 1861 so they shelled Fort Sumter.
*******************************************************************************************

*It is important to take into consideration the sheer value of a slave.  In 1860, a slave was worth about $145,000 in today's money.  About 20% of white folks owned one or more slaves.  Having just one slave made you a substantial citizen.  Own several and you were a comparatively rich man.  Slaves were so highly valued because they were so much more versatile than other work animals.  One slave was worth as much as 30 pack horses or 6 riding horses. Slaves represented about 60% of Southern wealth and a much higher fraction of relatively liquid assets. Any threat to slavery amounted to financial devastation of a fifth of the Southern white population.  Note only that, but many poor whites found employment on plantations as overseers or on slave patrols, making their livelihood tied to slavery.

[Mikebert]

(10-01-2016, 06:39 AM)Galen Wrote: If you read the Constitution, you would see there is nothing in it that prevent a state from seceding. 

True, nor is an affirmative right to secede asserted.  The operating document here is the Declaration, which says a people have a right to rebel against a government that they feel does not serve their interests.  They were no more or less justified than the rebels in 1776.  Both they and the rebels of '76 were guilty of treason and could be justifiably hanged for it.  The difference is the rebels won while the Confederates did not.

[Einzige]

I repeat myself.

Quote:But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other-though last, not least: the new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among 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 the time. The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly used 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 idea of a Government built upon it-when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Quote:But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other-though last, not least: the new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among us-the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.

Quote:This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.

And more, from the "source documents".
From the Texas Declaration Of Secession:

Quote: A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union. 

The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then a free, sovereign and independent nation, the annexation of the latter to the former, as one of the co-equal states thereof, 

The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union. 

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association.

...

When we advert to the course of individual non-slave-holding States, and that a majority of their citizens, our grievances assume far greater magnitude.

The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation...

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States. 

For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States. 

By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments. 



They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a 'higher law' than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights. 



They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition. 



They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offenses, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved. 



...



And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States. 



In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed.



We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.



That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states. 


By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.

Moving on to South Carolina. 

Quote: The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue. 

And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act. 

...

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." 

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River. 

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States. 

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New Yorkeven the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation. 

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." 

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor. 

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions;and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection. 

...

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States. 

Mississippi made it the most clear that slavery was pretty much their only concern in their own Declaration of Secessionon. 

Quote:I

Quote:n the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. 


Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world.  Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. 



That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove. 



The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory. 



The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France. 



The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico. 



It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction. 



It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion. 



It tramples the original equality of the South under foot. 



It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain. 



It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst. 



It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice. 



It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists. 



...



Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England. 


Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.

[Warren Dew]

(10-01-2016, 02:27 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-01-2016, 12:47 AM)Galen Wrote:

(09-30-2016, 03:49 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(09-30-2016, 12:17 PM)Galen Wrote:

(09-30-2016, 07:21 AM)Odin Wrote: A far-right crackpot who peddles Neo-Confederate BS. His crap ends up on Reddit's /r/BadHistory board a lot. Most of the posters on that board are actual historians, by the way.

Have you actually read his work and then followed up on his sources?  If not then you don't know anything.

O for Christ's sake. http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/stephens

Lincoln was the one to start the war by re-enforcing Fort Sumter.  Prior to that it was the South Carolina that was providing them with food.  It was the Union that rejected the which was sent to negotiate the price of federal property and the amount of the federal debt they were to pay.  The Corwin Amendment had already passed both the Senate and House of Representatives.  Seven of the Southern States had seceded by this time and did not vote on the amendment.  It would not have passed unless the northern States were willing to vote for it.  Lincoln himself in his First Inaugural Address made it very clear that he had no intention to interfere with the institution of slavery.  Since the political elites of both the Union and the Confederacy were in agreement about slavery than there had to be another reason for the war.

Elites have ultimately to bend to the popular will, if it's strong enough. The southern hotheads were hell-bent on arming themselves and seceding after the Harper's Ferry episode, from what I have read. The northern abolitionists were pushing the North into war, and Lincoln (who was at heart one of them and had said the union could not continue half-slave and half-free) was being pushed too. The north could have allowed Ft. Sumpter to be seized, I suppose, or negotiated a deal. It's quite plausible to say that the North started the war, since they wanted to preserve the union and many there wanted to end slavery. The southern rebels by seceding and arming and seizing federal property certainly provoked the north into action, so both sides are to blame. Certainly without slavery there would have been no war.

The North started the war to preserve the union, yes.  It's not plausible to say they started it to end slavery, not when the emancipation proclamation wasn't issued until two years later, not when the emancipation proclamation permitted continued slavery in several states that hadn't seceded.

It was a Crisis era, so there would probably have been a war even without slavery.  Had the economics otherwise been similar, for example, the fact that the federal government was almost entirely funded by the south, but benefited primarily the north, would likely have eventually caused a war of some sort.

[Einzige]

The South started the war when they fired first, in aggression, on Fort Sumter.

[Warren Dew]

(09-29-2016, 12:42 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-28-2016, 11:34 PM)Galen Wrote: Unfortunately when governments get into fiscal trouble of the scale the West has now they choose to go to war since people are more willing to sacrifice their interests in the name of blind patriotism.  Now western governments have nukes and so they need either a war against an indefinable enemy and no well defined victory condition.  If the War on Terror is insufficient then a civil war might do the trick.  The last thing a politician ever wants to do is admit that the promises of the past can not be kept since it threatens their career.

I actually agree that it's easier to sell the public on massive spending during wartime than for peaceful pursuits.  You seem to agree, so why is weaponized Keynesianism preferable to the same actions without the pretense?  We know that massive spending works to kick start the economy when it gets bogged down, and  we also know that growth and mild inflation makes the accumulated debt unimportant in the not too distant future: witness the dramatic change between1945 and 1973 on all the war debt that was never paid down by a single dime:

Those were also the best years the US economy and, more to the point, US workers have experienced ever!  We could do that again, focusing on building a 21st century infrastructure that we will need soon in any case.  Of course, the less progressive among us will argue that this needs to be a private sector undertaking, all evidence to the contrary.

Your memory is going if you think the "best years" of the U.S. economy included the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the massive spending of Johnson's and Nixon's economic keynesianism caused previously unheard of inflation.  While demand side keynesian stimulus can fund wars, in peacetime its record is terrible.

It should also be noted that outgrowing the WWII debt was composed of lots of population growth at nearly 2% per year, and quite minimal per capita economic growth and thus quite minimal improvement in living conditions for individual citizens.  The 1980s and 1990s, and even the early oughts, were considerably better for actual people.

[Mikebert]

(10-01-2016, 06:15 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-29-2016, 12:42 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-28-2016, 11:34 PM)Galen Wrote: Unfortunately when governments get into fiscal trouble of the scale the West has now they choose to go to war since people are more willing to sacrifice their interests in the name of blind patriotism.  Now western governments have nukes and so they need either a war against an indefinable enemy and no well defined victory condition.  If the War on Terror is insufficient then a civil war might do the trick.  The last thing a politician ever wants to do is admit that the promises of the past can not be kept since it threatens their career.

I actually agree that it's easier to sell the public on massive spending during wartime than for peaceful pursuits.  You seem to agree, so why is weaponized Keynesianism preferable to the same actions without the pretense?  We know that massive spending works to kick start the economy when it gets bogged down, and  we also know that growth and mild inflation makes the accumulated debt unimportant in the not too distant future: witness the dramatic change between1945 and 1973 on all the war debt that was never paid down by a single dime:

Those were also the best years the US economy and, more to the point, US workers have experienced ever!  We could do that again, focusing on building a 21st century infrastructure that we will need soon in any case.  Of course, the less progressive among us will argue that this needs to be a private sector undertaking, all evidence to the contrary.

Your memory is going if you think the "best years" of the U.S. economy included the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the massive spending of Johnson's and Nixon's economic keynesianism caused previously unheard of inflation.  While demand side keynesian stimulus can fund wars, in peacetime its record is terrible.

It should also be noted that outgrowing the WWII debt was composed of lots of population growth at nearly 2% per year, and quite minimal per capita economic growth and thus quite minimal improvement in living conditions for individual citizens.  The 1980s and 1990s, and even the early oughts, were considerably better for actual people.

The data are readily available.  Here are population growth rates and real per capita GDP growth rates over periods of interest.

Period . . . . . Pop . . GDPpc
1950-1965   1.7%  .  2.4%
1965-1980   1.1%  .  2.2%
1980-2000   1.1%  .  2.3%

[Warren Dew]

(10-02-2016, 10:16 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

(10-01-2016, 06:15 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(09-29-2016, 12:42 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-28-2016, 11:34 PM)Galen Wrote: Unfortunately when governments get into fiscal trouble of the scale the West has now they choose to go to war since people are more willing to sacrifice their interests in the name of blind patriotism.  Now western governments have nukes and so they need either a war against an indefinable enemy and no well defined victory condition.  If the War on Terror is insufficient then a civil war might do the trick.  The last thing a politician ever wants to do is admit that the promises of the past can not be kept since it threatens their career.

I actually agree that it's easier to sell the public on massive spending during wartime than for peaceful pursuits.  You seem to agree, so why is weaponized Keynesianism preferable to the same actions without the pretense?  We know that massive spending works to kick start the economy when it gets bogged down, and  we also know that growth and mild inflation makes the accumulated debt unimportant in the not too distant future: witness the dramatic change between1945 and 1973 on all the war debt that was never paid down by a single dime:

Those were also the best years the US economy and, more to the point, US workers have experienced ever!  We could do that again, focusing on building a 21st century infrastructure that we will need soon in any case.  Of course, the less progressive among us will argue that this needs to be a private sector undertaking, all evidence to the contrary.

Your memory is going if you think the "best years" of the U.S. economy included the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the massive spending of Johnson's and Nixon's economic keynesianism caused previously unheard of inflation.  While demand side keynesian stimulus can fund wars, in peacetime its record is terrible.

It should also be noted that outgrowing the WWII debt was composed of lots of population growth at nearly 2% per year, and quite minimal per capita economic growth and thus quite minimal improvement in living conditions for individual citizens.  The 1980s and 1990s, and even the early oughts, were considerably better for actual people.

The data are readily available.  Here are population growth rates and real per capita GDP growth rates over periods of interest.

Period . . . . . Pop . . GDPpc
1950-1965   1.7%  .  2.4%
1965-1980   1.1%  .  2.2%
1980-2000   1.1%  .  2.3%

Those were not the periods under discussion.  David Horn speciifically mentioned 1945-1973.  So, the periods under discussion, not cherry picked to avoid recessions:

Period . . . . . Pop . . GDPpc

1945-1973   1.5%  .  1.8%
1980-2000   1.1%  .  2.3%

If anything, the postwar decades were significantly depressed relative to the Reagan/Bush/Clinton decades.

[Mikebert]

Warren, I know the data. It is you who are cheery-picking, although you may not know it.

You note that per capital GDP growth over 1945-1973 was 1.8%, which seems to make your point.  But then I can note that per capital GDP growth over 1946-1973 was 2.3%, same as the other period.  Remarkable what shifting things just one year does.  I was responding yo YOU post in which you said:

"It should also be noted that outgrowing the WWII debt was composed of lots of population growth at nearly 2% per year, and quite minimal per capita economic growth and thus quite minimal improvement in living conditions for individual citizens."  Well you can't count 1945 as a period when we were "outgrowing the war debt" since we were still like fighting the war. And you cannot assume that the all the soldiers magically appeared, all discharged, in August 1945 when the war ended.  We did not stop war spending until 1947, and if you want to get technical you could use 1947 for which the corresponding population and per cap GDP growth were 1.5% and 2.5, which is even worse for you case than what I posted.

As for the other figures, where did you get them?  The site I linked to has these figures:

1973-2010 1.0% 1.7%
1980-2010 1.0% 1.8%

I explicitly avoided using the 1947-73 and 1973-2010 comparisons because that IS cherry-picking in my favor. 

I gave the site I was using because it is super-easy to use.  I am doing the analyses in real time as I post.  The same data can be found at economagic.com, which is where my spreadsheet data come from.  It's the same data, you can get it from the BEA or the Fed, but its more of a pain.  I like measuring worth because it makes it so easy.

Are you sure you grabbed the right data?  Might it have been nominal GDP rather than real?

[Warren Dew]

1945 was a war year, partially.  1946 was entirely a postwar year.  Therefore, the change from 1945, which ended after the end of the war, to 1946, which both began and ended after the war, is absolutely part of the postwar change.  Your excluding it is the worst of cherry picking.  If we did the analysis month by month, the postwar period would likely look even worse due to including the immediate postwar months at the end of 1945; even my numbers are cherry picking in your favor a bit.

And again, look back at David Horn's post which started this discussion.  He said, "witness the dramatic change between 1945 and 1973" in his argument for demand side Keynesianism (emphasis mine).  That's why I used 1945-1973 even though, as you point out, 1973 was cherry picked in his favor a bit; my argument about the "early 1970s" being bad should include 1974 and 1975, both of which saw negative economic growth and would show the postwar years as being even worse, with growth at 1.6%  rather than 1.8%.

As for the source of the data, I was using your site.  However, while most of my numbers, including the key 1980-2000 number, are correct, I used the wrong denominator for 1980-2010.  I will go back and correct that post.

So, let's do direct comparisons relative to the business cycle.  For the postwar years from just before a recession to just before a recession, we'll use David Horn's 1945-1973 period.  For an apples to apples comparison of the Reagan/Bush/Clinton years, we use my preferred period of 1980-2000, which is again just before a recession to just before a recession.  (You could start it in 1980 if you wanted to exclude Carter's last year of growth, but the number is still the same.)

1945-1973 - 1.8% annual per capita GDP growth, prerecession to prerecession
1980-2000 - 2.3% annual per capita GDP growth, prerecession to prerecession

Supply stimulus is clearly better than demand side stimulus.

Or if you want to end the supply side period in 2010, just after a recession - three decades with one more contraction than expansion - the supply side record drops to 1.8%.  But if you extend the postwar period to three decades by ending it in 1975, so that it also includes an extra cocntraction, it drops to 1.6%.  So again, supply side stimulus works better.

Or, you can compare the two 1.8% periods, and the conclusion is that supply side stimulus with an extra recession is as good as demand side stimulus without the extra recession.

[Odin]

(10-01-2016, 06:39 AM)Galen Wrote: Truth is southern secession was a last resort measure because they could see no other way to preserve what they saw as their rights.  By the way Fort Sumpter was never in any danger of being seized, if it was the Confederacy would never have sent a peace commission in the first place.

THEIR "RIGHT" TO OWN OTHER HUMAN BEINGS. The Southern "way of life" was pure evil and deserved to be destroyed. As far as I'm concerned the Confederacy was something akin to Nazi Germany, it needed to be destroyed just like the Nazis needed to be destroyed.

[pbrower2a]

(10-02-2016, 05:07 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: 1945 was a war year, partially.  1946 was entirely a postwar year.  Therefore, the change from 1945, which ended after the end of the war, to 1946, which both began and ended after the war, is absolutely part of the postwar change.  Your excluding it is the worst of cherry picking.  If we did the analysis month by month, the postwar period would likely look even worse due to including the immediate postwar months at the end of 1945; even my numbers are cherry picking in your favor a bit.

And again, look back at David Horn's post which started this discussion.  He said, "witness the dramatic change between 1945 and 1973" in his argument for demand side Keynesianism (emphasis mine).  That's why I used 1945-1973 even though, as you point out, 1973 was cherry picked in his favor a bit; my argument about the "early 1970s" being bad should include 1974 and 1975, both of which saw negative economic growth and would show the postwar years as being even worse, with growth at 1.6%  rather than 1.8%.

As for the source of the data, I was using your site.  However, while most of my numbers, including the key 1980-2000 number, are correct, I used the wrong denominator for 1980-2010.  I will go back and correct that post.

So, let's do direct comparisons relative to the business cycle.  For the postwar years from just before a recession to just before a recession, we'll use David Horn's 1945-1973 period.  For an apples to apples comparison of the Reagan/Bush/Clinton years, we use my preferred period of 1980-2000, which is again just before a recession to just before a recession.  (You could start it in 1980 if you wanted to exclude Carter's last year of growth, but the number is still the same.)

1945-1973 - 1.8% annual per capita GDP growth, prerecession to prerecession
1980-2000 - 2.3% annual per capita GDP growth, prerecession to prerecession

Supply stimulus is clearly better than demand side stimulus.

Or if you want to end the supply side period in 2010, just after a recession - three decades with one more contraction than expansion - the supply side record drops to 1.8%.  But if you extend the postwar period to three decades by ending it in 1975, so that it also includes an extra cocntraction, it drops to 1.6%.  So again, supply side stimulus works better.

Or, you can compare the two 1.8% periods, and the conclusion is that supply side stimulus with an extra recession is as good as demand side stimulus without the extra recession.

Much of the growth in the American economy is in people paying more for property rent and medical (especially nursing-home) care with no improvement in the quality of what they pay for. If the growth does not result in a higher quality of life, then the economic measures showing growth are suspect.

[Warren Dew]

(10-03-2016, 11:31 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(10-02-2016, 05:07 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: 1945 was a war year, partially.  1946 was entirely a postwar year.  Therefore, the change from 1945, which ended after the end of the war, to 1946, which both began and ended after the war, is absolutely part of the postwar change.  Your excluding it is the worst of cherry picking.  If we did the analysis month by month, the postwar period would likely look even worse due to including the immediate postwar months at the end of 1945; even my numbers are cherry picking in your favor a bit.

And again, look back at David Horn's post which started this discussion.  He said, "witness the dramatic change between 1945 and 1973" in his argument for demand side Keynesianism (emphasis mine).  That's why I used 1945-1973 even though, as you point out, 1973 was cherry picked in his favor a bit; my argument about the "early 1970s" being bad should include 1974 and 1975, both of which saw negative economic growth and would show the postwar years as being even worse, with growth at 1.6%  rather than 1.8%.

As for the source of the data, I was using your site.  However, while most of my numbers, including the key 1980-2000 number, are correct, I used the wrong denominator for 1980-2010.  I will go back and correct that post.

So, let's do direct comparisons relative to the business cycle.  For the postwar years from just before a recession to just before a recession, we'll use David Horn's 1945-1973 period.  For an apples to apples comparison of the Reagan/Bush/Clinton years, we use my preferred period of 1980-2000, which is again just before a recession to just before a recession.  (You could start it in 1980 if you wanted to exclude Carter's last year of growth, but the number is still the same.)

1945-1973 - 1.8% annual per capita GDP growth, prerecession to prerecession
1980-2000 - 2.3% annual per capita GDP growth, prerecession to prerecession

Supply stimulus is clearly better than demand side stimulus.

Or if you want to end the supply side period in 2010, just after a recession - three decades with one more contraction than expansion - the supply side record drops to 1.8%.  But if you extend the postwar period to three decades by ending it in 1975, so that it also includes an extra cocntraction, it drops to 1.6%.  So again, supply side stimulus works better.

Or, you can compare the two 1.8% periods, and the conclusion is that supply side stimulus with an extra recession is as good as demand side stimulus without the extra recession.

Much of the growth in the American economy is in people paying more for property rent and medical (especially nursing-home) care with no improvement in the quality of what they pay for. If the growth does not result in a higher quality of life, then the economic measures showing growth are suspect.

Both Mikebert and I are using inflation adjusted figures, so paying more for the same thing is factored out of the numbers.

To the extent people are buying more nursing home care, for example, it's because they are using it more instead of dying before they need it.  You can argue about whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, but it's legitimately part of the economy.

[David Horn]

(10-02-2016, 05:07 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: 1945 was a war year, partially.  1946 was entirely a postwar year.  Therefore, the change from 1945, which ended after the end of the war, to 1946, which both began and ended after the war, is absolutely part of the postwar change.  Your excluding it is the worst of cherry picking.  If we did the analysis month by month, the postwar period would likely look even worse due to including the immediate postwar months at the end of 1945; even my numbers are cherry picking in your favor a bit.

And again, look back at David Horn's post which started this discussion.  He said, "witness the dramatic change between 1945 and 1973" in his argument for demand side Keynesianism (emphasis mine).  That's why I used 1945-1973 even though, as you point out, 1973 was cherry picked in his favor a bit; my argument about the "early 1970s" being bad should include 1974 and 1975, both of which saw negative economic growth and would show the postwar years as being even worse, with growth at 1.6%  rather than 1.8%.

As for the source of the data, I was using your site.  However, while most of my numbers, including the key 1980-2000 number, are correct, I used the wrong denominator for 1980-2010.  I will go back and correct that post.

So, let's do direct comparisons relative to the business cycle.  For the postwar years from just before a recession to just before a recession, we'll use David Horn's 1945-1973 period.  For an apples to apples comparison of the Reagan/Bush/Clinton years, we use my preferred period of 1980-2000, which is again just before a recession to just before a recession.  (You could start it in 1980 if you wanted to exclude Carter's last year of growth, but the number is still the same.)

1945-1973 - 1.8% annual per capita GDP growth, prerecession to prerecession
1980-2000 - 2.3% annual per capita GDP growth, prerecession to prerecession

Supply stimulus is clearly better than demand side stimulus.

Or if you want to end the supply side period in 2010, just after a recession - three decades with one more contraction than expansion - the supply side record drops to 1.8%.  But if you extend the postwar period to three decades by ending it in 1975, so that it also includes an extra contraction, it drops to 1.6%.  So again, supply side stimulus works better.

Or, you can compare the two 1.8% periods, and the conclusion is that supply side stimulus with an extra recession is as good as demand side stimulus without the extra recession.

I pulled all the NIPA tables for the period 1929 to 2015, and the periods under Democratic Presidents were far and away better performers.   I haven't finished with the new set, because the chained basis was altered over the set, but I have an older set from 1929 through the 2007 in the GWB Presidency.  If I eliminate all the gains and losses from Hoover, FDR and Truman (in other words, just the core post-war period through 2007), the Democrats show an annual 3.92% GDP gain in chained dollars. The GOP, just 2.56%.  I didn't even include the huge losses from 2007 crash.

Frankly, I don't see how you make your case.