Thursday, March 20, 2014

You Didn't Dig Deep Enough, Shaw, Continued

"The South is an agricultural people whose chief interest is the export of a commodity required in every manufacturing country. Or true policy is peace and the freest trade which our necessities will permit. It is It is alike our interests, to all of those we would sell and from whom we would buy that there should be the fewest practicable restrictions upon the interchange of commodities." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy, 1861 (his inaugural address).............................................................................Now, compare that to this; "The power confided in me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion - no using force against it, or among the people anywhere.......There needs to be no bloodshed or violence and there shall be none unless it is forced upon the National authority." Abraham Lincoln, 1861 (his inaugural address)..........................................................................There it is, Shaw. Presidents Lincoln and Davis BOTH included tariffs in their inaugural addresses and the former actually went as far as to threaten the South with force if the tariffs were not secured. Pretty damn interesting, huh?


Rusty Shackelford said...

She is gone back to her chat room Will.

She cant engage without her little group of minions.

She is so very typical of an Obama liberal.

dmarks said...

The tariff issue is relevant today. We can see the problems caused by them before.

Congress has the power to institute tariffs just as it does war, outlined in the Constitution.

But as with war, we are a lot better off if Congress avoids tariffs is possible. As with war, the mention of tariffs is not a call to constantly institute them, or make them permanent. They are quite costly, and the victims are us.

BB-Idaho said...

The tariff was a bone of contention as early as the Jackson administration. Prior the to Civil War, it had been lowered, however. It was one
of many factors , and
was brought up among the secessionists in their list of
complaints. IMO, not the over riding factor, pre- Mises.

Rational Nation USA said...

Or a Paul, Cruz, et all republican.

Rational Nation USA said...

People generally only dig as deep as they need to become satisfied. Usually that is when they find the threads (info and analysis) that supports the position(s) they are comfortable with. Often preconceived.

Most true with the demonstrably very partisan individuals. Regardless of political affiliation.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Yes, from 1832 to 1857, the tariff was actually quite low (Andy Jackson having caved in prior to Lincoln). But it was more than doubled by the Morrill Act and look at Lincoln's inaugural. He was 100% accommodating to slavery and then he threatened invasion if the South didn't pony up. To me, at least with Abe Lincoln, the economic factors were far more imperative.......I would also add that free trade ideas didn't originate with the Austrians; Frederic Bastiat's "The Petition of the Candlemakers" being an obvious precursor.......P.S. I appreciate your contention that there were many factors and causes. THAT I agree with.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

dmarks, that's (the sugar example) a perfect example of concentrated benefits and diffused costs and of why such protectionism is so insidious.

dmarks said...

Will: Tariffs/etc rewards plutocrats (real ones) that are well-connected and bad at what they do, and it is the working schmoe who ends up paying through the nose)

By the way, only someone who has no idea what they are saying (cough Flying Junior) thinks that I am any sort of neo-confederate. And I've not seen evidence yet to show me that the Civil War wasn't mainly about slavery. Or that the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't a great thing.

Though the tariffs were indeed a major problem.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

The Emancipation Proclamation actually codified slavery in all of the territories where Mr. Lincoln COULD have ended it, and ended it only in the places where he couldn't. AND it promised to restore slavery in any of the states that returned to the Union by 1/1/1863. I'm sorry, but I'm just not seeing any greatness, courage, or anything there. I do appreciate your open-mindedness, though, and the fact that you're at least considering my points.