The New Individualist on Ron Paul

[Selene]

Chris:

Amazing! I thought I would never again see the Marxist arguments of Charles Beard's: An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution still being proffered as an argument in the 21st Century!

"As a leader of the "Progressive School"[my addition here - progressive = Marxist = Communist] of historiography, he introduced themes of economic self-interest and economic conflict regarding the adoption of the Constitution and the transformations caused by the Civil War. Thus he emphasized the long-term conflict among industrialists in the Northeast, farmers in the Midwest, and planters in the South that he saw as the cause of the Civil War. His study of the financial interests of the drafters of the United States Constitution (An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution) seemed radical in 1913, since he proposed that the U.S. Constitution was a product of economically determinist, land-holding founding fathers. He saw ideology as a product of economic interests."

Aghh please do not tell anyone you are a Randian or Objectivist.

I believe you would be better putting on an aluminum hat with antenae.

Adam

[Dragonfly]

The purpose of an antenna is opposite to that of an aluminium hat...

[Selene]

Dragonfly:

See you are on the outer ring of the collective. The inner ring knows the power in tandem of the antennae [plural as in more than one].

however, if you donate and submit to training we can bring you into the inner circle.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I read one Civil War scholar years ago who thought the Civil War was basically fought over expansion to the West, how it should be done. I can't remember his name anymore (if I'm not mistaken, the blurb said he won a Pulitzer Prize), but he made an excellent case. I might look all that up again sometime.

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

It sure sounds like Beard and or his co-authors.

"Dealing with Reconstruction and the Gilded Age, disciples of Beard such as Howard Beale and C. Vann Woodward focused on greed and economic causation and emphasized the centrality of corruption. They argued that the rhetoric of equal rights was a smokescreen hiding their true motivation, which was promoting the interests of industrialists in the Northeast. The basic flaw was the assumption that there was a unified business policy. Scholars in the 1950s and 1960s demonstrated that businessmen were widely divergent on monetary or tariff policy. While Pennsylvania businessmen wanted high tariffs, those in other states did not; the railroads were hurt by the tariffs on steel, which they purchased in large quantity.[1] Forrest McDonald In We The People: The Economic Origins of the Constitution (1958) argued that Charles Beard had misinterpreted the economic interests involved in writing the Constitution. Instead of two interests, landed and mercantile, which conflicted, there were three dozen identifiable interests that forced the delegates to bargain.

Beard's economic approach lost influence in the history profession after 1950 as conservative scholars suggested serious flaws in Beard's research, and attention turned away from economic causation.[2]" Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Beard

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

It was something far more recent. I tried to look, but I can't find it.

Now the damn thing won't leave me alone...

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

I think the institution of slavery had as much to do with the Civil War as any decision made by Lincoln. The Southerns wanted to put their slaves and their "peculiar institution" in the new western territories and that was the cause of the war.

That's an overly simplistic explanation of the civil war.

Slavery was a factor, but not the sole cause.

Chris Baker touched on some of the other cause that are too often overlooked.

Some other things to keep in mind.

Yes, there were southerns who fought in the CW to keep slavery. There were also southerns who didn't like the idea they were fighting a civil war to keep slavery for other southerns.

Yes, there were northerns who fought in the CW to end slavery. There were also northerns who didn't like the idea of fighting a civil war to free the slaves (one of the reasons for the draft riots).

Lincoln was not anti-slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves. It was nothing more then a political ploy. Thomas DiLorenzo has a couple of good books debunking the myths about Lincoln.

Something also to keep in mind. The US was the only western nation that had to go to war to end slavery. All the other nations did so peaceably. Why couldn't we?

Michael; All of the Southern states mentioned slavery as the most important reasons for seceding.

Lincoln and many Republicans said they would not interfere with slavery in the states that it already existed. The Republicans were determined to keep it from expanded.

The US Supreme Court had for-closed to the Congress any control over slavery with the Dred Scott decision.

The Confederate Constitution mentioned slavery. The Confederate Constitution also allowed a right of succession but denied to East Tennesseans when they tried to succeed.

The Southern states violated the rights of its citizens who opposed slavery and practiced censorship against abolisheist newspapers.

[algernonsidney]

Amazing! I thought I would never again see the Marxist arguments of Charles Beard's: An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution still being proffered as an argument in the 21st Century!

What does this have to do with anything? I have never read the book. Since the book is on the top of your head, you must think about it a lot. You are the one who has introduced it into the conversation.

I certainly don't need to read any book to interpret the Constitution--all I have to do is read the Constitution. I'm not writing anything about the Constitution. I'm writing about the motivations of the politicians who promoted certain programs before the time of the Civil War.

In case you didn't know, Henry Clay had nothing to do with the Constitution. He was born in 1777. He was first elected to the Senate (illegally) in 1806.

Years ago, I actually found a copy of eight books of Lincoln's writings at library sale. I read it all. That's where some of my knowledge about this comes from. Some observations I made are:

Lincoln despised Andrew Jackson mainly because Jackson killed the Second Bank of the United States

Lincoln hated slavery because it actually encouraged race mixing and wanted to send them back to Africa

Lincoln loved Henry Clay and all of his corporate-welfare statist garbage

Lincoln ran on a platform which actually called for subsidies for transcontinental railroads

Lincoln wanted to restrict the growth of slavery and felt that "popular sovereignty" would encourage its spread

You bring up books which have nothing to do with anything. I bring up facts. Do you have any facts? Or do you just have moronic, irrelevant comments about socialist historians that I have not read, but that you have apparently read?

[Selene]

Chris:

Can you possibly be this obtuse?

Charles Beard is the pre-eminent founder of the "progressive" school of historical analysis which started with the Constitution and then wrote profusely about the economic cause of the Civil War and the Post Civil War period of "Reconstruction" and the expansion westward which is precisely what you were discussing.

Please do not be a condescending and effete critic without any understanding of historical analysis.

Stop being a banal critic of everything from such a narrow analytical point of view.

There is an old homily that may apply to you. I never met a critic who built a bridge.

Adam

[algernonsidney]

Something also to keep in mind. The US was the only western nation that had to go to war to end slavery.

I wouldn't say that we "had to go to war." That is how it happened, however. I don't know enough about how it ended elsewhere to make an informed comment about how it ended. One theory I have is that it was because slavery was concentrated geographically in some sections of the country. I don't know if this is the case with other nations.

There were many secessionist movements since the Constitution was ratified. The first was in the North when the US had an embargo and then a war with Britain. This hurt New England more than others, as they had a lot of trade with Britain at the time. It was highlighted by the Hartford Convention. One documented complaint was that there had been too many Presidents from Virginia.

Then the South wanted more foreign trade. This lead to South Carolina attempting to nullify the "Tariff of Abominations." Not surprisingly, South Carolina was the first to secede.

Of course, the concept of nullification went back to the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (penned by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison), which argued that states should void laws which violated the Constitution. In this case, it was the very immoral Alien and Sedition Acts.

Northerners like William Lloyd Garrison also had secessionist sympathies. Garrison called the Constitution a "compact with hell" because it supported slavery. He felt that the North was actually helping maintain the institution, and some slaveholders agreed. Escaping to the North wasn't enough to free a slave--he had to go to Canada.

The South was especially fearful of becoming another Haiti. There, the slaves had risen up and massacred the masters in the 1790's. The US actually refused to recognize Haiti until 1862.

Dred Scott also lead to Northern fears that slavery would spread all over the country.

I think secession would have abolished slavery. It would have made it easier for a slave to escape. I think it also would have lead to more industrialism in the South.

Edited September 25, 2008 by Chris Baker

[algernonsidney]

Charles Beard is the pre-eminent founder of the "progressive" school of historical analysis which started with the Constitution and then wrote profusely about the economic cause of the Civil War and the Post Civil War period of "Reconstruction" and the expansion westward which is precisely what you were discussing.

If some of the things I have presented are incorrect, please provide evidence that they are incorrect. Are you interested in facts?

I will concede that you obviously know more about Charles Beard than I do. How long have you been interested in Beard? How many of his books have you read? How long have you been interested in this "progressive" school of historical analysis? What is the cause of this infatuation?

[Selene]

Chris:

Read Beard when I was 19 as a Junior at Queens College - City University of NY. I became interested in the progressive school of historical analysis immediately because as a Randian, I saw how dangerously narrow and biased their point of view was.

Unfortunately, I believe in reading the other side as much as I can stomach so I can tear them apart with negative evidence.

I have never been enamored of it. I detest the analysis because it is false.

Answer your questions or if you have more, ask away.

Adam

[Chris Grieb]

Baker; Why don't you answer any of the questions I raised.

The South was the most backward and anti-capitalist area of the United States. Could this be the reason all you libertarians love it? The South deserved to lose the Civil War!

[emb021]

Something also to keep in mind. The US was the only western nation that had to go to war to end slavery.

I wouldn't say that we "had to go to war." That is how it happened, however. I don't know enough about how it ended elsewhere to make an informed comment about how it ended. One theory I have is that it was because slavery was concentrated geographically in some sections of the country. I don't know if this is the case with other nations.

Maybe 'had to go to war' is a poor choice of words. But of all the slave-owning countries in the west, its the only one that had to fight an internal war to end it. All the others (Brazil, England, etc) ended it peaceably.

There were many secessionist movements since the Constitution was ratified. The first was in the North when the US had an embargo and then a war with Britain. This hurt New England more than others, as they had a lot of trade with Britain at the time. It was highlighted by the Hartford Convention. One documented complaint was that there had been too many Presidents from Virginia.

Which is something I only recently learned. Found that out as I'm reading DiLorenzo's "How Capitalism Saved America". Somehow this stuff I never learned in my American History courses in school. Hmmmm.

Then the South wanted more foreign trade. This lead to South Carolina attempting to nullify the "Tariff of Abominations." Not surprisingly, South Carolina was the first to secede.

Of course, the concept of nullification went back to the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (penned by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison), which argued that states should void laws which violated the Constitution. In this case, it was the very immoral Alien and Sedition Acts.

Again, agree. But these are things I've only recently learning in various books of been reading of late (the affore mentioned HCSA, as well as a few others by Woods, DiLorenzo and Gutzman).

Northerners like William Lloyd Garrison also had secessionist sympathies. Garrison called the Constitution a "compact with hell" because it supported slavery. He felt that the North was actually helping maintain the institution, and some slaveholders agreed. Escaping to the North wasn't enough to free a slave--he had to go to Canada.

The South was especially fearful of becoming another Haiti. There, the slaves had risen up and massacred the masters in the 1790's. The US actually refused to recognize Haiti until 1862.

Dred Scott also lead to Northern fears that slavery would spread all over the country.

I think secession would have abolished slavery. It would have made it easier for a slave to escape. I think it also would have lead to more industrialism in the South.

Another book I was reading recently (not sure which one) spoke about secession, and the fact that some in the north supported it (and, no, they were NOT pro-slavery types). They fealt the South should be allowed to seceed (as was their right), they'd get over it, maybe end slavery, then come back into the union.

Again, a lot of stuff about American history (and I'm a bit of a history buff) that we weren't told in school. When it comes to the Civil War (another mis-title) its all 'the civil war was about slavery, the south was evil and wanted to keep it, and good and kind Lincoln would save the union and wipe out slavery'. Instead its much more complex, and most people don't even know the real Lincoln (as you pointed out in yesterday's note).

[algernonsidney]

Maybe 'had to go to war' is a poor choice of words. But of all the slave-owning countries in the west, its the only one that had to fight an internal war to end it. All the others (Brazil, England, etc) ended it peaceably.

And the war was quite destructive as a result. We are still paying for it today.

Which is something I only recently learned. Found that out as I'm reading DiLorenzo's "How Capitalism Saved America". Somehow this stuff I never learned in my American History courses in school. Hmmmm.

DiLorenzo is a good man generally. But if you actually read Lincoln, you'll also understand his motivation. Many Americans saw the Union as essential to keeping the American experiment alive. While the Civil War was going on, the French were invading Mexico. And I have heard that Britain was actually amassing troops in Canada. Some felt that European nations wanted to divide and conquer the Union in order to re-colonize it. Lincoln's fatal error was his belief that the government could somehow return to its principles after the war--this was terribly naive. I don't think it was malice.

They felt the South should be allowed to secede (as was their right), they'd get over it, maybe end slavery, then come back into the union.

That's what I believe. Slavery was actually keeping the South less wealthy. Tocqueville pointed out that immigrants didn't go there because labor was "dishonored." In the North, labor was "honored." I highly recommend _Democracy in America_.

Instead its much more complex, and most people don't even know the real Lincoln (as you pointed out in yesterday's note).

I was fortunate to have one outstanding history teacher in high school. He retired a year after that. He actually introduced me to Machiavelli and to Pearl Harbor "conspiracy" theories. He just loved to tell stories.

If you ask me to sum up the cause of the Civil War in just one word, I would say: "Distrust."

Fortunately, the country has progressed in many good ways since that time. One reason why some feared abolishing slavery was that they didn't think the animosity between the races could ever be overcome. The fact that many white Americans are now embracing an African American for the Presidency just shows how far things have come. Yes, there are still problems. There have been a few riots, yet we generally live in peace and harmony. Things will get even better once we get rid of this welfare state.

Edited September 25, 2008 by Chris Baker

[emb021]

Baker; Why don't you answer any of the questions I raised.

The South was the most backward and anti-capitalist area of the United States. Could this be the reason all you libertarians love it? The South deserved to lose the Civil War!

Uh huh.

I've been a libertarian since college. I'm been a southerner all my life. I was not aware that libertarians are supposed to 'love the South' (or the conferedacy). I certainly don't. I must have missed that in all my readings of libertarian works.

I can only give you my take.

Was the South 'backward'? Maybe, maybe not. Let's not forget that some of our greatest presidents came from the South.

Was the South more 'anti-capitalist'? Maybe, maybe not. Sometimes I think different areas of the country have been more anti-capitalist at times vs others. Keep in mind that Lincoln was part of the pro-tariff/pro-mercantilism movement, which is (of course) anti-capitalist. The Confederate Constitution actually had some explicit anti-mercantilist elements in it.

I do not approve of slavery. I'm glad its gone. I was taught in school that the Civil War was about slavery, and that noble 'Father Abraham' saved the Union and ended slavery. I no longer believe that. I don't feel the Civil War was necessary. Slavery could have (and I think would have) ended without it. I know think Lincoln amoung the worse Presidents we ever had, who increased even further federal power beyond what it should be, and layed the groundwork for further abuses by those that followed.

Further, AFAIC, the southern states (and all states) had the right to succeed. That's how our federal government was formed: independent states joining together to form a federal government, with the power to leave at any time. I do not care for the bs claims that talking about 'state's rights' (a concept I don't agree with, because AFAIC, states don't have rights, only individuals) as tho its "some kind of code word for wanting to have slavery" or the like that some *ssholes claim. ALL states have the right to succeed. And all state's have rights in the sense that per our Constitution, the federal government is given only CERTAIN powers that are specifically stated, and everything else remains with the states or individual citizens.

[Brant Gaede]

It's not that states had a right to succession. It's that the North had no right to go to war to prevent that.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

It's not that states had a right to succession. It's that the North had no right to go to war to prevent that.

--Brant

Among other things, the rebs fired on U.S. property, to wit, Ft. Sumter in Charleston Harbor which was owned by the U.S. and funded by people from all the states.

I am sure that if cooler heads prevailed some kind of bloodless mode of separation could have been worked out.

Recently Czeckoslovakia reverted to its pre-Great War status, i.e. two sovereign nations. No blood was spilled, no shots were fired.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[kiaer.ts]

There is no "right to secession." States do not have rights, people do. The purpose of Southern secession was to maintain a right-violating regime in power. Even to have to mention this on an Objectivist website is obscene.

The proper principle is that there is no unilateral right to secession from a legitimate authority. If a peaceful, rights-respecting mechanism exists for two entities to mutually disengage, such can be legitimate. E.g., Czechoslovakia. Or, one can secede from an illegitimate authority - e.g., the American Revolution - in order to establish a right-protecting regime.

But the Southern states were not seceding from an illegitimate right-violating tyranny. They were establishing one.

Further, if it be granted that states have a unilateral right to secession, then why not counties? Municipalities? Wards? Individual land owners? To what would such a state of affairs correspond?

The supposed right of unilateral secession is the actual declaration of civil war.

War to end unliateral secession is not improper. The seceding party has initiated war unilaterally.

This discussion of the right to secede takes the state as primary, and the purpose of the state, protection of individual rights, as secondary. This is not Objectivism.

[Chris Grieb]

Michael; Do you deny that the Southern states practiced censorship before the War?

[algernonsidney]

I was not aware that libertarians are supposed to 'love the South' (or the conferedacy). I certainly don't. I must have missed that in all my readings of libertarian works.

Some do. Interestingly enough, Objectivism has long been under-represented in the South.

Was the South more 'anti-capitalist'? Maybe, maybe not. Sometimes I think different areas of the country have been more anti-capitalist at times vs others. Keep in mind that Lincoln was part of the pro-tariff/pro-mercantilism movement, which is (of course) anti-capitalist. The Confederate Constitution actually had some explicit anti-mercantilist elements in it.

Neither was purely capitalist. Certainly an institution such as slavery is incompatible with capitalism. So were the mercantilist idealogues of the North.

Further, AFAIC, the southern states (and all states) had the right to secede.

Indeed, they do. And that's the only way to check the power of a government. If you can't leave the relationship, then how do you keep the relationship beneficial to all. It's like saying that a battered spouse has no right to leave the batterer.

that per our Constitution, the federal government is given only CERTAIN powers that are specifically stated, and everything else remains with the states or individual citizens.

If the men who signed the Constitution could see the country today, would they have signed it?

[algernonsidney]

Recently Czeckoslovakia reverted to its pre-Great War status, i.e. two sovereign nations. No blood was spilled, no shots were fired.

When were they ever independent nations? If they were, it was a very long time ago.

Unfortunately, this kind of peaceful separation is the exception, not the rule.

[emb021]

Michael; Do you deny that the Southern states practiced censorship before the War?

Sorry, but what prompted that question?

I have no idea one way or another if that occured.

If they did, I wouldn't agree that it was right to do so.

But then, people forget the Lincoln practiced censorship during the war, and seldom for legitamate purposes.

[algernonsidney]

But then, people forget the Lincoln practiced censorship during the war, and seldom for legitamate purposes.

There was censorship long before the war. After an incident during Jackson's Presidency, the Post Office refused to carry anti-slavery publications. This is one big argument for the privitization of the Post Office. It has historically been used for censorship.

[Chris Grieb]

Michael B, There were more books sold and read in the North. The North from the start put a great value on education and learning. You might look into a book called Throes of Freedom by Walter McDougall. He has discussions of each state as it is admitted to the Union. Read his discussions of Arkansas and Michigan. It is very enlightening.

The point has been made that the South was the only place where the slave population was increasing.

In discussing the right of secession while it is not addressed in the Constitution the Constitution dose say in article 4 section 3 that states can be broken up or brought without the consent of the legislature of the states and the Congress. This suggest to me that states can not succeed with out the consent of Congress.