Comments on: Lincolnism Today: The Long Marriage of Centralized Power and Concentrated Wealth http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2009/02/09/lincolnism-today-the-long-marriage-of-centralized-power-and-concentrated-wealth/ Your home for traditional conservatism. Sat, 11 Feb 2012 19:05:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Beating back modern Lincolnism | Conservative Heritage Times http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2009/02/09/lincolnism-today-the-long-marriage-of-centralized-power-and-concentrated-wealth/comment-page-1/#comment-187170 Beating back modern Lincolnism | Conservative Heritage Times Fri, 13 Feb 2009 21:55:46 +0000 http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=1143#comment-187170 [...] Larison’s article on moden-day Lincolnism that appeared in its Chronicles’ February is outstanding. Given all [...] [...] Larison’s article on moden-day Lincolnism that appeared in its Chronicles’ February is outstanding. Given all [...]

]]> By: Theodore M. Van Oosbree http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2009/02/09/lincolnism-today-the-long-marriage-of-centralized-power-and-concentrated-wealth/comment-page-1/#comment-187039 Theodore M. Van Oosbree Wed, 11 Feb 2009 18:09:33 +0000 http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=1143#comment-187039 Importing "docile" Irishmen and Germans (they might well laugh at such a description) when the country had vast areas of open land and and accelerating industrialization is vastly different than importing third world laborers into a contracting economy. My point about labor arbitrage and capital flight is true no matter who advocates the policy or when they advocate it - slaveholders or the modern functionaries of the transnational corporation. As far as coercing men to fight, the Confederacy was first to initiate a draft and even prevented soldiers whose term of service expired from leaving the army (a step the US government refused to do!). I think the shoe is on the other foot here. I have no hatred for Americans of any section whereas Prof. Wilson has often voiced his distaste for "Yankees", which apparently means any American who wasn't born in the South. This distaste colors his analysis of history in general and in particular (e.g., attempting to associate the North with military coercion without noting the facts I presented above) Importing "docile" Irishmen and Germans (they might well laugh at such a description) when the country had vast areas of open land and and accelerating industrialization is vastly different than importing third world laborers into a contracting economy. My point about labor arbitrage and capital flight is true no matter who advocates the policy or when they advocate it - slaveholders or the modern functionaries of the transnational corporation. As far as coercing men to fight, the Confederacy was first to initiate a draft and even prevented soldiers whose term of service expired from leaving the army (a step the US government refused to do!). I think the shoe is on the other foot here. I have no hatred for Americans of any section whereas Prof. Wilson has often voiced his distaste for "Yankees", which apparently means any American who wasn't born in the South. This distaste colors his analysis of history in general and in particular (e.g., attempting to associate the North with military coercion without noting the facts I presented above)

]]> By: Allen Wilson http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2009/02/09/lincolnism-today-the-long-marriage-of-centralized-power-and-concentrated-wealth/comment-page-1/#comment-186975 Allen Wilson Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:25:03 +0000 http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=1143#comment-186975 @ 8: I did not know that Webster had ever said such things. I'll have to do some reading on him. He seems to be one of those characters whom one can love and hate all at the same time, but of course it's possible that he, like others, has been misrepresented by the politically correct crowd. @ 8: I did not know that Webster had ever said such things. I'll have to do some reading on him. He seems to be one of those characters whom one can love and hate all at the same time, but of course it's possible that he, like others, has been misrepresented by the politically correct crowd.

]]> By: Clyde Wilson http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2009/02/09/lincolnism-today-the-long-marriage-of-centralized-power-and-concentrated-wealth/comment-page-1/#comment-186966 Clyde Wilson Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:11:17 +0000 http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=1143#comment-186966 It takes real mental acrobatics to blame Southern slave-owners, who disappeared a century and a half ago, for labor arbitrage committed by Yankee capitalists today. Such "reasoning" can only rest upon hatred of the South, a quite common but perverse peculiaity for several centuries now. Look into honest accounts of the the Civil War history of Boston, Philadelphia, and Detroit. You will find how the Yankee industrialists bribed and coerced Northern working men into risking their lives to destroy the South, the only effective obstacle to the industrialists' takeover of the government. The same industrialists then, for more than a half century, imported cheap, docile European labour in order to keep down the wages of those Northern working men. (Promoting cheap immigrant labour has always been a Republican policy.) Washinton and many other Southerners sought to phase out slavery (while Northerners wanted to end slavery so the blacks would die out and cheaper "free labour" could prevail. But, as Daniel Webster pointed out during the debates on the Compromise 1850, the Southern desire to end slavery was destroyed by the hatred, fanaticism, and irresponsibility of the abolitionist attacks that began in the 1830s. Washington expressed himself in favour of a mild temporary tariff that encouraged production of some things which he felt the country should not rely on foreign supply for. He could not have imagined the lobbied high tariffs that began to be bribed and swindled through by the capitalists beginning in the 1820s. May I respectfully suggest that you tend to rely too much on over-generalised assertions and ought to dig down into the real substance of American history. It takes real mental acrobatics to blame Southern slave-owners, who disappeared a century and a half ago, for labor arbitrage committed by Yankee capitalists today. Such "reasoning" can only rest upon hatred of the South, a quite common but perverse peculiaity for several centuries now. Look into honest accounts of the the Civil War history of Boston, Philadelphia, and Detroit. You will find how the Yankee industrialists bribed and coerced Northern working men into risking their lives to destroy the South, the only effective obstacle to the industrialists' takeover of the government. The same industrialists then, for more than a half century, imported cheap, docile European labour in order to keep down the wages of those Northern working men. (Promoting cheap immigrant labour has always been a Republican policy.)
Washinton and many other Southerners sought to phase out slavery (while Northerners wanted to end slavery so the blacks would die out and cheaper "free labour" could prevail. But, as Daniel Webster pointed out during the debates on the Compromise 1850, the Southern desire to end slavery was destroyed by the hatred, fanaticism, and irresponsibility of the abolitionist attacks that began in the 1830s.
Washington expressed himself in favour of a mild temporary tariff that encouraged production of some things which he felt the country should not rely on foreign supply for. He could not have imagined the lobbied high tariffs that began to be bribed and swindled through by the capitalists beginning in the 1820s.
May I respectfully suggest that you tend to rely too much on over-generalised assertions and ought to dig down into the real substance of American history.

]]> By: THE LEGACY OF LINCOLN—February 2009 : Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2009/02/09/lincolnism-today-the-long-marriage-of-centralized-power-and-concentrated-wealth/comment-page-1/#comment-186938 THE LEGACY OF LINCOLN—February 2009 : Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture Mon, 09 Feb 2009 23:51:50 +0000 http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=1143#comment-186938 [...] Lincolnism Today by Daniel Larison The long marriage of centralized power and concentrated wealth. [...] [...] Lincolnism Today by Daniel Larison The long marriage of centralized power and concentrated wealth. [...]

]]> By: Ted Van Oosbree http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2009/02/09/lincolnism-today-the-long-marriage-of-centralized-power-and-concentrated-wealth/comment-page-1/#comment-186936 Ted Van Oosbree Mon, 09 Feb 2009 22:31:08 +0000 http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=1143#comment-186936 Washington freed his slaves and transitioned his farm to a free labor system. Would that the rest of America's slaveowners had done the same! He also supported the tariff system and encouraged American manufacturing to ensure economic as well as political independence from Great Britain. Washington freed his slaves and transitioned his farm to a free labor system. Would that the rest of America's slaveowners had done the same! He also supported the tariff system and encouraged American manufacturing to ensure economic as well as political independence from Great Britain.

]]> By: Clyde Wilson http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2009/02/09/lincolnism-today-the-long-marriage-of-centralized-power-and-concentrated-wealth/comment-page-1/#comment-186932 Clyde Wilson Mon, 09 Feb 2009 22:02:51 +0000 http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=1143#comment-186932 #4 Once more,Mr Van O. manages to blame everything bad on "slave-owning landowners." What a wonderful America we would have without them (Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, etc.) Then we would just have benevolent capitalists making everybody rich. #4 Once more,Mr Van O. manages to blame everything bad on "slave-owning landowners." What a wonderful America we would have without them (Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, etc.) Then we would just have benevolent capitalists making everybody rich.

]]> By: Ted Van Oosbree http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2009/02/09/lincolnism-today-the-long-marriage-of-centralized-power-and-concentrated-wealth/comment-page-1/#comment-186931 Ted Van Oosbree Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:12:25 +0000 http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=1143#comment-186931 Mr. Larison's economic analysis is completely wrong. Tariffs or their equivalent prevent wage arbitrage and preserve capital and jobs that otherwise would flow to low-wage countries (e.g., China at present). Public grants of land to railroads and settlers in the 19th century encouraged economically beneficial but financially risky enterprises that redounded to the great economic benefit of the country. Those opposed to those measures wanted to preserve a pseudo-agarian economy dominated by wealthy slave-owning landowners and dependent on manufactured goods imported from low-wage countries (in effect, recreating the old colonial economic relationship with Great Britain). The actual result of such a policy is the loss of national independence, the impoverishment of the working class and the growth of a Walmart economy peddling sweatshop goods to those who can still afford to buy them. Mr. Larison's economic analysis is completely wrong. Tariffs or their equivalent prevent wage arbitrage and preserve capital and jobs that otherwise would flow to low-wage countries (e.g., China at present). Public grants of land to railroads and settlers in the 19th century encouraged economically beneficial but financially risky enterprises that redounded to the great economic benefit of the country. Those opposed to those measures wanted to preserve a pseudo-agarian economy dominated by wealthy slave-owning landowners and dependent on manufactured goods imported from low-wage countries (in effect, recreating the old colonial economic relationship with Great Britain). The actual result of such a policy is the loss of national independence, the impoverishment of the working class and the growth of a Walmart economy peddling sweatshop goods to those who can still afford to buy them.

]]> By: J Meng http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2009/02/09/lincolnism-today-the-long-marriage-of-centralized-power-and-concentrated-wealth/comment-page-1/#comment-186926 J Meng Mon, 09 Feb 2009 18:37:26 +0000 http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=1143#comment-186926 An excellent summarization of the political-economic dynamism that characterizes American history, especially, since the War of Southern Independence. Nevertheless, I do have a quibble with Mr. Larison. He wrote, "Economic centralization and consolidated power are thriving in the wake of the financial crisis, as both tend to increase when the public is panicked and willing to cede more power and control to the very institutions that have already egregiously abused what power they previously possessed." Now, I suppose, I am a member of the public, but I did not willingly cede more power and control to the banksters of Wall Street and to the mobsters along the Beltway. I don't have any power. The American people, collectively, have no real power. What Mr. Larison probably meant to say is that the already grossly, powerful institutions that have been buggering us for decades decided to add power to themselves without any regard for the public, except to pay the bill. Most people would call this a sign of tyranny. An excellent summarization of the political-economic dynamism that characterizes American history, especially, since the War of Southern Independence. Nevertheless, I do have a quibble with Mr. Larison. He wrote, "Economic centralization and consolidated power are thriving in the wake of the financial crisis, as both tend to increase when the public is panicked and willing to cede more power and control to the very institutions that have already egregiously abused what power they previously possessed." Now, I suppose, I am a member of the public, but I did not willingly cede more power and control to the banksters of Wall Street and to the mobsters along the Beltway. I don't have any power. The American people, collectively, have no real power. What Mr. Larison probably meant to say is that the already grossly, powerful institutions that have been buggering us for decades decided to add power to themselves without any regard for the public, except to pay the bill. Most people would call this a sign of tyranny.

]]> By: Gilbert Jacobi http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2009/02/09/lincolnism-today-the-long-marriage-of-centralized-power-and-concentrated-wealth/comment-page-1/#comment-186921 Gilbert Jacobi Mon, 09 Feb 2009 18:01:41 +0000 http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=1143#comment-186921 Though I agree with Mr. Larison wholeheartedly on the perniciousness and extent of Americans' dependence on both government and large corporations, I am puzzled as to how the mutation of these corporations into "too big to fail" size can be halted without the hand of the state. I was under the impression that the conservative position has been that the anti-trust laws of the early 20th c were ineffective at best and a cure worse than the illness insofar as they restrained economic growth and set bad precedents for government interference in the free market. While I'm willing to stipulate Mr. Larison's good intentions, I'd like to know how his injunction to see "the necessity of more broadly distributing wealth..." avoids giving cover for Obama's plans to redistribute same. Finally, though the eastward expansion of NATO may turn out, as Srdja Trifkovic and other Chronicles writers continually assert, to have been a strategic blunder, I cannot agree that this policy is all or mostly in response to defence contractors' desires (Larison) or to paranoia (Trifkovic). The conduct of Russia over the centuries towards its neighbors amply justifies some form of geographical house-arrest, though not, of course, our involvement in Balkan wars. Though I agree with Mr. Larison wholeheartedly on the perniciousness and extent of Americans' dependence on both government and large corporations, I am puzzled as to how the mutation of these corporations into "too big to fail" size can be halted without the hand of the state. I was under the impression that the conservative position has been that the anti-trust laws of the early 20th c were ineffective at best and a cure worse than the illness insofar as they restrained economic growth and set bad precedents for government interference in the free market.

While I'm willing to stipulate Mr. Larison's good intentions, I'd like to know how his injunction to see "the necessity of more broadly distributing wealth..." avoids giving cover for Obama's plans to redistribute same.

Finally, though the eastward expansion of NATO may turn out, as Srdja Trifkovic and other Chronicles writers continually assert, to have been a strategic blunder, I cannot agree that this policy is all or mostly in response to defence contractors' desires (Larison) or to paranoia (Trifkovic). The conduct of Russia over the centuries towards its neighbors amply justifies some form of geographical house-arrest, though not, of course, our involvement in Balkan wars.

]]>