greendocnowciv
Registered: 11-2017
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Morris on US history Tariffs v Free Trade (2 min)
A very good, short, history lesson of how and why we went back and forth on tariffs from the start to today.
Thanks, Spud.
|
|
8/22/2019, 9:46 am
|
Link to this post
PM greendocnowciv
Blog
|
spud100
Moderator
Registered: 12-2017
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Morris on US history Tariffs v Free Trade (2 min)
We adapt. The South, because of cotton, tobacco and slavery were furiously insistent on free trade. In 1840, Counte De Tocqville went to the US as was astonished by the comparative poverty of the South. No middle class, just poor share croppers, (white), slaves, and the Owners.
According, to Morris, it was Lincoln's decision to leave the South something, that prolonged the Civil War, by almost 3 years! It was Sherman's march to the Sea, that ruined the South's ability to fight the war. Once done, Sherman ensured that they'd only last for 6 months, and it ended in 5 months.
https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/shermans-march
|
|
8/22/2019, 2:48 pm
|
Link to this post
PM spud100
Blog
|
greendocnowciv
Registered: 11-2017
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Morris on US history Tariffs v Free Trade (2 min)
Shermans march was crucial, but so was Grants' meatgrinder.
A heartless term for the Union and Confed soldiers lives his battering ram approach kept draining Lees masterful defense in the East.
Such that while Sherman used more tactical wisdom to beat several Southern commanders to his west, it was both of them combined that did it.
And Sherman showed wisdom when reporters tried to build him up. For some time as Sherman was succeeding, before "the march," he masterfully deflected their efforts to get him to join in with making him a hero.
He always gave his boss, Grant, top billing. He had in his past enough bad commanders that he knew a gem when he had one.
Grant was maybe the only one who could beat Lee on defense in the South. Lee's attack in the north was a disaster, but on his own ground and on defense, he was tops.
Grant beat him by not trying to outwit him. Simply barrel ahead as soon as your logistics permit. Period. Lee could only juggle insufficient men and supplies so much, and finally called it a day.
As for Lincoln - plenty of evidence that he didn't intentionally stretch out the war. But electing him may certainly have set-off the already inflamed Southern hearts of many a proto-Confed. If you can direct me to Dicks' discussion of how Lincoln prolonged it, I'd like to be educated.
They had tried to do it a generation or so before, under Andy Jackson. Unlike the much more humane Lincoln, Jackson started announcing that he wanted to muster troops as soon as public word started.
His threat to march them to that particular Southern State and hang any and all secessionists was completely in character, and not all all doubted by many. It worked like a charm to still the inflamed hearts of that time.
But that smoldering issue didn't just pop into existence under President Jackson. The fire that finally went off under Lincoln had been smoldering long, long before he got elected.
|
|
8/22/2019, 5:34 pm
|
Link to this post
PM greendocnowciv
Blog
|
spud100
Moderator
Registered: 12-2017
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Morris on US history Tariffs v Free Trade (2 min)
My wife and I went to a rally some years ago where I met Dick Morris. He spoke during his speech about Lincoln & the South. By 1851 the entire South imposed censorship on all mail coming in and out. Lincoln looked to want to extend the possibility of the South rebuilding, but they were so opposed to the Union, that they refused any conciliation. Like the Blacks of today, Doc, the white Southerners killed and died for pride, the Owners for money. I tried doing a google on Morris about this and found nothing.
|
|
8/22/2019, 6:54 pm
|
Link to this post
PM spud100
Blog
|
greendocnowciv
Registered: 11-2017
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Morris on US history Tariffs v Free Trade (2 min)
Yes, the antagonism then made todays nothing. Although the ideas and mindsets were certainly very different, they were close enough that we can certainly make out various things with confidence.
Until shooting broke out, and even a short time after, Lincoln hoped for more Jaw Jaw and no Wa Wa.
A pacifist? No. But oh, so much more humane than I! And good on ya for your eagerness to participate in politics so much that you and your other half trooped off to that event.
Glad you met Dick. I'll look for that stuff myself - a massive mountain of "Liconalia" has been written. Somebody pro'lly has some poop on that.
|
|
8/23/2019, 3:15 pm
|
Link to this post
PM greendocnowciv
Blog
|
spud100
Moderator
Registered: 12-2017
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Morris on US history Tariffs v Free Trade (2 min)
He was big on history of course Doc.
He was a huge abolitionist, but never wanted Civil War. On the other hand he continued slavery, and the war, by not killing the plantations.
It's akin to me pointing out FDR's and Churchill's lack of 'actionable' strikes on Adolf's camps, which seemed to them as insignificant militarily, but the psychological impact on Dur Fuhrer and his fellow national socialists, would have been massive. I could anticipate a Wehrmacht rebellion against the Party & the Waffen SS, in exchange for leniency and assistance against Stalin.
Remember, Stalin and Adolf cut a deal in August 1939 and both simultaneously agreed to invade Poland Sept 1st. They, more than Japan, together started WW2.
|
|
8/23/2019, 7:08 pm
|
Link to this post
PM spud100
Blog
|
