Blue Dog Democrat

Mottleydude said:
Not only are they boring, they aint to terribly bright. I come from a rural area in Ohio (mostly Catholic). Where implementation of Supply Side economic policies and the trade agreements by Republican administrations has devastated the local economies to the point of making rural ghettos out of the region. But do they care about these issues that affect their livlihood?

Fuck no. They care about Guns, Gays and Abortion. They have gotten what they deserve.
Click to expand...

You just don't understand morals. You would have been confounded by supporters of Winfield Scott, John C. Freemont, and Abraham Lincoln as well if you had lived during the elections of 1852, 1856 and 1860. Many have claimed that the economic policies of the Whigs and Republicans were disastrous to the common man.
 
Threedee said:
You just don't understand morals. You would have been confounded by supporters of Winfield Scott, John C. Freemont, and Abraham Lincoln as well if you had lived during the elections of 1852, 1856 and 1860. Many have claimed that the economic policies of the Whigs and Republicans were disastrous to the common man.
Click to expand...

Well I support their getting out of the way of business, but not their protectionism. I wish they had gone further with the freeman's bureau and actually implemented 40 acres and a mule for former slaves as well.
 
Watermark said:
Andrew Johnson was just a complete and total disaster.
Click to expand...

That is one of the huge reasons why things never got done, such as with the Freedman's Bureau as you pointed out. Lincoln was the only good president between Polk and Arthur. That's a span of 31 years (1849-1881): Fillmore was weak and Pierce, Buchanan, Johnson, Grant and Hayes all sucked.

In regard to the economy, I don't believe that there was anything wrong with Whig protectionism in its time. From Hamilton to McKinley, it was important to first see the development of American industry, in which case protectionism was probably a good thing. Unfortunately, the advent of the 14th Amendment corporate rights and monopoly came about in the post-Civil War era which made protectionism a bad thing before it had fully run its course in terms of its usefulness.
 
Protectionism very rarely has a useful purpose. Sometimes, they may be useful to shield infant industries. But those industries don't need a century of protection. The biggest problem with tariffs is that most of them are just reactionary nonsense, and the ones that may be useful at certain times are never going to be removed once they're not useful anymore.
 
Watermark said:
Protectionism very rarely has a useful purpose. Sometimes, they may be useful to shield infant industries. But those industries don't need a century of protection. The biggest problem with tariffs is that most of them are just reactionary nonsense, and the ones that may be useful at certain times are never going to be removed once they're not useful anymore.
Click to expand...

Well, it probably wouldn't have needed a century, but after Adams left office in 1801, Federalists/Whigs/Republicans did not hold much power until the election of Lincoln. John Q. Adams was almost completely thwarted during his term, that idiot Tyler was a WINO (and he died a traitor in the Confederacy having been elected to Congress), and so that basically left the "Dough-Face" Fillmore as the only standard barer for the Whigs (he was so-named because he tended to look out for Southern interests).

Watermark said:
And I don't interpret the 14th amendment as giving rights to corporations.
Click to expand...
Neither do I.
 
Threedee said:
You just don't understand morals. You would have been confounded by supporters of Winfield Scott, John C. Freemont, and Abraham Lincoln as well if you had lived during the elections of 1852, 1856 and 1860. Many have claimed that the economic policies of the Whigs and Republicans were disastrous to the common man.
Click to expand...

And you simply don't understand politics. To throw out the baby with the bath water won't get you very far and that's a hard lesson some people have to learn.

You picked a poor example to choose in slavery as slavery, failed in this nation as much on economic grounds as on moral grounds cause as we know, that on moral grounds, slavery was popular with a very large portion of this nation before it was finally outlawed.

Slavery presented an economic and political threat to our liberal democracy as it was not a cost affective economic system. It prevented the southern States from developing from a socioeconomic stand point where they could not compete with the industrially developed North which had eschewed slavery on largely economic grounds. It also presented a political threat in that the antebellum south had become a defacto Aristocracy (and thus the genesis of the south's conservative tradition) that depended on a slave based economy in which a few land owning Aristorcrat's owned and controlled the economic and political resources of the region. This lack of representation and economic opportunity to the non-slave population and it's destabilizing affect on neighboring regions was a direct threat to our newly formed liberal democracy. So slavery had to go for economic reason as much as it did for moral ones.
 
Last edited:
Threedee said:
That is one of the huge reasons why things never got done, such as with the Freedman's Bureau as you pointed out. Lincoln was the only good president between Polk and Arthur. That's a span of 31 years (1849-1881): Fillmore was weak and Pierce, Buchanan, Johnson, Grant and Hayes all sucked.

In regard to the economy, I don't believe that there was anything wrong with Whig protectionism in its time. From Hamilton to McKinley, it was important to first see the development of American industry, in which case protectionism was probably a good thing. Unfortunately, the advent of the 14th Amendment corporate rights and monopoly came about in the post-Civil War era which made protectionism a bad thing before it had fully run its course in terms of its usefulness.
Click to expand...

Hayes didn't suck. He was pretty much responsible for ending reconstruction and returning sovereignty to the southern States. Hardly an insignificant accomplishment. You're looking back at Haye's with the prism of 20:20 hindsight, with out understanding the political, cultural and social conditions of the 19th century and with an early 21st century bias. Hardly what I would consider objective. Objectively, Haye's was an average President, which, considering our history, is damned good praise. I would compare Haye's favorably with George H. W. Bush. Not a great President but not a bad one either.

OK....I admit to a little bit of a bias myself. Until a couple of months ago I was living in Haye's hometown of Delaware.
 
Mottleydude said:
Hayes didn't suck. He was pretty much responsible for ending reconstruction and returning sovereignty to the southern States. Hardly an insignificant accomplishment. You're looking back at Haye's with the prism of 20:20 hindsight, with out understanding the political, cultural and social conditions of the 19th century and with an early 21st century bias. Hardly what I would consider objective. Objectively, Haye's was an average President, which, considering our history, is damned good praise. I would compare Haye's favorably with George H. W. Bush. Not a great President but not a bad one either.

OK....I admit to a little bit of a bias myself. Until a couple of months ago I was living in Haye's hometown of Delaware.
Click to expand...

The South didn't deserve to have sovereignty restored for many years to come. Hayes should have just said, "fuck you all, I'm president!" I mean, what was the South going to do?
 
Mottleydude said:
And you simply don't understand politics. To throw out the baby with the bath water won't get you very far and that's a hard lesson some people have to learn.

You picked a poor example to choose in slavery as slavery, failed in this nation as much on economic grounds as on moral grounds cause as we know, that on moral grounds, slavery was popular with a very large portion of this nation before it was finally outlawed.

Slavery presented an economic and political threat to our liberal democracy as it was not a cost affective economic system. It prevented the southern States from developing from a socioeconomic stand point where they could not compete with the industrially developed North which had eschewed slavery on largely economic grounds. It also presented a political threat in that the antebellum south had become a defacto Aristocracy (and thus the genesis of the south's conservative tradition) that depended on a slave based economy in which a few land owning Aristorcrat's owned and controlled the economic and political resources of the region. This lack of representation and economic opportunity to the non-slave population and it's destabilizing affect on neighboring regions was a direct threat to our newly formed liberal democracy. So slavery had to go for economic reason as much as it did for moral ones.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the Free Labor Movement was an exclusively Northern movement, and it was Western oriented - that is, it was concerned with the economic development of the western territories. The idea was the white factory workers could save up enough money to later settle out West, and live free without having to worry about slavery lowering their standard of living.

The Southern economy was not going to last much longer, and declined all throughout the 1850's, but that hadn't really concerned most people at the time. And LOL at you again placing economics ahead of morality.
 
Threedee said:
The South didn't deserve to have sovereignty restored for many years to come. Hayes should have just said, "fuck you all, I'm president!" I mean, what was the South going to do?
Click to expand...

Ah...so you're trying to argue that at that time ending reconstruction was a bad thing? Me thinks you're in the minority there.
 
Mottleydude said:
Ah...so you're trying to argue that at that time ending reconstruction was a bad thing? Me thinks you're in the minority there.
Click to expand...

Well, look what happened when we pulled the military out. It was a horrific picture. Johnson and Grant may have fucked up the Recon. effort, but that's not to say that competent presidents couldn't have turned it around.
 
An entertaining and even informative thread.....good reading....

except for the one obvious asshole moron .....

but all in all, pretty good !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top