Lincoln and the Mexican War

[ironfoot]

Some Confederate apologists quote part of a speech Lincoln made when he was questioning the right of the US to engage in a war with Mexico.
Here is the section usually quoted:
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,—most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world."
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=949

But they forget to mention that Lincoln opposed the war with Mexico in large part because he thought it was an effort to expand American slavery.
"Fellow Whig Abraham Lincoln contested the causes for the war and demanded to know exactly where Thornton had been attacked and American blood shed. "Show me the spot," he demanded. Whig leader Robert Toombs of Georgia declared:
This war is nondescript .... We charge the President with usurping the war-making power ... with seizing a country ... which had been for centuries, and was then in the possession of the Mexicans .... Let us put a check upon this lust of dominion. We had territory enough, Heaven knew."
 Northern abolitionists attacked the war as an attempt by slave-owners—frequently referred to as "the Slave Power"—to strengthen the grip of slavery and thus ensure their continued influence in the federal government. Acting on his convictions, Henry David Thoreau was jailed for his refusal to pay taxes to support the war, and penned his famous essay, Civil Disobedience."
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=949

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_opposed_the_Mexican_war

Most Americans will agree that armed revolt may be justified in order to free a people, if peaceful means are not effective. Most Americans do not support a rebellion that would allow a despot to gain power. The question is, will the rebellion increase or decrease liberty? (E.G. Most Americans hope that the "Arab Spring" will result in peaceful, secular democracies, but fear it may result in fanatical Muslim governance.) But the Confederacy was not aimed at freeing a people, it was aimed at perpetuating the slavery of a people. A secession for such a cause is not legal, and certainly not ethical, in the eyes of most Americans.

[us920669]

Of course a Confederate Apologist, which I am not, would point out that the Articles of Succession were duly passed by the legislatures and signed by the governors of the various states.  This makes it less of a rebellion and more the lawful dissolution of an arrangement everyone at the time took for granted was voluntary.

[subdjoe]

Or you could say that the deep south withdrew from the Union because those states were becoming less and less willing to have their commerce controlled and dictated by an increasingly powerful industrial north.  And then be able to buy a well made plough from England for, say, $12 instead of $18, or an inferior quality plough made in PA or NY for $16 (prices just picked out of the air for purposes of illustration).  And to not be forced, through tariffs designed to protect northern industry, to pay for improvements and development of northern infrastructure for the further benefit of northern industrial and financial interests. 

ADDED:

I'll note that it always seems to be acceptable for northern political, financial, and industrial interests to build their power base in order to "ensure their continued influence in the federal government."  But somehow it is never acceptable for southern political interests to do the same thing. 

[williamlayton]

It is always better for a nation to be self sustaining than reliant on foreign goods.
It is a matter of interest that England prohibited the sale of John Deere ploughs. John Deere invented, produced and marketed a revolutionaty stailess steel plough. The best produced in the world at the time.
The Mexican war is a very interesting piece of history.
We had them by the throat and let them go. It is interesting to note that it was the Souths ambition to expand slavery into the North of Mexico. It is also interesting that Texas was the state that the South felt was the most advantageous for expanding slavery.
Most of the people in the state were Southerners---that is not to say that all of the people were. There was a great number--the majority of the population when you break out of East Texas--that Were European, Germans, Cheks, Poles--and they were firmly against slavery.
Blessings

[BUGEYE]

this is from the speech by veep stephens after he took the oath
"our new government is founded on the opposite idea of the equality of the races...its corner stone rests upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man.
this government is the first in the history of the world, based upon this great physical and moral truth.

[us920669]

The VP was a bit of an oddball.  He had opposed succession, and finding that there wasn't much for him to do in Richmond, he spent most of the war in Georgia reading Greek classics - in Greek, of course.

Stephen's statement is certainly inappropriate and indefensible today, but was really not that controversial in post-colonial America.  It was not a throwing down the gauntlet or drawing a line in the sand as much as an attempt to make the South's position sound mainstream.  Lincoln married into a slave-owning family, and some of his remarks during the election echo the same themes as Stephens'.

[subdjoe]

It is always better for a nation to be self sustaining than reliant on foreign goods.
It is a matter of interest that England prohibited the sale of John Deere ploughs. John Deere invented, produced and marketed a revolutionaty stailess steel plough. The best produced in the world at the time.

Do you have any reference to document that, I assume, stainless steel plough in the Civil War or antebellum period?  I'm not finding it the a patent search.  Didn't stainless only become commercially viable in the late 1800s or early 1900s?  I know that around the 1830s the addition of chromium to steel was found to make it somewhat corrosion resistant, but the product was quite brittle and likely unsuited for something like a plough.  Add to that that stainless is almost impossible to forge weld (it can be done, but if stainless was indeed available in commercial quantities at that time, the cost of the end product would have been prohibitive).  Deere did import, at $300/ton, steel from Sheffield, England.

I'm also unable to find any reference to England prohibiting the sale of ploughs manufactured by either Deere or Moline (not saying it isn't out there somewhere, I just haven't found it yet and I'm curious as to the wording of it).

[williamlayton]

John Deere's history.
The record of embargo is just some parts of history that I remember, from studying the ebargos and tariffs of the time and how they shaped this portion of history.
I have not looked on the web but I am sure it can be found.
Blessings

[subdjoe]

John Deere's history.
The record of embargo is just some parts of history that I remember, from studying the ebargos and tariffs of the time and how they shaped this portion of history.
I have not looked on the web but I am sure it can be found.
Blessings

I've checked John Deere's history, no mention of stainless steel ploughs that early.  Nor am I finding anything suggesting that other than possibly flatware was stainless in commercial use.  Also stainless steel.  Also digging back into the little grey cells for what I remember from my metallurgy classes. Do you have a source? 

I've searched a fair number of combinations of John Deere, Deere, Moline, Plough, Plow, England, Tariff, Embargo, Prohibit, Ban and haven't turned up any hint that in the period there were protective tariffs or prohibitions on the sale of any Deere products in England, much less a stainless steel plough.

[williamlayton]

No--I was was relying on memory. I won't debate it. You could be right.
I am sure that England put an embargo on the plows produced by John Deere.
Blessings

[subdjoe]

No--I was was relying on memory. I won't debate it. You could be right.
I am sure that England put an embargo on the plows produced by John Deere.
Blessings

In other words you can't provide even a hint of documentation to back up your claim that Deere was producing stainless steel ploughs in that era or that England put an embargo on them.   

[williamlayton]

Joe
No I can't. As a matter of fact I think I was wrong. Looking thru the web it indicates that it was a polished steel. I do distinctly remember it being called stainless--evidently that was error.
I am correct about the embargo.
Blessings

[subdjoe]

But you also distinctly remembered stainless steel, Willy. 

After a good many hours since yesterday searching the only connection I can find with John Deere and embargo is to the 1986/87 embargo on grain shipments to the Soviet Union, when Deere lost close to half a billion dollars. 

[ironfoot]

Of course a Confederate Apologist, which I am not, would point out that the Articles of Succession were duly passed by the legislatures and signed by the governors of the various states.  This makes it less of a rebellion and more the lawful dissolution of an arrangement everyone at the time took for granted was voluntary.

So, could a state that finds it has a newly discovered huge mineral wealth, delay turning over any tax receipts or other debts owed the federal government, seize all federal property within the state, including non-real estate property, including nuclear weapons if there are any on it's soil, secede from the Union, and form a confederation with a US enemy, say Venezuela? Tne Constitution doesn't expressly forbid it. There is a movement in some of the states that used to be Mexican territory to secede. As long as their legislatures vote for it, it's ok with your interpretation of the Constitution?

[subdjoe]

Of course a Confederate Apologist, which I am not, would point out that the Articles of Succession were duly passed by the legislatures and signed by the governors of the various states.  This makes it less of a rebellion and more the lawful dissolution of an arrangement everyone at the time took for granted was voluntary.

So, could a state that finds it has a newly discovered huge mineral wealth, delay turning over any tax receipts or other debts owed the federal government, seize all federal property within the state, including non-real estate property, including nuclear weapons if there are any on it's soil, secede from the Union, and form a confederation with a US enemy, say Venezuela? Tne Constitution doesn't expressly forbid it. There is a movement in some of the states that used to be Mexican territory to secede. As long as their legislatures vote for it, it's ok with your interpretation of the Constitution?

Well John Sutter never made the final payment on Ft. Ross, so Russia still owns N. Calif, and could logically put a lien on all the property Sutter ever owned, and also sue for the amount of gold he dug up.  Unless of course the Martians land first. 

[williamlayton]

We have other countries to look towards to see the end results of rebellion and who won. These are evident throughout the world.
People want/seek a stable land that they can grow and prosper. The South did not offer that. The government was not stable. Mexico is a perfect example of such a nation.
While it is stable--as far as border is concerned---the peole within are held hostage by the government. The government beig a few powerful people.
It is our nation and we can do with it what we want. It seems to me that what we the people want, these days, is the dole. We keep electing people who will give us what we want.
Mexico has long looked at the US and desired to control us. Looks as if they are exceeding their desires and we are helping them.
Blessings

[williamlayton]

Joe
The point was that John Deere produced a far better plow than the Brits produced and could do it a a better value. The Brits provided the embargo to protect their manufacturing interest.
It had not been long that the Brits would not allow the colonies to produce any goods that would compete with their manufacturing.
England wanted to be self-sustaining--it is a good way for a nation to be. IMO--we should get back to this and get out of the chaos of this new world economy---at least until it can stabilize.
Blessings

[subdjoe]

Joe
The point was that John Deere produced a far better plow than the Brits produced and could do it a a better value. The Brits provided the embargo to protect their manufacturing interest.
It had not been long that the Brits would not allow the colonies to produce any goods that would compete with their manufacturing.
England wanted to be self-sustaining--it is a good way for a nation to be. IMO--we should get back to this and get out of the chaos of this new world economy---at least until it can stabilize.
Blessings

My point is that I'm not finding anything to support your claim, Willy. 

And, even if we take your claim as accurate, and yes, it is nice for a nation to be self sustaining, then why was only the north protected?  Seems as if the protections, as well as federal expenditures for infrastructure been used to help the south too.  Or don't you think that the South was worthy of federal protection and help?

[williamlayton]

What infastructure are we discussing?
Manufacturing was protected and the South allowed to sell cotton abroad. I know of no manufacturing in the South at this time. The North shipped and sold wheat as the South did cotton.
If you are thinking of rails and canals, then that is a good conversation. Remember, on the rails the Southern states could not agree on a common rail guage.
Blessings

[us920669]

To address Ironfoot's concerns:  Well, yes, from a strictly legal perspective, the South was "right".  For an excellent discussion of this, see another post in the Civil War area called "A Good Little Read", from a symposium sponsored by the Mises Institute.  It proves conclusively that Lincoln gave us the precedent of government doing "what ever it takes" to achieve its goals, very good unless you are on the wrong side.  Thanks to Subjoe for this.  Realistically, I certainly understand why Lincoln and those behind him were determined to prevent succession - no surprises here.  At one time I felt I would have voted for Bell and the Constitutional Union Party, although I know that would have amounted to just kicking the can down the road.

Getting back to Mexico, the South was clearly interested in establishing plantations wherever possible, including Cuba and I think someone even made a try for Nicaragua.  The labor system was reprehensible and many in the North were willing to go the distance to stop them.  It was a long time ago and I think we should be able to acknowledge what is true and accept what actually happened.   

[williamlayton]

We are just observers.
Blessings

[subdjoe]

Roads and rail at the very least.  More attention to ports.  Telegraph would have been nice too.

[ironfoot]

Hi us920669

Content is duplicated from another topic.
To see the author's original post, please visit the thread entitled, "A Good Little Read."

[williamlayton]

Where do you see favoritism in the infastructure you mention Joe.
Blessings