Thaddeus Stevens

[Mark F. Jenkins]

Oh, okay. But I only mentioned tariffs to point out that Stevens selfishly benefitted from quickly helping to raise them to 49% early in 1861. Evidently Jenkins did not read, and respond to, what I wrote.

Allow me to recap.


I observed, "I see all the various efforts to take the focus off slavery as a cause of the war as implicit acknowledgement that it is itself indefensible."

You responded, "I see this assertion as implicit acknowledgement that some observers don't want to consider any other facts, especially those failing to conform to Yankee revisionism. The presumption of moral superiority entraps the dogma with false tunnel vision."

I responded, "So why are you trying so hard to direct attention away from slavery?" and then, "Can you accept that there were indeed people who did go to war to defend the right to own slaves, and people who went to war to take away that right?"

The clear implication of your comments was the canard that tariffs were the cause of the Civil War, rather than slavery. So, I added, "I seem to recall that some of the worst epithets that could be used against Northerners during the war were "Abolitionists" and "Black Republicans." That's highly suggestive. If the uproar was about tariffs, why bring the Abolitionists into it?"

To that, you responded, "Because Stevens enriched himself by promoting egregious tariffs that were damaging to the interests of American consumers. He violated the trust of his congressional office to enrich himself." (Huh? Did you in fact read what I wrote?)

So, I threw your repeated barb back at you: "Reading is fundamental. What did your response have to do with my question?"

I then proceeded to ridicule the notion that tariffs were Stevens' motivation, rather than slavery.

And then you pretended to not understand. And here we are.

 

[TobyVonKanobi]

Allow me to recap.


I observed, "I see all the various efforts to take the focus off slavery as a cause of the war as implicit acknowledgement that it is itself indefensible."

You responded, "I see this assertion as implicit acknowledgement that some observers don't want to consider any other facts, especially those failing to conform to Yankee revisionism. The presumption of moral superiority entraps the dogma with false tunnel vision."

I responded, "So why are you trying so hard to direct attention away from slavery?" and then, "Can you accept that there were indeed people who did go to war to defend the right to own slaves, and people who went to war to take away that right?"

The clear implication of your comments was the canard that tariffs were the cause of the Civil War, rather than slavery. So, I added, "I seem to recall that some of the worst epithets that could be used against Northerners during the war were "Abolitionists" and "Black Republicans." That's highly suggestive. If the uproar was about tariffs, why bring the Abolitionists into it?"

To that, you responded, "Because Stevens enriched himself by promoting egregious tariffs that were damaging to the interests of American consumers. He violated the trust of his congressional office to enrich himself." (Huh? Did you in fact read what I wrote?)

So, I threw your repeated barb back at you: "Reading is fundamental. What did your response have to do with my question?"

I then proceeded to ridicule the notion that tariffs were Stevens' motivation, rather than slavery.

And then you pretended to not understand. And here we are.

Your remark "The clear implication of your comments was the canard that tariffs were the cause of the Civil War, rather than slavery" is false. That was your false inference which I did not catch because I was not even addressing that topic. I was disclosing that Stevens was a major beneficiary of the high tariffs adopted after southern congressmen left early in 1861 and that his political status was a conflict of interest with his industrial status. Your accusation that I only pretended to miss your inference is a bogus ad hominem.

 

[jgoodguy]

Do you have evidence that Stevens was a major beneficiary of the high tariffs.

Please expound on his political status was a conflict of interest with his industrial status.

 

[BillO]

diane,

Thought you might be insterested in this Stevens quote:

"I wish the Indians had newspapers of their own. If they had, you would have horrible pictures of the cold-blooded murders of inoffensive Indians. You would have more terrible pictures than we have now revealed to us [of white people], and, I have no doubt, we would have the real reasons for these Indian troubles. I suppose they would be as accurate as those you have in the letters which have just been read, and which have come in here so opportunely."

-- April 19, 1860.
The Cherokees did have their own newspaper, didn't matter much though.

Unionblue

 

[unionblue]

BillO,

They did? Do you know the name and location of that newspaper?

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[unionblue]

Oh, okay. But I only mentioned tariffs to point out that Stevens selfishly benefitted from quickly helping to raise them to 49% early in 1861. Evidently Jenkins did not read, and respond to, what I wrote.

Do we know for a fact that he personally benefitted from this tariff increase? As ole pointed out, it is on record that his ironworks was near bankruptcy for much of its existence and I don't see it making scads of money after 1861. And, as has also been pointed out, this tariff increase was very popular among his constituents.

R

TobyVonKanobi and rpkennedy,

Concerning both your posts above concerning Thaddeus Stevens benefitting from the tariff in PA, I offer the following article on this website:

Thaddeus Stevens.

http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/inside.asp?ID=73&subjectID=4

Enjoy,
Unionblue

 

[unionblue]

To All,

Found the following book on Stevens online.

The Life Of Thaddeus Stevens, by James Albert Woodburn.

http://archive.org/stream/lifeofthaddeusst00wooduoft#page/n7/mode/2up

Hope to get some more quotes to post here from it.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[unionblue]

...in case anyone missed it.

Battalion,

You didn't the first time you mentioned Thaddeus Stevens and gave part of a speech by him.

http://civilwartalk.com/threads/re-peopling.6350/

Unionblue

 

[John Hartwell]

TobyVonKanobi and rpkennedy,

Concerning both your posts above concerning Thaddeus Stevens benefitting from the tariff in PA, I offer the following article on this website:

Thaddeus Stevens.

http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/inside.asp?ID=73&subjectID=4

Enjoy,
Unionblue

A fairly well balanced assessment of a very complex man -- no simplistic knee-jerk judgments will do. Too bad it's so poorly written, I get the urge to re-edit it and make it less laborious to read.

Cheers!

jno

 

[jgoodguy]

TobyVonKanobi and rpkennedy,

Concerning both your posts above concerning Thaddeus Stevens benefitting from the tariff in PA, I offer the following article on this website:

Thaddeus Stevens.

http://www.mrlincolnandfreedom.org/inside.asp?ID=73&subjectID=4

Enjoy,
Unionblue

Appears to be normal for the time, perhaps no less normal for our time.
Thaddeus Stevens - Abraham Lincoln - Mr. Lincoln and Freedom

Although his nickname was later the "Great Commoner," as an attorney and legislator, he frequently found opportunities to help favored bankers and businessmen — and consistently favored the high tariff that Pennsylvania businesses required. In order to preserve the economic privileges of himself and his friends, he became chairman of the Canal Commissioners so that he could use that position to collect funds for Governor [Joseph] Ritner's reelection. He spent money liberally and unsuccessfully tried to manipulate the results to Ritner's advantage. The Democratic victory resulted in a Democratic investigation of Stevens' election chicanery. An allegation of paternity outside marriage led to his dismissal from the House.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

Your remark "The clear implication of your comments was the canard that tariffs were the cause of the Civil War, rather than slavery" is false. That was your false inference which I did not catch because I was not even addressing that topic. I was disclosing that Stevens was a major beneficiary of the high tariffs adopted after southern congressmen left early in 1861 and that his political status was a conflict of interest with his industrial status. Your accusation that I only pretended to miss your inference is a bogus ad hominem.

Okay, so your claim that Stevens was a beneficiary of high tariffs is entirely unrelated to anything else concerning his motivations? What are you trying to claim regarding this hypothetical connection with tariffs?

 

[rpkennedy]

To All,

Found the following book on Stevens online.

The Life Of Thaddeus Stevens, by James Albert Woodburn.

http://archive.org/stream/lifeofthaddeusst00wooduoft#page/n7/mode/2up

Hope to get some more quotes to post here from it.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

Thank you for the article.

R

 

[jgoodguy]

Okay, so your claim that Stevens was a beneficiary of high tariffs is entirely unrelated to anything else concerning his motivations? What are you trying to claim regarding this hypothetical connection with tariffs?

Interestingly enough his profiting from tariffs seems to have happened many years before his taking on anti slavery causes.

 

[BillO]

BillO,

They did? Do you know the name and location of that newspaper?

Sincerely,
Unionblue

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Multimedia.jsp?id=m-842
There you go. First printed in 1828 in Georgia.

 

[unionblue]

http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Multimedia.jsp?id=m-842
There you go. First printed in 1828 in Georgia.

BillO,

Thanks, appreciate it.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[TobyVonKanobi]

Do you have evidence that Stevens was a major beneficiary of the high tariffs.

Please expound on his political status was a conflict of interest with his industrial status.

He owned the Caledonia Iron Works which I presume was a major beneficiary of the 49% tariffs Stevens helped push through Congress early in 1861 after the Southerners left.

 

[TobyVonKanobi]

Okay, so your claim that Stevens was a beneficiary of high tariffs is entirely unrelated to anything else concerning his motivations? What are you trying to claim regarding this hypothetical connection with tariffs?

Whatever his other motivations you will notice that nobody in this thread mentioned that he was likely also motivated by benefitting from the 49% tariff he helped push through Congress early in 1861. My objective was to add new information and another perspective to the thread. There are plenty of other posts in this thread asserting his altruism. I wanted to point out that there is also evidence that he had selfish motivation.

 

[jgoodguy]

He owned the Caledonia Iron Works which I presume was a major beneficiary of the 49% tariffs Stevens helped push through Congress early in 1861 after the Southerners left.

Now a reference to where you got the info would be nice.

 

[jgoodguy]

Whatever his other motivations you will notice that nobody in this thread mentioned that he was likely also motivated by benefitting from the 49% tariff he helped push through Congress early in 1861. My objective was to add new information and another perspective to the thread. There are plenty of other posts in this thread asserting his altruism. I wanted to point out that there is also evidence that he had selfish motivation.

Very few Christlike fellows in the political or military leadership business. Some folks tend to forget that.

Give me the devil that frees men over the saint that keeps them enslaved.

 

[ole]

"Presume" and "likely" -- pretty thin evidence.