Who actually wants the south to rise again?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Where were the Hamiltonians in the Confederate Government?

They were the ones who inflated the Confederate currency until it was completely worthless.

Name the politicians that supported Hamiltonian policies, specifically.

You aren't suggesting hyperinflation is a Hamiltonian policy are you?

Yes, actually. Since Hamilton was a huge proponent of inflationist policies.

 

[Iceman]

They were the ones who inflated the Confederate currency until it was completely worthless.

Name the politicians that supported Hamiltonian policies, specifically.

You aren't suggesting hyperinflation is a Hamiltonian policy are you?

Yes, actually. Since Hamilton was a huge proponent of inflationist policies.

Name politicians in the South that supported Hamiltonian policies.

Name a hyper-inflationist policy Hamilton promoted.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Name the politicians that supported Hamiltonian policies, specifically.

You aren't suggesting hyperinflation is a Hamiltonian policy are you?

Yes, actually. Since Hamilton was a huge proponent of inflationist policies.

Name politicians in the South that supported Hamiltonian policies.

Name a hyper-inflationist policy Hamilton promoted.

To your first point, it doesn't matter. Look at the policies in place, regardless of the politicians. Inflation of the currency, restrictions of personal liberty, conscription. All classic Hamilton.

The first Bank of the United States.

 

[Iceman]

Yes, actually. Since Hamilton was a huge proponent of inflationist policies.

Name politicians in the South that supported Hamiltonian policies.

Name a hyper-inflationist policy Hamilton promoted.

To your first point, it doesn't matter. Look at the policies in place, regardless of the politicians. Inflation of the currency, restrictions of personal liberty, conscription. All classic Hamilton.

The first Bank of the United States.

So issuing currency is a Hamiltonian policy? When did Hamilton support conscription?

No hyper-inflation occurred during the period of the First Bank of the United States(from 1791-1811). In fact, when the charter wasn't renewed, and the first national bank was resolved, inflation occurred in it's absence. Prices rose an average of 13.3% until the Second Bank of the United States came about in 1816.
The First Bank of the United States (1791-1811) < A Brief History of Central Banking in the United States - Edward Flaherty < General < Essays < American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Name politicians in the South that supported Hamiltonian policies.

Name a hyper-inflationist policy Hamilton promoted.

To your first point, it doesn't matter. Look at the policies in place, regardless of the politicians. Inflation of the currency, restrictions of personal liberty, conscription. All classic Hamilton.

The first Bank of the United States.

So issuing currency is a Hamiltonian policy? When did Hamilton support conscription?

No hyper-inflation occurred during the period of the First Bank of the United States(from 1791-1811). In fact, when the charter wasn't renewed, and the first national bank was resolved, inflation occurred in it's absence. Prices rose an average of 13.3% until the Second Bank of the United States came about in 1816.
The First Bank of the United States (1791-1811) < A Brief History of Central Banking in the United States - Edward Flaherty < General < Essays < American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond

Creating inflation, which is what central banks do by printing money, is a Hamiltonian policy. Hyper-inflation is just inflation, which is absolutely something Hamilton supported. It's interesting to see somebody who supports the right of secession defend Hamilton, however. The guy who wanted to use conscripted soldiers to put down any hint of insurrection or secession.

 

[Iceman]

To your first point, it doesn't matter. Look at the policies in place, regardless of the politicians. Inflation of the currency, restrictions of personal liberty, conscription. All classic Hamilton.

The first Bank of the United States.

So issuing currency is a Hamiltonian policy? When did Hamilton support conscription?

No hyper-inflation occurred during the period of the First Bank of the United States(from 1791-1811). In fact, when the charter wasn't renewed, and the first national bank was resolved, inflation occurred in it's absence. Prices rose an average of 13.3% until the Second Bank of the United States came about in 1816.
The First Bank of the United States (1791-1811) < A Brief History of Central Banking in the United States - Edward Flaherty < General < Essays < American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond

Creating inflation, which is what central banks do by printing money, is a Hamiltonian policy. Hyper-inflation is just inflation, which is absolutely something Hamilton supported. It's interesting to see somebody who supports the right of secession defend Hamilton, however. The guy who wanted to use conscripted soldiers to put down any hint of insurrection or secession.

No, inflation is an increase in prices, increasing the money supply doesn't automatically lead to a rise in prices. Like I said before, you have no proof inflation occurred under the First Bank of the United States, in fact the opposite is true, inflation occurred in it's absence.
I will defend Hamilton in the sense I prefer the early government of the United States to that which exists today. I also don't stand for bullshit Libertarian slander.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So issuing currency is a Hamiltonian policy? When did Hamilton support conscription?

No hyper-inflation occurred during the period of the First Bank of the United States(from 1791-1811). In fact, when the charter wasn't renewed, and the first national bank was resolved, inflation occurred in it's absence. Prices rose an average of 13.3% until the Second Bank of the United States came about in 1816.
The First Bank of the United States (1791-1811) < A Brief History of Central Banking in the United States - Edward Flaherty < General < Essays < American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond

Creating inflation, which is what central banks do by printing money, is a Hamiltonian policy. Hyper-inflation is just inflation, which is absolutely something Hamilton supported. It's interesting to see somebody who supports the right of secession defend Hamilton, however. The guy who wanted to use conscripted soldiers to put down any hint of insurrection or secession.

No, inflation is an increase in prices, increasing the money supply doesn't automatically lead to a rise in prices. Like I said before, you have no proof inflation occurred under the First Bank of the United States, in fact the opposite is true, inflation occurred in it's absence.
I will defend Hamilton in the sense I prefer the early government of the United States to that which exists today. I also don't stand for bullshit Libertarian slander.

"What people today call inflation is not inflation, i.e., the increase in the quantity of money and money substitutes, but the general rise in commodity prices and wage rates which is the inevitable consequence of inflation." - Ludwig von Mises

Since the money supply did increase under the Bank of the United States, which inevitably distorted the economy, I can say that indeed there was an increase in inflation.

Sure you can defend Hamilton on the basis that he was better than our current crop of politicians are today, but the simple fact of the matter is that he laid the groundwork for these people and would certainly approve. He was only better because he never could have gotten away with what they do today at the time. If he could have, he would have.

 

[Iceman]

Creating inflation, which is what central banks do by printing money, is a Hamiltonian policy. Hyper-inflation is just inflation, which is absolutely something Hamilton supported. It's interesting to see somebody who supports the right of secession defend Hamilton, however. The guy who wanted to use conscripted soldiers to put down any hint of insurrection or secession.

No, inflation is an increase in prices, increasing the money supply doesn't automatically lead to a rise in prices. Like I said before, you have no proof inflation occurred under the First Bank of the United States, in fact the opposite is true, inflation occurred in it's absence.
I will defend Hamilton in the sense I prefer the early government of the United States to that which exists today. I also don't stand for bullshit Libertarian slander.

"What people today call inflation is not inflation, i.e., the increase in the quantity of money and money substitutes, but the general rise in commodity prices and wage rates which is the inevitable consequence of inflation." - Ludwig von Mises

Since the money supply did increase under the Bank of the United States, which inevitably distorted the economy, I can say that indeed there was an increase in inflation.

Sure you can defend Hamilton on the basis that he was better than our current crop of politicians are today, but the simple fact of the matter is that he laid the groundwork for these people and would certainly approve. He was only better because he never could have gotten away with what they do today at the time. If he could have, he would have.

You can say the tooth fairy is real as well, it doesn't make it so. As of now, you have provided no proof inflation occurred under the First Bank of the United States, but proof has been provided in the period between the First and Second Bank price inflation occurred, rather significant inflation as well at 13.3%.

That is what I am saying.

That is speculation with no historical basis.

You still haven't provided any examples of Hamiltonian policies or politicians in the CSA.

 

[MuadDib]

The south should have been allowed to secede.

Instead, it was devastated by the north.

Well, they shouldn't have started the war then.

They didn't start it. Lincoln did.

Lincoln had refused to meet with the Confederate peace delegation, but his Secretary of State did, who promised them that Lincoln would not try to reinforce the garrison at Fort Sumter. Lincoln broke that promise in matter of days.

His goal was to put the Confederates in a position where they had no choice but to fire on Fort Sumter. We know this to be true because Lincoln sent a letter to his naval commander, Gustavus Fox, less than a week after the battle in which he essentially said that their plan worked.

 

[gipper]

Damn...I thought EVERYONE knew equality of outcomes is a main tenet of leftism.

All you have to do you is search Google, but I did it for you.

This from wikipedia.

Far-left politics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also: Ultra-leftism, Hard left, and Radical left

The far left (also known as the extreme left) refers to the highest degree of leftism in left-wing politics. The far left seeks equality of outcome and the dismantlement of all forms of social stratification.[1] Far leftists seek to abolish all forms of hierarchy, particularly the inequitable distribution of wealth and power.[1] The far left seeks a society in which everyone is provided equal economic and social opportunities, and no one has excessive wealth or power over others.[1]

So you are disingenuously alleging that everyone on the Left embraces the extremism of the "Far-left politics"?

Why do lefties always do this?

I stated one of the tenets of leftism is equality of outcomes. Everyone...well everyone knowledgeable of the subject, knows this to be true. You disputed this and asked for proof. I gave you proof.

Now you erroneously claim I said EVERYONE on the Left embraces extremism of the far left. I never stated this.

I suspect the government schools teach this kind of absurd and childish debate tactics.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, inflation is an increase in prices, increasing the money supply doesn't automatically lead to a rise in prices. Like I said before, you have no proof inflation occurred under the First Bank of the United States, in fact the opposite is true, inflation occurred in it's absence.
I will defend Hamilton in the sense I prefer the early government of the United States to that which exists today. I also don't stand for bullshit Libertarian slander.

"What people today call inflation is not inflation, i.e., the increase in the quantity of money and money substitutes, but the general rise in commodity prices and wage rates which is the inevitable consequence of inflation." - Ludwig von Mises

Since the money supply did increase under the Bank of the United States, which inevitably distorted the economy, I can say that indeed there was an increase in inflation.

Sure you can defend Hamilton on the basis that he was better than our current crop of politicians are today, but the simple fact of the matter is that he laid the groundwork for these people and would certainly approve. He was only better because he never could have gotten away with what they do today at the time. If he could have, he would have.

You can say the tooth fairy is real as well, it doesn't make it so. As of now, you have provided no proof inflation occurred under the First Bank of the United States, but proof has been provided in the period between the First and Second Bank price inflation occurred, rather significant inflation as well at 13.3%.

That is what I am saying.

That is speculation with no historical basis.

You still have provided any examples of Hamiltonian policies or politicians in the CSA.

Alright.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Damn...I thought EVERYONE knew equality of outcomes is a main tenet of leftism.

All you have to do you is search Google, but I did it for you.

This from wikipedia.

So you are disingenuously alleging that everyone on the Left embraces the extremism of the "Far-left politics"?

Why do lefties always do this?

I stated one of the tenets of leftism is equality of outcomes. Everyone...well everyone knowledgeable of the subject, knows this to be true. You disputed this and asked for proof. I gave you proof.

Now you erroneously claim I said EVERYONE on the Left embraces extremism of the far left. I never stated this.

I suspect the government schools teach this kind of absurd and childish debate tactics.

Since you just admitted that this occurs frequently did it it ever occur to you that perhaps your own failure to distinguish clearly who exactly you are referring to might be the cause?

And proof of this is in your own response since you erroneously assumed that I was a "leftie" without any shred of actual evidence to substantiate your position.

That you then compound your own mistake with needless insults demonstrates that you lack respect for the opinions of others, especially those on the "left", which means that you unlikely to ever earn much in the way of respect for yourself. Have a nice day.

 

[mskafka]

The Old South, which has been vividly described in our "American History" books, is an equivocation. I always got the impression that the Confederates were all uneducated and simply wanted to keep slaves. The reality, is much more complicated.

Many of us now know, that the Confederacy dealt with slavery, whether or not a national bank would be allowed, who would ultimately rule, etc... The Confederate Constitution-to me-is chilling.

 

[hangover]

Yes, al-Qaeda is big into property rights.

Yeah, what they say and the truth are two different things, like you.

What do I say? I don't know you, so I doubt you know much about me.

Wow! That is really dumb! Your posts is what you say, moron.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yeah, what they say and the truth are two different things, like you.

What do I say? I don't know you, so I doubt you know much about me.

Wow! That is really dumb! Your posts is what you say, moron.

Oh, right.

 

[MuadDib]

The Old South, which has been vividly described in our "American History" books, is an equivocation. I always got the impression that the Confederates were all uneducated and simply wanted to keep slaves. The reality, is much more complicated.

Many of us now know, that the Confederacy dealt with slavery, whether or not a national bank would be allowed, who would ultimately rule, etc... The Confederate Constitution-to me-is chilling.

Chilling? How so?

Much of the Confederacy's Constitution was directly copied from the US Constitution, but there were some notable differences.

The CSA Constitution specifically forbade the foreign slave trade, which was more than the US had done. That is a significant detail because it was New England shipping companies who were doing all of the foreign slave trading. No slave ship ever sailed under a Confederate flag. Not a single one.

It limited the CS president to a single 6-year term in a lifetime. The Confederates were thinking about term limits 70 years before FDR.

The CS Constitution did not include the General Welfare Clause because the Confederates saw the potential for abuse in it and they were right.

That said, had the South won the war, I think both governments, the CS and US, would have failed, forcing a reunification. Both side were going too far in opposite directions.

The Confederacy was going too far in the direction of states rights and sovereignty, to the point that the central government was too weak. Jefferson Davis was constantly complaining that he needed the powers that Lincoln had in order to fight the war and the states could barely get along with each other for the war effort. North Carolina and Georgia probably would have been the first states to secede from the Confederacy.

The US, on the other hand, was going too far in the direction of a strong central government and beginning to encroach on the Constitution and many and various ways. Lincoln was the quintessential tax and spend liberal. The Whig Party had almost bankrupted Illinois in the 1840's while Lincoln was serving in the state legislature and the state had to amend its constitution to stop the subsidies of private enterprises that almost bankrupted them.

Without Southern conservatism, the US government would have gone bankrupt much sooner. Lincoln and the liberal Republicans, formerly Whigs, were all about spending and subsidies, especially the railroads. Lincoln had been a railroad lawyer and was certainly earning favors for a job after the presidency. The scandal of the Credit Mobilier and the Union Pacific's construction are an often ignored aspect of Lincoln's legacy.

By winning the war and bringing that conservativism and Jeffersonianism back into the system, it has managed to delay liberalism's bankruptcy of America by 150 years.