Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (360210)	1/16/2018 12:18:28 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543112

"Many historians consider him our greatest president. So how does your comment fit it there? " LMAO. How many say he's the greatest liberal president ever? But, I digress; what makes you think great presidents don't have flaws? "Lincoln was a liberal in his age." The liberals were the abolitionists. He was not an abolitionist, and, when given the chance, didn't abolish it in states which had remained in the Union, because the Constitution permitted slavery. Lincoln's Reluctant War: How Abolitionists Leaned on the President ... theatlantic.com Oct 26, 2012 - Lincoln's Reluctant War: How Abolitionists Leaned on the President. For a group of passionate New Englanders, the Civil War was always a divine mission to end the scourge of slavery. It took a while for Lincoln to see things that way.

To: koan who wrote (360210)	1/16/2018 12:29:30 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543112

>>Yet who would dispute that Jefferson was a liberal in his age?<< Jefferson was really a horrible racist: smithsonianmag.com Excerpt: ..What Jefferson set out clearly for the first time was that he was making a 4 percent profit every year on the birth of black children. The enslaved were yielding him a bonanza, a perpetual human dividend at compound interest. Jefferson wrote, “I allow nothing for losses by death, but, on the contrary, shall presently take credit four per cent. per annum, for their increase over and above keeping up their own numbers.” His plantation was producing inexhaustible human assets. The percentage was predictable. In another communication from the early 1790s, Jefferson takes the 4 percent formula further and quite bluntly advances the notion that slavery presented an investment strategy for the future. He writes that an acquaintance who had suffered financial reverses “should have been invested in negroes.” He advises that if the friend’s family had any cash left, “every farthing of it [should be] laid out in land and negroes, which besides a present support bring a silent profit of from 5. to 10. per cent in this country by the increase in their value.” The irony is that Jefferson sent his 4 percent formula to George Washington, who freed his slaves, precisely because slavery had made human beings into money, like “Cattle in the market,” and this disgusted him. Yet Jefferson was right, prescient, about the investment value of slaves. A startling statistic emerged in the 1970s, when economists taking a hardheaded look at slavery found that on the eve of the Civil War, enslaved black people, in the aggregate, formed the second most valuable capital asset in the United States. David Brion Davis sums up their findings: “In 1860, the value of Southern slaves was about three times the amount invested in manufacturing or railroads nationwide.” The only asset more valuable than the black people was the land itself. The formula Jefferson had stumbled upon became the engine not only of Monticello but of the entire slaveholding South and the Northern industries, shippers, banks, insurers and investors who weighed risk against returns and bet on slavery. The words Jefferson used—“their increase”—became magic words... Sorry to ruin your fairy tale..