Prediction: Rhinos Will Throw T-Party Under Obama Bus

[Tom Ligon]

Well I agree with your assessment. I think the coming period of mechanization would have taken the profit out of slavery, and with the profit would go it's reasons for existing.

The South had as much a right to secede as did the colonies from Britain, and I've always thought it was ironic that Lincoln's greatest speech was about the time the Colonies broke away from Britain four score and seven years before he made that speech. (1863-87=1776)

The really sad part of this was that they could have started pulling this agricultural mechanization off circa 1805. Society knew about steam power but was not quite buying into its potential. I'm sitting on a novella on the subject, which is why I have so much Jefferson lore at my fingertips (including his collected writings just to the left of my keyboard).

Item: the fellow who designed automated flour mills, Oliver Evans, got a patent for this invention from Jefferson (Sec. of State in the first administration, and personally responsible for reviewing patents). Jefferson got a patent for a "plow of least resistance". Jefferson was fascinated with agricultural toys, including a couple of horse-powered threshing machines and a grain drill. And from Jefferson's correspondence, it is clear that he knew all about Evans' inventions, and built an Evans mill.

Not clear in most histories of Evans, was that he designed and built a working model of an steam-powered Agricultural Traction Engine in about 1805. This is revealed to us by an engineer who wrote a series of articles on engineering in his later years, who knew Evans as a child and who played with this model tractor and had seen it run. And in case you're not familiar with Evans as a steam engineer, he pioneered high pressure steam in the US, and his engines were very good. https://repository.si.edu/handle/10088/10090

The McCormick harvesting machine was a project started circa 1809, by Robert McCormick, who let the thing languish in the barn, as many back yard inventors do, until his son Cyrus finally picked up the project and finished it in the 1830's. In 1809, it would have taken about 3 hours of labor to produce a bushel of wheat. Consider the labor impact of planting and harvesting by machine on farm labor (i.e. slavery) needs.

Get this? Most histories will say that the steam tractor was not invented until after the Civil War, around 1870, when loss of slavery made it necessary, but it could have been done before Fulton's North River Steamboat sailed! And there was equipment that should have been easily adapted to it. Plows, threshers, a harvesting machine, seed planting equipment ... all these ideas were either in use or under development prior to the Missouri Compromise. Now, add a tractor to run them, and .... Very different history.

We got steamboats. Fulton in 1807, first Mississippi steamboat in 1811. First practical Mississippi steamboat in 1814, which delivered supplies from Pittsburgh to New Orleans, arriving the day after the famous battle, and was able to steam back to Pittsburgh. Locomotives were available in 1829 which would have been adaptable as tractors with very little work. These transportation measures made it possible to move cotton North. And, due to trade embargos, a Yankee manage to steal the designs for British fabric mills and built one in Massachusetts during the war of 1812. And, of course, Whitney had introduced the Cotton Engine, which was widely duplicated with little benefit to him. So the stage was set for cotton to become King. But they missed the step of the tractor ... the inspiration of agricultural automation. It was right there. They had it at their fingertips, and couldn't see it because they just didn't have the imagination.

More particularly, every single item of this was right in Jefferson's face. He knew all the players, and understood the technology. He had even adjusted his thinking to support US manufacturing, including installing looms at Monticello. And, as of 1820, Jefferson clearly recognized the danger. Jefferson was busy setting up the University of Virginia, which would have made the perfect venue for a College of Agricultural Engineering. Damnation, the man could have totally changed history if he'd just put it all together.

I can't fix that history. But we all better make sure we don't miss comparable advances today. Tho', this crowd is arguing this on Talk-Polywell.

[williatw]

Maryland was still a slave owning state. But no, the war didn't start over slavery, it started over the attack on Ft. Sumter. Had the Confederacy never attacked it, it is quite likely that their secession would have been successful. It was only after the war was quite far along that people started talking about abolishing slavery. As of August of 1862 Lincoln wasn't talking about that.


To illustrate to you just how much it wasn't about slavery, I give you Lincoln's own words on the topic.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.

This re-writing of history to make the war about slavery was just an effort to justify the horrible bloodshed that occurred as a result of the war. People wanted to believe there was some higher and legitimate purpose for all that death and destruction.

Yes Lincoln may have said those words and others like it..I remember reading even in HS that Lincoln said he fought the war to preserve the Union not to abolish slavery. Which of course begs the question why did the South succeed in the first place? Because they perceived Lincoln as an abolitionist and they didn't trust his promises to "respect" slavery in the South where it already was endemic; he swore his only intention was to prevent its spread (into the new territories being acquired). They perceived his election and inauguration as a shot across the bow as far as their "right" to keep/own "their" slaves; they saw themselves as getting the jump on him by acting first.

[Diogenes]

You misunderstand the text you quote. Lincoln cared about the Union more than the slavery issue, but he was campaigning on an anti-slavery platform well before he was elected and the South attempted to succeed. Just because the Union was more important to him than abolishing slavery, does not mean the war was not fought over slavery. It was. And saying there was no talk of slavery until the war was begun is just plain silly nonsense. Slavery had begun to be illegal in New Jersey 60 years before the war. There was a long, steady march against slavery the world around before the American Civil War and I'd remind you, it was not as if we were the first to outlaw slavery. We weren't the last either, but it was an open, regular question everyone faced every day, and that people talked about often.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_ ... y_timeline

The north didn't suddenly wake up one day and say "They have slavery. Let's invade."


The north said "They attacked our fort. Let's teach them a lesson and while we're at it, we will put a stop to all this silly secessionist talk."


Yes, the topic was well discussed at the time, but the Casus belli was an attack, not the long existing condition of legal slavery, and as I mentioned, Maryland still had slavery too, and nobody attacked it. If you think they were attacking because of slavery, you would have thought they would have started with Maryland.



Abolishing slavery got added to the pile later on. It wasn't there in the beginning. Had the war ended quickly, slavery would have probably endured for several decades longer.

[Diogenes]

To Tom.




Yes, mechanized agriculture would have saved a lot of grief, and it was indeed possible at that time, if only barely. In a perverse way, earlier developments along this vein actually strengthened slavery.



That cotton gin made cotton far more lucrative.

[Diogenes]

Yes Lincoln may have said those words and others like it..I remember reading even in HS that Lincoln said he fought the war to preserve the Union not to abolish slavery. Which of course begs the question why did the South succeed in the first place? Because they perceived Lincoln as an abolitionist and they didn't trust his promises to "respect" slavery in the South where it already was endemic; he swore his only intention was to prevent its spread (into the new territories being acquired). They perceived his election and inauguration as a shot across the bow as far as their "right" to keep/own "their" slaves; they saw themselves as getting the jump on him by acting first.

And this is exactly right. They regarded Lincoln as a threat to the future of their peculiar institution. His election was the trigger for their secession.


I think Lincoln cared deeply about the issue of abolition, but I also think he didn't want to go down in history as the President who broke the country in two. I think between the two issues, he was more concerned with the later than the former, but when it looked to him like he could get both, he went for it.

[palladin9479]

Well, Snowe voted for Obamacare in committee, the only Repub that did that, not sure if she actually voted for it on the floor, but given how bad that bill was I can't see how you can defend her... unless you like Obamacare.

Do more research. The original Healthcare act was a pretty good compromise, Olympia Snow was the Republican heading up the meditations. It was after the GOP pulled out all support that the Democrats went crazy with it and turned it into the nightmare it is now.

This goes into election politics big time and indicates the mistakes the Republicans did to piss off the American public. The Republican plan to defeat Obama in 2012 was to deny the Democrats any political victory they could use for publicity. Once the democrats had lauded "Healthcare Reform" as this big election platform, the Republicans had to defeat any attempt if they wanted a shot at electing their own President. So at the 11th hour when a good set of compromises had been negotiated (committee discussions and drafting's), the Republicans locked ranks and tried to torpedo any chance of it passing. The Democrats were able to pull it out of their ass's but only by a slim margin and only after promising a ton of shit and making a ton of exceptions and twisted rules in order to buy every Democrat vote.

By the way, the mandatory fee and healthcare exchanges are both concessions the Democrats made to the Republicans. Most of the ACA is actually Republican ideas that were grafted onto a form of standardized healthcare. The democrats originally wanted to expand Medicare to cover everyone in the USA and lock out the Health Care industry (who were heavy supporters of Republicans and were making record breaking profits at that time). The standardization in question was to make it illegal for Health Insurance companies to wiggle their way out of paying for someone's healthcare post-injury by using a whole assortment of techniques to claim the contract was non-enforceable (after taking the persons money for years).

This sort of scorched earth politics is what really pissed of moderate independent swing voters. We aren't automatically against an idea just because it came out of a Conservatives / Progressives mouth and insinuating that we should be is insulting. It's a good way to get us to vote for the "other guy", the one not insulting us. This really caused a black eye on the Republican name, that they were unwilling to compromise. That whole "zero compromise", "stand firm", "my principles and theology / ideology are too important" and other hardline extreme positions only appeal to those already voting for that party and do nothing but insult and push away those who are undecided / swing voters. This is what the Democrats did after 2012, they got most progressive and hardline, refusing to compromise with the Republicans and the result is a big Republican win in 2014 and probably in 2016. Assuming the Republicans don't do the boneheaded mistake of taking a hardline, extreme, no compromise position. They do that and we'll have another Democrat congress in 2~4 years.

[mvanwink5]

Pallidin9479,
Yes, I understand she was a solid true believing progressive, tell me she wasn't a believer that government bureaucrats, politicians, and their cronies are needed to help idiots to take care of themselves whether they want that help or not.

Look, it is not a matter of idealism on my part, I am an engineer. I just see what I see. It is progressivism (and the tag along parasitic crooks). The idealists are the progressives and they have faith that they can make work what others have failed at. I blame Progressive ideology, the faith in Socialism.

What I think is all social programs need to be handled on the state and local level. Strip all of it out of the Federal level... long term. Then let people vote with their votes or feet. That is the only compromise I believe will work, the only clear strategy for the independents.

[MSimon]

The ironic thing about the medical issue is that we have medical science that will lower medical costs by something on the order of $1 trillion a year and it is being bottled up by Republicans over culture war issues.

Fortunately Republicans are losing the culture war.

Cut the cost of medicine by $1 trillion a year and it goes away as an issue. Cures for cancer, cheap treatment for auto-immune diseases (like about 2/3rds of diabetes), pain management with a LOT fewer opiates. And that is just the short list. And you can grow your medicine in the garden. One harvest gives at least a years worth of medicine. No more difficult than tomatoes. And because the medicine is not very lethal it can be used without much oversight. We won't need a medical establishment to manage this. Medicine - except for injuries - will go back to being a small time affair. If we do it right.

With government so heavily involved in medicine it will be a revolution in the cost of government. Held up by the Culture War.

The ironies abound.

People will notice this in time and the Culture War Party will be tremendously hurt. You can't say you weren't warned.

[palladin9479]

Look, it is not a matter of idealism on my part, I am an engineer

Oh it most certainly is, your pretty much a hard line conservative judging by your various posts and comments. Hardliners always, without fail, think they are fair and unbiased. Like those who are mentally unstable and go around believing they are the only sane person in a world full of insane people. The ultra progressives honestly believe a society without material possessions where a central authority collects all property and distributes it according to "need" is not only possible but the ideal way we should live.

[GIThruster]

Look, it is not a matter of idealism on my part, I am an engineer

Oh it most certainly is, your pretty much a hard line conservative judging by your various posts and comments. Hardliners always, without fail, think they are fair and unbiased. Like those who are mentally unstable and go around believing they are the only sane person in a world full of insane people. The ultra progressives honestly believe a society without material possessions where a central authority collects all property and distributes it according to "need" is not only possible but the ideal way we should live.

Those are not progressives. Those are communists. Those are people that no matter how many examples the world gives them of what socialism and communism mean, continue stubbornly to believe that there can exist one of these systems yet not turn into a nightmare.

People like this are not progressive. They're delusional. Your spin on these things is that of a delusional person yourself.

FYI, there were no Republicans who were going to compromise with the idea of nationalized health care. That is not a compromise and during an economic crisis, it is political suicide. The only way the Progs could sell it to the country, was to lie to everyone at all times for months, and that's just what they did. Now the truth is coming out and OBamacare is likely going to be repealed. This is completely appropriate given We The People were deliberately deceived by the wicked Prog bastards.

http://www.tpnn.com/2013/11/17/democrat ... obamacare/

[Diogenes]

Do more research. The original Healthcare act was a pretty good compromise, Olympia Snow was the Republican heading up the meditations. It was after the GOP pulled out all support that the Democrats went crazy with it and turned it into the nightmare it is now.

All of #GruberGate in Two Minutes




http://youtu.be/kDomkBtJC7Q

[Diogenes]

Pallidin9479,
Yes, I understand she was a solid true believing progressive, tell me she wasn't a believer that government bureaucrats, politicians, and their cronies are needed to help idiots to take care of themselves whether they want that help or not.

Look, it is not a matter of idealism on my part, I am an engineer. I just see what I see. It is progressivism (and the tag along parasitic crooks). The idealists are the progressives and they have faith that they can make work what others have failed at. I blame Progressive ideology, the faith in Socialism.

What I think is all social programs need to be handled on the state and local level. Strip all of it out of the Federal level... long term. Then let people vote with their votes or feet. That is the only compromise I believe will work, the only clear strategy for the independents.

The problem with your idea is that the power is at the Federal level because that is where the crooks want the power to be. LBJ turned a political disaster for Democrats (the 24th amendment) into a power bonanza by creating his "War on Poverty". (21 Trillion so far. Take *THAT* paltry drug war!)


We now have a great quantity of the voting population getting government goodies, (50+ %) but only if they keep the corrupt and/or stupid people in power.


Every since, that Federal power has been used to reinforce their power base by handing out goodies through the federal budget. When you talk about the socialist dreamers, I think you overlook the fact that in Soviet Russia, it was pretty much the vicious crooks who were mostly running things while the "dreamers" ended up in Siberia when they started causing problems.


Socialism is in fact a thugocracy in which the gullible are led by the vicious and crooked. It isn't all that different from a giant slave plantation in which the Administrators comprise the "more equal than others" crowd.

[Diogenes]

The ironic thing about the medical issue is that we have medical science that will lower medical costs by something on the order of $1 trillion a year and it is being bottled up by Republicans over culture war issues.

Drugs are not a "culture" issue. They are an infection issue, and they need to be dealt with in the manner of any other infection.



And your trillion/year number is kooky fantasy.

[Diogenes]

This is completely appropriate given We The People were deliberately deceived by the wicked Prog bastards.

I won't regard the issue as finished until everyone involved in it is sitting inside a prison cell. I have stated on many occasions that the primary duty of the next President needs to be prosecuting and imprisoning everyone associated with this current administration, it's donors and backers, those who received kickbacks from it, and much of that Corrupt city where this form of government is the norm; Chicago.

[MSimon]

(21 Trillion so far. Take *THAT* paltry drug war!)

That would be about 1/2 trillion a year. Cannabinoid medicine fully exploited is worth at least $1 trillion a year.

So we could get that expenditure back after 25 years of full exploitation. And if you count from when the US Government first learned the value - 1974 - add 10 years for development. That is about 30 years of at least 1/2 trillion a year (and rising) thrown away because "bashing hippies, poor people, and Blacks" was just too attractive to Nixon and the Republicans. Read what H.R. Haldeman had to say on the matter. Conveniently posted around here for your edification.

The war on poverty serves the Republicans right. But all they have to do to get that money back and more is to end the culture war. The sooner the better. The ironies abound. The Culture war has cost the country at least $20 trillion in medical costs.

So between the Ds and Rs we are $30 to $40 trillion deeper in it than we would have been otherwise. Assuming an average population of 250 million and going with $30 trillion that is $3,000 a person a year for 40 years. Not counting compounding. Hippie bashing alone was worth at least $1,000 per person per year. Roughly. And that does not count direct costs. Only medical losses. And I low balled those.

Now the numbers I have presented are rough. Which is why they are somewhat contradictory. We will know the full scope once we begin exploiting just what we know today. Cancer and diabetes would be a very good start.

You see. What you fail to recognize is the cost of lost opportunities which were known in '74. Cannabis can cure cancer. The US government knew that in '74. And if we had exploited that we would have by now cured a LOT more things. That is a lot of pain, suffering, and dead bodies. I can't wait until the left calls the Rs to account. Schadenfreude.