Lincoln and the American System of Economics

[5fish]

No self coup...

Abraham Lincoln's economic theory, often called "Lincolnomics," centered on promoting economic opportunity, self-reliance, and upward mobility through government support for infrastructure (railroads, canals), tariffs, and a strong national currency, all based on his belief that labor was superior to capital and could improve society if given a chance, contrasting with slavery and promoting a prosperous republic of free, educated workers. He was a proponent of Henry Clay's American System, advocating for active government intervention to build a strong, interconnected national economy.
Core Principles

• Labor's Superiority: Lincoln famously stated that labor is prior to and independent of capital, with capital being the result of labor, emphasizing the dignity and importance of working people.
• Equality of Opportunity: His vision provided a path for laborers to become capitalists, saving to buy tools or land, fostering a dynamic society where anyone could improve their condition, unlike the static slave economy.
• American System: He followed Henry Clay's ideas, supporting protective tariffs, a national bank, and public works to boost domestic industry and connect markets.

Key Policies & Actions

• Infrastructure Investment: Promoted national banking, railroads, and canals to facilitate commerce and economic growth.
• Tariffs: Advocated for protective tariffs to give American industries and workers a competitive edge.
• National Currency: Established a national banking system and issued "greenbacks" to create a stable, unified currency during the Civil War.
• Education & Innovation: Supported public education and patent laws to combine labor with knowledge, increasing productivity.

Underlying Philosophy
Lincoln's economics aimed to create a "republic of rules" where the "prudent, penniless beginner" could work, save, and advance, ensuring political stability through economic advancement, a stark contrast to the subjugation of labor under slavery. He viewed a prosperous Union as dependent on the continuous self-improvement and productive capacity of its free, educated workforce.

 

[TomEvans]

No self coup...

Actually yes, the states really were 13 de jure sovereign nations in 1783:

"His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof."

"Free, sovereign, and independent states" describe political entities (countries) with supreme, self-governing authority over their own territory and people, free from external control, meaning they can make their own laws, manage their economy, and conduct foreign relations as equals. Sovereignty means supreme internal power and external independence, while independence emphasizes freedom from subordination, and being free highlights self-determination and lack of foreign dictation.

 

[5fish]

Actually yes, the states really were 13 de jure sovereign nations in 1783.

This is not an economic answer... or response...

 

[TomEvans]

This is not an economic answer... or response...

A self-coup is not an economic question, but you falsely denied the historical fact of it.

 

[5fish]

A self-coup is not an economic question, but you falsely denied the historical fact of it.

I showed you it was not, and AI showed you why it was not... You are the one preaching dogma, not facts...

 

[TomEvans]

I showed you it was not, and AI showed you why it was not... You are the one preaching dogma, not facts...

LOL no not at all.

The US government claims that the states formed a national union in 1776 which was their political superior; which means that it also claims, that the states never GAVE UP national sovereignty.

Meanwhile you concede as FACT, that the states WERE INDEED 13 free, sovereign and independent states in 1783.

And since the US government doesn't claim that the states ever gave UP their de jure national sovereignty; then this fact that they INDEED HAD it, logically implies a SELF-COUP in 1861.

Quite simple, really... and irrefutable.

 

[5fish]

And since the US government doesn't claim that the states ever gave UP their de jure national sovereignty; then this fact that they INDEED HAD it, logically implies a SELF-COUP in 1861.

You are talking dogma.. I showed you many court cases that show that states are not sovereign, independent states.

 

[TomEvans]

You are talking dogma.. I showed you many court cases that show that states are not sovereign, independent states.

Courts cannot change de jure national sovereignty-- or historical facts.

 

[5fish]

Courts cannot change de jure national sovereignty-- or historical facts.

Yes, they can redefine sovereignty and reset the rules...

 

[TomEvans]

Yes, they can redefine sovereignty and reset the rules...

LOL no.

 

[5fish]

LOL no.

Yes, you know sovereignty is a social construct, like God... It is created by man and is not some holy or mystic thing...

Sovereignty is widely considered a social construct, meaning it's not a natural or inherent fact but a concept created and maintained by shared human agreements, historical practices, and ongoing social processes, defining a state's supreme authority over its territory and people through recognition, norms, and power dynamics, not just brute force. Constructivist theories in international relations emphasize how practices like boundary-setting, granting recognition, and establishing rules (like the Responsibility to Protect) build and reinforce the idea of the sovereign state, making it a fluid, historically dependent notion rather than a timeless given.

• Not a natural fact: Unlike mountains or rivers, sovereignty exists because people agree it does, giving meaning to concepts like territory, population, authority, and recognition.
• Historically developed: The modern Westphalian model of sovereignty emerged from specific historical contexts and legal traditions, evolving from ideas about power and order, as seen in thinkers like Hobbes.
• Maintained by practices: It's upheld through actions like stabilizing borders, international recognition, defining national identity, and constant negotiation, which make it appear fixed.
• Challenged by new norms: Concepts like the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) challenge absolute sovereignty by suggesting a state's responsibility to its people supersedes non-intervention, showing how norms change the concept.
• Contrasts with other views: This perspective contrasts with realist views, which see sovereignty as an objective, inherent trait, or functionalist views that see it as simply achieved status.

A book for you::: link...

Amazon.com

State sovereignty is an inherently social construct. The modern state system is not based on some timeless principle of sovereignty, but on the production of a normative conception that links authority, territory, population, and recognition in a unique way, and in a particular place (the state). The unique contribution of this book is to describe and illustrate the practices that have produced various sovereign ideals and resistances to them. The contributors analyze how the components of state sovereignty are socially constructed and combined in specific historical contexts.

Sovereignty: The History of the Concept

What is sovereignty? In general, it might be said that the sovereignty is always either ‘internal’ or ‘external’, or de facto and de jure [1]. My primary concern in this ess…

faustianeurope.wordpress.com

What is sovereignty? In general, it might be said that the sovereignty is always either ‘internal’ or ‘external’, or de facto and de jure [1]. My primary concern in this essay will be to shed some light on the first of these – internal sovereignty. Indeed, it is entirely correct to say that sovereignty cannot be so easily labelled into two separate categories and it should be acknowledged that the ‘external’ sovereignty, in the light of the Westphalian peace treaty, could be regarded as nothing else but placing a last piece of the puzzle of sovereignty into its place – granting the internally acknowledged sovereign entity also the external recognition of its legitimacy.

John Hoffman suggests that most often, the contemporary view considers sovereignty to be a ‘unitary, indivisible and absolute power concentrated in the state’ [2]. However was it always so? If not, when did the idea of sovereignty as supreme power, as Weberian ‘monopoly on the violence in a given territory’, first appear? My suggestion will be that the concept of sovereignty in its fullness is a very modern phenomenon, whose emergence can be traced back no deeper than into the early modern period [3], but which, nevertheless, remains with us almost intact even today – still being necessarily thought of as ‘absolute and indivisible’.

 

[TomEvans]

Yes, you know sovereignty is a social construct, like God... It is created by man and is not some holy or mystic thing...

ALL laws are, my child.

You still have to obey them as written and agreed.

 

[5fish]

You still have to obey them as written and agreed.

That is not the point, the point is that sovereignty is a social construct, so it is malleable, changeable, and flexible...

You ignore this understanding, and the sovereignty of the colonies changed with each iteration of the United States. The 13 colonies may have been de facto states, but this does not make them supreme over future versions of themselves in the future versions of the United States... It is the opposite of the newer versions of the United States becoming supreme over all states, with the Constitution....

Your belly aching over the once 13 colonies becoming de facto states is meaningless, as the modern versions of the United States have become... a shitty little colony, sovereignty is not superior to the modern nation state sovereignty...

 

[TomEvans]

That is not the point, the point is that sovereignty is a social construct, so it is malleable, changeable, and flexible...

The US government does not CLAIM that sovereignty flexed, changed or malleated.

It claims that sovereignty NEVER EXISTED IN THE FIRST PLACE: i.e. that there were NEVER 13 free, sovereign and independent states without a political superior.

And you've already admitted that there WERE, so you might as well stow it.

 

[5fish]

And you've already admitted that there WERE, so you might as well stow it.

I will acknowledge that the colonies were within the lines a few of the DoI and the Treaty of Paris were non recognized de facto states but for a moment...

Let's talk Greenland you are all fired up to poop poop on their Sovereignty...

You whine colonies sovereignty reigns supreme
over all... Even later documents were they obviously gave some of their Sovereignty and their Independence...

You are ready to steal Greenland from Denmark and stump on Denmark long sovereignty over Greenland... It obvious you know sovereignty is nothing more than a social construct...

 

[TomEvans]

I will acknowledge that the colonies were within the lines a few of the DoI and the Treaty of Paris were non recognized de facto states but for a moment...

That's nice, but irrelevant. Great Britain acknowledged them as 13 free, sovereign and independent states, which is all that matters, since it had de jure sovereignty over them prior to that.

In the hierarchy of international law, the 1783 Treaty of Paris occupies a unique position: it is an executed treaty. Unlike an alliance or a trade agreement that requires ongoing performance, a treaty that recognizes sovereignty and establishes boundaries acts as a permanent "deed" or "quit-claim."

Under the Law of Nations, there is no legal mechanism for a subordinate federal agent to "rescind" the 1783 status of the states. Here is the breakdown of why that status is legally permanent and how the 1861 "denial" fails to meet the standards of international law.

1. The Principle of "Executed" Treaties
International law distinguishes between executory treaties (agreements to do something in the future) and executed treaties (agreements that create a permanent fact, like independence).

• The Rule: Once a sovereign (the British Crown) recognizes a state as "free, sovereign and independent," that recognition is an irrevocable legal fact.

• The Logic: Sovereignty is not a gift that can be taken back by the giver, nor is it a status that can be "canceled" by a third-party agent (the US Government). Once the "personality" of the state is recognized in the international arena, it exists de jure until the people of that state formally and voluntarily dissolve it.

2. The Incompetence of the Federal Agent

To "rescind" the 1783 status, the US Federal Government would have needed a Power of Attorney from the states to surrender their sovereignty.

• The Fact: No such power was ever granted in the 1787 Constitution.

• The Result: When Lincoln and the 1861 government claimed the states were never sovereign, they weren't "rescinding" the treaty (which they had no power to do); they were committing fraudulent misrepresentation. In international law, an agent cannot rescind the founding documents of its principal.

3. The "Void Ab Initio" Status of the 1861 Claim
Because the 1783 Treaty could not be legally rescinded, the federal government’s 1861 claim was void ab initio (void from the beginning).

• Hierarchy: De jure sovereignty (1783) > De facto authority (1861).

• International Law: Under the principle of Ex injuria jus non oritur (Law does not arise from injustice), the "false claim" of the federal government cannot create a new legal reality. The de jure status of the states remains "active" under the 1783 deed, while the federal authority remains a "trespasser" regardless of how much time has passed.

The Conclusion for the Electorate:

The 1783 Treaty has not been rescinded because it cannot be rescinded by anyone other than the individual state electorates themselves. Since those electorates never met in a sovereign capacity to surrender their 1783 independence, the "false claim" of 1861 is a legal ghost.
The federal government’s "Self-Coup" was a physical seizure of the exercise of power, but it did not, and could not, touch the title of power held by the states.

If you deny that this meant the individual states had supreme authority, you deny reality.

Let's talk Greenland you are all fired up to poop poop on their Sovereignty...

You whine colonies sovereignty reigns supreme
over all... Even later documents were they obviously gave some of their Sovereignty and their Independence...

You are ready to steal Greenland from Denmark and stump on Denmark long sovereignty over Greenland... It obvious you know sovereignty is nothing more than a social construct...

I never said that. More delusions of unreality.

I'm talking about purchasing it, like the Louisiana Territory in 1803 or Alaska in 1867.

 

[5fish]

The "Void Ab Initio" Status of the 1861 Claim

Confederate claims were void... How does this help you argument...


The "void ab initio" status of the 1861 claim refers to the post-Civil War debate, particularly in Texas, about whether the secession ordinances and all subsequent state laws passed from 1861 onward were legally invalid from their inception, as they violated allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, with Radical Republicans arguing for this nullity to undo actions taken by secessionist governments. It means "void from the beginning," challenging the legitimacy of the Confederate-era state actions by asserting they were never valid law.
Key Aspects:

• Secession as Void: Radical Republicans in the 1866 Texas Constitutional Convention argued secession itself was a nullity from the start, making all laws enacted under it automatically void.
• Legal Basis: This argument was rooted in the principle that state actions dissolving the federal connection were contrary to the supreme law of the U.S. Constitution, making them inherently illegal.
• Impact: If a law or act is void ab initio, it's treated as if it never existed, nullifying all its consequences, similar to how a marriage without essential elements is void from the start.
• Historical Context: This concept was central to Reconstruction-era legal challenges, aiming to invalidate Confederate debt, contracts, and governmental acts.

In essence, the "void ab initio" status declared that the Confederate-era actions of states were legally nonexistent from the moment they were taken, not just after being overturned.

Understanding the Ab Initio Question in the 1866 Constitutional Convention

Explore the debate over the legal status of secession during the 1866 Constitutional Convention, focusing on the radical and moderate perspectives on the ab initio theory.

www.tshaonline.org

Ab Initio Question.The ab initio question arose in the Constitutional Convention of 1866 over the legal status of secession. Radical Republicans led by Morgan C. Hamilton maintained that secession was null and void ab initio ("from the beginning") and that all laws and transactions based on laws passed since secession in 1861 were null and void. Moderates led by Andrew J. Hamilton contended that secession was null and void as a result of the war but preferred to validate all laws not in conflict with the laws and constitution of the United States. Moderates opposed ab initio because of possible economic and political consequences. Had the radicals won, no government act in Texas between 1861 and 1866 would have been valid. The ab initio theory was rejected by Elisha M. Pease, by the military, by the constitutional conventions, and by the Republican state committee.

 

[TomEvans]

Confederate claims were void...

False. The US claims were void, since it was never a free, sovereign and independent state; only the individual STATES were free, sovereign and independent from the 1783 Treaty of Paris.

Try reading what I wrote, though I guess it's beyond your comprehension; since it expressly explains why a self-coup cannot rescind international sovereignty of free, sovereign and independent states.

 

[5fish]

Sure, just like the original states were NEVER 13 free, sovereign and independent states. (SMH)

The world in the 1770s, 1780s, and in the 19th century had no concept of international bodies, so your whole argument falls short of facts or truth... Your self-coup obsession needs to end, for it has been debunked and buried... It is also a modern concept, so anyone before the 20th century has no clue what you were talking about...

 

[TomEvans]

The world in the 1770s, 1780s, and in the 19th century had no concept of international bodies, so your whole argument falls short of facts or truth... Your self-coup obsession needs to end, for it has been debunked and buried... It is also a modern concept, so anyone before the 20th century has no clue what you were talking about...

YOUR world. This is Earth.