Some say that if Abraham Lincoln didn’t end slavery by force, it would never have ended in the South. Now, of course, that is ridiculous. But, the question is, why is it ridiculous? Southern politicians pushed hard for slavery to expand into new territories, and yet, it barely did. Why did wage labor supersede slave labor, first in the northern states, then in the territories? Why didn’t slavery expand, not just into the territories, but into the northern states as well, thus becoming the dominant form of labor in the world? In short, why isn’t everyone a slave?
The areas where slavery was predominant were overwhelmingly ones where they were used for the production of cash crops -cotton, tobacco, rice, hemp, indigo. Slaves were apparently nearly useless in wheat (Kansas) and maize (Iowa) areas. For some reason, slavery only made sense for cash crops, not food crops, and even less so in areas (like Appalachia and western Massachusetts) dominated by subsistence agriculture. Slaves were very expensive. Consequently, it only made sense to use them when hired labor would have been too expensive. And, without slavery, much of the cash crops of the lowland South would have not have been grown. Meanwhile, labor was not too expensive in Iowa and Kansas as White people actually wanted to settle there to create family farms.
It’s curious to note that for fifty years after the end of slavery, very few Black people moved to the North, despite very low nominal wages in the South. Though their labor hours declined, they largely stayed in the same places as they did before. They certainly didn’t move to Iowa and Kansas en masse. I suspect this is due to Blacks having a comparative advantage in cash crop production as opposed to settling the midwest with family farms. They also seemed to have a comparative advantage in urban industrial labor in the mid-20th century, as opposed to the kind of service-sector jobs that form the backbone of today’s American economy.
On August 14, the day before Trump’s economic speech, signifying the start of his PIVOT, his performance in 538’s polls-only model (which smooths out day-to-day bounces in random state polls) was at an August low of 10.8%. Today, two weeks after the start of the PIVOT, it has now risen to 19.1%. In the NowCast (which is more accurate at stating the exact present state of the polls, smoothing to adjust for outliers be damned), his performance was at 9.5% on August 14, and is now 19.3%. If he continues this performance of growing his chance of winning by 8 to 10% per two weeks, he should be at 27% on September 11 and 36% on September 25. However, I expect his speed to improve a bit over time, as people get more used to his inclusive message. So I expect Trump to be polling at ~40-45% just before the first debate.
Contrary to media rumors, innuendos, and lies, Trump’s plan for the illegal immigrants already in the U.S. has always been consistent. It is similar in form to Mrs. Hutchison’s plan back in 2007, a more conservative alternative (which the National Review at the time nevertheless condemned as cuckservative) to Democrat immigration plans at the time. Senator Sessions voted Nay to tabling the proposal when it was voted on, as it was an amendment in a conservative direction, even though it was not Mr. Sessions preferred option. The plan is a “touchback” one, which necessitates permission for presently existing illegal immigrant legal status only after those illegals have applied back from their home countries. Trump has always referred to this as the “door in the wall”, making his intentions clear a whole multitude of times in 2015.
Despite this fairly lax (for the alt-right) plan for currently existing illegal immigrants, Trump was still rated in third place on immigration in the Numbers USA scorecard in February, just behind conservative anti-amnesty rock stars Rick Santorum and Ted Cruz, despite making the exact same statements about the “door in the wall” he has always made during his campaign. Ted Cruz, just like Donald Trump, had no real ideas about whether or not to deport the existing 11 million, though he had always opposed a path to citizenship for them. Ted Cruz, being an Ivy League-educated lawyer, never actually said he’d support illegal immigrants “coming out of the shadows”. But it’s really difficult to read
I don’t want immigration reform to fail. I want immigration reform to pass. And so I would urge people of good faith on both sides of the aisle if the objective is to pass common sense immigration reform that secures the borders, that improves legal immigration and that allows those who are here illegally to come in out of the shadows, then we should look for areas of bipartisan agreement and compromise to come together. And this amendment, I believe if this amendment were to pass, the chances of this bill passing into law would increase dramatically.
as doing anything but Ted Cruz supporting some kind of lawful permanent resident status for the vast majority of the presently existing illegal immigrant population, at least in 2013. Trump’s touchback proposal at least offers the prospect of some kind of screening process for the illegals presently existing in the U.S., which Cruz’s implied position doesn’t.
I was a bit surprised at Trump picking as VP somebody who didn’t agree with him on nearly any position -except immigration. Pence was a leading proponent of touchback (with likely amnesty) during his time in the House. Again, both the National Review and VDARE condemned the idea as cuckservative at the time, though not using that specific word.
Nevertheless, from exit polls, it is clear that despite Ted Cruz having pretty much exactly the same position on illegal immigration as Donald Trump, those supporting deporting the 11 million gravitated to Trump, even in Wisconsin. I still have no clue whether they made the right choice. Ted Cruz’s natural instincts are conservative, and in the direction of greater, rather than lesser, immigration restriction. He only proposed his amendment as a compromise measure. Trump, meanwhile, is totally independent, and, while his touchback plan is, on paper, preferable to Cruz’s implied 2013 proposal, it should be worrisome for immigration restrictionists that it was not made from a position of weakness, as Cruz’s was, but from a position of strength.
2. “I admit that the Negro, and especially the plantation Negro, the tiller of the soil, has made little progress from barbarism to civilization, and that he is in a deplorable condition since his emancipation. That he is worse off, in many respects, than when he was a slave, I am compelled to admit, but I contend that the fault is not his, but that of his heartless accusers.” -“Muh structural racism”, the 19th century version. Notice how all the conditions Douglass wanted for Black advancement are today fully existent, including “that the Democratic party is a better friend to him than the Republican party”. And yet, during the same decade, the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed because equally poor Chinese were seen as working too hard. The idea of “structural racism” has no explanatory power for explaining the inferior average condition of Black Americans -never had any, never does have any, and never will have any.
4. HRC jumps the shark. Defending such a shaved ape as Leslie Jones is a disgusting act, and cannot be countenanced by any respectable American.