Posted on 12/22/2019 4:23:47 AM PST by Bull Snipe
"I beg to present you as a Christmas gift the City of Savannah, with one hundred and fifty heavy guns and plenty of ammunition and about twenty-five thousand bales of cotton." General William T. Sherman's "March to the Sea" was over. During the campaign General Sherman had made good on his promise d “to make Georgia howl”. Atlanta was a smoldering ruin, Savannah was in Union hands, closing one of the last large ports to Confederate blockade runners. Sherman’s Army wrecked 300 miles of railroad and numerous bridges and miles of telegraph lines. It seized 5,000 horses, 4,000 mules, and 13,000 head of cattle. It confiscated 9.5 million pounds of corn and 10.5 million pounds of fodder, and destroyed uncounted cotton gins and mills. In all, about 100 million dollars of damage was done to Georgia and the Confederate war effort.
The law does not say that they are to be considered U.S. Military Veterans. The law refers to them as “Confederate Forces Veterans”
The issue is odd, because at that time in 1958, all of the Confederate veterans were dead. Last dying in 1951.
In typical Lost Causer fashion, you interpret generosity and mercy as vindication.
>>Pelham wrote: “Well that isn’t what Lincoln said. He said nothing about responding to an attack. In his April 15 proclamation that initiated war it was all about forcibly maintaining the National Union. He called up 75,000 soldiers for the purpose of suppressing the “combinations” that were in control of several states and that had the audacity to leave the union and form their own nation.Like King George before him, he wasn’t going to sit idly by and watch his territory leave. George’s 1775 proclamation to Parliament reads remarkably like Lincoln’s proclamation 90 years later.
Good post. I added that as a reference in my Research Library.
BTW, I previously quoted an author who stated that Lincoln’s long train of abuses and usurpations read like a check-list of King George’s atrocities, as listed in the Declaration.
Mr. Kalamata
With the blessings of a judge or not, a woman still has a right to leave a man she doesn't want to be with.
And your argument falls apart right there with that blatant untruth.
Not untrue at all. Even BroJoeK admits that 50% of all trade with Europe was the consequence of Southern production. Without export products, you can't have much in the way of an import tariff, because you won't be able to buy much unless you are willing to give up your gold and silver, and people are loath to do that.
1/4th of the population created at least 50% of all Federal income.
But say for the sake of argument it was true, the wife still helped run up the credit cards and then left the debt to the husband to pay alone.
What debt? And who ran it up? Are you saying the government spent huge amounts of money for the benefit of the South? What exactly was it that the government did in the way of spending on behalf of the South?
I know about subsidies for railroads and canals and harbors and fishing fleets and mail carriers in the North, but it is my understanding most Southern railroads were privately financed affairs, and since Northern ships carried the mails, they didn't get any of that, and the same is true of fishing fleets and so forth.
The Husband ran up the debt on things the Husband wanted and the wife didn't care about, and then acted like she should feel an obligation to pay for his "mercantilism."
Perhaps. But that would be for a third party to decide or for the two parties to agree on through negotiations.
Husband wasn't interested in negotiations. His position was that all of it belonged to him.
Instead the wife left with everything not nailed down.
Stuff in her side of the House, and stuff she had more paid for than the Husband.
And blasting away at her husband on her way out the door will not end the institution of marriage.
We have once again missed connecting on meaning here. "Blasting away at her husband" constitutes a dire and lethal threat to his life. Fort Sumter is not analogous to a dire and lethal threat to the existence of the Union. Your analogy of "blasting away at her husband" is completely incorrect.
Fort Sumter would constitute at most a "slap." It would not be equivalent to firing bullets at the husband. It does not even remotely approach firing bullets at the husband.
"The law says, from your quote:"
"SEC. 410. The Administrator shall pay to each person who served in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America during the Civil War a monthly pension in the same amounts and subject to the same conditions as would have been applicable to such. person under the laws in effect on December 31, 1957, if his service in such forces had been service in the military or naval service of the United States."
The bill implies those who served in in the "Confederate Forces" were in fact serving in the military or naval service of the United States.
Mr. Kalamata
"My peril" has nothing to do with whether or not some law is a made up bullsh*t lie.
If your standards of legality are threats of force against those who disagree, then the Nazi laws against the Jews would be valid by this standard.
Power is not the arbiter of truth.
I addressed this with him before. Cotton needed absolutely no protectionist tariff on it, because no one could produce it cheaper than the American South.
Putting a tariff on cotton imports may have been a misguided method of pretending to be looking out for the South's interests, but tariffs on cotton or "woolens" or brown sugar had no benefit to the South because they didn't need any of that stuff.
+1.
Nobody is saying the wife can't leave to any reason or no reason at all. But you were the one who wanted to compare this to a divorce. You're describing abandonment and possibly theft.
Not untrue at all.
OK then how about a gross exaggeration.
What debt? And who ran it up? Are you saying the government spent huge amounts of money for the benefit of the South? What exactly was it that the government did in the way of spending on behalf of the South?
We're talking about the federal debt, run up by the federal government when Presidents, Representatives, and Senators from both North and South were in Congress. When the South walked out they walked away from their responsibility for debts they had helped run up.
Husband wasn't interested in negotiations. His position was that all of it belonged to him.
Husband wasn't given a chance. Wife walked out and took everything she could get her mitts on without any negotiations at all.
Stuff in her side of the House, and stuff she had more paid for than the Husband.
Still joint property, even if your crazy claim that she had paid for most of it were true.
Fort Sumter would constitute at most a "slap." It would not be equivalent to firing bullets at the husband. It does not even remotely approach firing bullets at the husband.
It certainly does.
your choice.
DoodleDawg responding, post #588: "Upwards on 95% of all tariff income was collected in Northern ports.
Losing far less than 10% would hardly have cause crony capitalism to crash and burn, assuming it existed as you describe to begin with."
Actually, the Republican party formed in 1854 in response to the Southern Democrat Kansas-Nebraska Act, expanding slavery in US territories.
The old Whigs were not solidly anti-slavery enough for many, so they formed a new party, Republicans.
What Kalamata & other Lost Causers mock as "crony capitalism", normal people call government infrastructure projects, and yes, Republicans did favor them:
Indeed, I've long thought about Republicans that if Democrats are not trying to murder you, impeach you or otherwise destroy you, then you haven't done anything truly important.
Think of them -- Lincoln, Garfield & McKinley killed, Teddy Roosevelt & Ronald Reagan shot but miraculously survived, now President Trump impeached for nothing!
You know you're a good Republican when Democrats are coming after you with knives, guns and whatever words they can weaponize against you.
By the way least you imagine the transcontinental railroad was strictly a Republican issue, Southern Democrats too were in hot pursuit of Federal approval for a Southern route.
Most notably, Secretary of War Jefferson Davis successfully pushed for the Gadsden Purchase and stood to profit greatly form his proposed Southern route.
So, if you're looking for "crony capitalist" motives for secession, there's a pretty good place to start.
With Republicans in charge there was no-way Jefferson Davis could get his own Southern route.
Kalamata "The U.S. didn't import cotton during that time, that I am aware of.
Are you referring to finished cotton goods; and, if so, for what purpose?"
DoodleDawg: "No, I am referring to your claim that high U.S. tariffs caused foreign countries to apply their own tariffs in retaliation and that cost Southern exporters money.
Since most U.S. cotton exports went to the UK then my question is what was their tariff on U.S. cotton imports that cost Southern exporters so much money?"
A lot of people here seem very confused about the economic issues in 1860, but that doesn't stop them from making wild accusations about, for example, alleged Confederate "free trade" destroying "Northeastern power brokers'" and their "crony capitalism".
Gross exaggerations are made of the Southern economic output in order to claim, first, it was being "plundered" by "the North" and second, loss of such "plunder" would destroy the Union.
Here are some facts:
No, YOU imply that. The law says no such thing. In fact, the law draws a distinction between the two. It could have said, "Any person who served in the armed forces of either side during the Civil War shall be considered a United States veteran." But it doesn't. It says confederate veterans shall get the same pension as United States veterans. It's saying, "here are two groups, and they get the same thing," not, "here is one group."
The U.S. got into war over economic and political issues - something about Japan wanting economic control over greater southeast Asia, embargo of scrap metal, embargo of oil and gasoline, closing of the Panama Canal to Jap shipping . . .
The U.S. could have avoided war by meeting Jap demands on economic and political issues, but for good reasons, chose not to.
Chief of Staff Nagano gave a verbal directive to the commander of the Combined Fleet, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, informing him: “Japan has decided to open hostilities against the United States, United Kingdom, and the Netherlands early in December...Should it appear certain that Japanese-American negotiations will reach an amicable settlement prior to the commencement of hostilities, it is understood that all elements of the Combined Fleet are to be assembled and returned to their bases in accordance with separate orders.” (Yes, this is from Wikipedia.)
In commenting on economics, I was simply building upon, and agreeing with, Brother Bull Snipe, a respected Lincolnian, who in post 1128 observed: “All war is fought for political reasons. No one makes war just for something to do in their spare time. There is always a political objective in war.”
>>Bubba Ho-Tep wrote: “No, YOU imply that. The law says no such thing. In fact, the law draws a distinction between the two. It could have said, “Any person who served in the armed forces of either side during the Civil War shall be considered a United States veteran.” But it doesn’t. It says confederate veterans shall get the same pension as United States veterans. It’s saying, “here are two groups, and they get the same thing,” not, “here is one group.”
You can claim what you want to claim, but that doesn’t make it Law. The Law states what I have expressed.
No more opinions, please. Show us clearly in the Law why Confederate military veterans are NOT U.S. military veterans, and I will concede.
Mr. Kalamata
So if we are supposed to recognize them as “US Vets” does that mean we can call them Yankees (Damn or otherwise)?
There is a Teaching Company course, Abraham Lincoln in His Own Words by David Zarefsky, that analyzes Lincoln's speeches and is available on CD in some public libraries.
OIFVeteran: "The founding fathers disagree with you.
In this particular case, the English language provides us with two words for the same thing, but with an important distinction:
And secession? "the action of withdrawing formally from membership of a federation or body, especially a political state."
Civil War: -- "a war between citizens of the same country."
Notice in "secession" the key word, "federation", an example of which today is "Brexit" -- a formal legal & political action, having no necessary resort to, or implication of, violence or physical force.
So, in 1860 there was a similar federation which Confederates attempted to secede from formally.
If such attempts were legitimate, then they can claim to be a separate country and "Civil War" was something else.
What about 1776?
A totally different situation, beginning with: no federation to secede from, but rather a British Empire established & maintained by military force, from which disunion could only happen by superior military force.
In 1776 there was no possibility of lawful secession, not even a concept of such a thing.
In 1776 disunion meant one thing only: rebellion / revolution = violent overthrow of the military-backed empirical rule.
So, was there a rebellion in 1861, or was it simply a war between two nation-states?
That depends partly on whether you consider secession in 1860 legitimate or not.
If 1860 secession was not legitimate then Civil War was simply a War of Southern Rebellion -- not "revolution" since it failed.
But if 1860 secession was somehow legitimate, then you might claim Civil War was really a war between two nation-states.
The problem is, it wasn't that simple because even some of the original seven Deep South Confederate states had huge regions of strong Unionist loyalties, people who themselves did not feel their state's secession was legitimate.
In the Upper South these regions grew to 1/3 or 1/2 the state's territory, and in Border Slave States Unionists were the vast majority.
And yet Confederate armies invaded & occupied not just Unionist regions of Confederate states, but also Southern Union states.
Clearly, Confederate military invasions of slave-states were civil war within the Slave Empire.
Bottom line: in 1861 no Unionist, not even Democrats like President Buchanan, considered Deep South secession to be legitimate, and when war started at Fort Sumter, the vast majority supported Union Civil War against Southern rebels.
Says our own "stuck on stupid" Danny-child.
Kalamata: "Let me help you out:"
By that you mean, "let me throw sand in your eyes, to make you as blind as I am".
Kalamata: "1. The Democrats of the pre-Civil War era were limited-government Jeffersonians who promoted a republican form of government.
The name “democrat” was just a meaningless name.
Modern-day conservative republicans are the same as Jeffersonian Democrats."
Every word of that is a lie, as usual.
In fact:
Kalamata: "2. The Republicans of the pre-Civil War era were the big-government, crony-capitalist Whigs (Hamiltonians.)
The name “republican” was just a meaningless name.
Modern-day crony-capitalist RINO’s and Democrats are the same as 19th-century Republicans."
Total lies.
Republicans began as the pro-Constitution Federalists, became the anti-corruption Whigs and then anti-slavery Republicans.
Republicans have always favored Founders' original intent as opposed to numerous Democrat efforts to corrupt & debauch it.
I am still awaiting clarification on your position. Do you believe Abortion on Demand is valid law?
It is puzzling why they keep pushing this narrative. I have not read a single book, paper, or periodical that mentions raw cotton as an import.
Another point that is continually promoted are the percentages of tariffs that are collected at this or that port, as if that means anything. For example, in #588, DoodleDawg wrote:
"Upwards on 95% of all tariff income was collected in Northern ports. Losing far less than 10% would hardly have cause crony capitalism to crash and burn, assuming it existed as you describe to begin with."
What does it have to do with anything, other than add carrying charges to the imported goods that are received in the North, and then transported to the South? [Carrying charges include the costs of storage (say, in warehouses,) and the conveying of those goods from storage to the destination.]
One of the biggest fears mentioned in Republican newspapers in those days was that shipping would go South, where there would be a smaller tariff.
"The South has furnished near three-fourths of the entire exports of the country. Last year she furnished seventy-two percent of the whole… we have a tariff that protects our manufacturers from thirty to fifty percent, and enables us to consume large quantities of Southern cotton, and to compete in our whole home market with the skilled labor of Europe. This operates to compel the South to pay an indirect bounty to our skilled labor, of millions annually."
[Daily Chicago Times, December 10, 1860, in Howard Ceil Perkins, "Northern Editorials on Secession." American Historical Association, 1942, P.573]
Once the South seceded, the income from that "95% Northern port tariff collection" shrunk considerably, not to mention the carrying charges. To protect his precious revenue (much of it directed to line the pockets of the cronies who supported "republican" campaigns,) Lincoln really had no choice but to blockade the Southern ports, as promoted by this "republican" newspaper:
"One of the most important benefits which the Federal Government has conferred upon the nation is unrestricted trade between many prosperous States with divers productions and industrial pursuits. But now, since the Montgomery [Confederate] Congress has passed a new tariff, and duties are exacted upon Northern goods sent to ports in the Cotton States, the traffic between the two sections will be materially decreased.... Another, and a more serious difficulty arises out of our foreign commerce, and the different rates of duty established by the two tariffs which will soon be in force..."
"The General Government,... to prevent the serious diminution of its revenues, will be compelled to blockade the Southern ports... and prevent the importation of foreign goods into them, or to put another expensive guard upon the frontiers to prevent smuggling into the Union States. Even if the independence of the seceding Commonwealths should be recognized, and two distinct nations thus established, we should still experience all the vexations, and be subjected to all the expenses and annoyances which the people of Europe have long suffered, on account of their numerous Governments, and many inland lines of custom-houses. Thus, trade of all kinds, which has already been seriously crippled would be permanently embarrassed..."
"It is easy for men to deride and underestimate the value of the Union, but its destruction would speedily be followed by fearful proofs of its importance to the whole American people."
[Philadelphia Press, March 18, 1861, in Stampp, Kenneth M., "The Causes of the Civil War." 1986, p.69]
This Southern newspaper also mentions the high profits in the carrying trade, which also go to the North:
"By mere supineness, the people of the South have permitted the Yankees to monopolize the carrying trade, with its immense profits. We have yielded to them the manufacturing business, in all its departments, without an effort, until recently, to become manufacturers ourselves. We have acquiesced in the claims of the North to do all the importing, and most of the exporting business, for the whole Union. Thus, the North has been aggrandised, in a most astonishing degree, at the expense of the South."
[Vicksburg Daily Whig, January 18, 1860, in Dwight Lowell Dummond, "Southern Editorials on Secession." The Century Co., 1931, pp. 13-14, 15]
So, the South received a "double-whammy," in a manner of speaking; first from the tariff, and and second from the middle-men. You can think of the North as the "merchants of the earth" in those days:
""thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived." -- Rev 18:23 KJV
LOL!
Mr. Kalamata
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.