Posted on 06/09/2009 8:47:35 AM PDT by Davy Buck
My oh my, what would the critics, the Civil War publications, publishers, and bloggers do if it weren't for the bad boys of the Confederacy and those who study them and also those who wish to honor their ancestors who fought for the Confederacy?
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
And if the Secretary of State decides to rent the ships then where is that forbidden?
Of course it was secret: that has already been demonstrated to you through Lincoln's own words to his staff.
The fact that it wasn't is demonstrated by Lincoln's letter to Pickens and the fact that it was also all over the newspapers, Southern and Northern.
Lincoln was moving troops to occupy installations on foreign soil.
They were not on foreign soil.
Where is that tariff paid?
If I am the importer I pay it at point of delivery. Why pay the tariff in New York and then send the goods to Charleston? There still is risk involved. If the goods are lost at sea on the way then I've paid taxes on goods that are at the bottom of the ocean. So I keep them in bond and ship them South where I can also get the buyer to pay for them and pay the tariff out of the proceeds. If I'm the buyer then I insist on delivery to me rather than run the risk of something happening to the goods between the time I buy them and the time they are delivered. Either way it makes the most sense to pay tariffs at point of legal entry into the U.S. And that would be where the buyer is.
But in your scenarion they are first landed in a Northern port, taxed, re-loaded, and shipped South. If such a large percentage was destined for Southern consumers then why not send them direct? Why the additional cost of the stop in New York? If it's a question of warehouses, they could as easily be built in Charleston as in Boston.
If the nearest port could not accommodate deep draft ships, then the goods went North to be re-shipped south.
Obviously the ports could accomodate deep-draft ships because all that cotton was being exported out of Charleston and Mobile and New Orleans. They weren't travelling in coastal vessels, they went straight to Europe or wherever the customer was. Millions of bales each year.
The Warehousing Act encouraged importers to drop their goods off at a single point by providing economic incentives to warehouse. An importer could delay payment on the tariff until he had a buyer for his goods by storing them tax-free in a warehouse. Since NYC had lots of warehouses to be used for this purpose it became the drop off place for goods that were later reexported to buyers in the South..
And again, New York and Boston and Philadelphia became those single points because they were the entry ports closest to the consumers that the vast majority of imports were destined for. If the large majority of those consumers were in the South, as you claim, then those warehouses could have easily been built there. They were not? Why? Little or no demand for the imported goods.
And why would there not be one? The claim is made - constantly - by Southron supporters that the South paid the overwhelming majority of all tariffs. I've seen figures as high as 87% bandied about. My point is that if such figures are right then would it not make sense to bring the goods directly to where your customers are? Instead of landing them at ports hundreds of miles away only to load them again and ship them to their ultimate consumer? Can you provide a logical reason for such a procedure?
PeaRidge brings up the Warehousing Act as if that was the deciding factor. The Warehousing Act was indeed why regional hubs developed, and why imports at Boston and New York and Philadelphia may have grown at the expense of ports like Wilmington and Providence or New London. But again, if all those imports were destined for Southern conseumers then why didn't they go to those ports? The Warehousing Act wasn't passed because someone said "We have all these empty warehouses in New York. Something has to be done." Those warehouses in New York were built after the act was passed in order to take advantage of the legislation, not the other way around. And those warehouses could have easily been built in Charleston or Mobile or New Orleans. So yes, there is a direct correlation between where tariffs are collected and where the demand for those imports are. The overwhelming majority were collected in Northern ports. The only possible explanation is that it's because that's where the demand was. In the North, not in the South.
If they were sovereign and independent that meant that no other entity ultimately controlled them. Not the Continental Congress and not Lincoln's mythical Union. The colonies/states joined together to fight the British. We joined with other countries to fight the Axis powers in WWII. It didn't mean we were in a Union with the Allies in Lincoln's sense of Union.
The Declaration of Independence said nothing about a nation. The original said it was "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America." [see DOI Stone copy] Not "the United States of America" but "the thirteen united States of America." They weren't a free and independent state, but free and independent states.
King George III recognized that difference if you did not. From the Treaty of Paris (1783) that was signed after the Articles had been ratified and the formal name of the confederacy adopted as the United States of America [King George III gives in]:
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, 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.
Here's an argument I found on the web against your Lincolnian argument of the states were never sovereign and were formed by the Union [Link]:
Van Tyne examines the record from the first Continental Congress – before the outbreak of war with Britain – through the ratification of the Articles of Confederation. Nowhere does he find confirmation of the Wilson-Story-Lincoln theory of a new, single people made up of the people of the colonies in the aggregate. Instead, he finds a rough and inconsistent pattern of cooperation between thirteen revolutionary movements, coordinated loosely in the Continental Congress.
Proponents of the priority of the union make what they can of the Declaration of Independence, although the phrase "free and independent states" does not appear to help their case. The colonies’ delegations awaited instructions from home before voting for the declaration, and New York waited a while longer. Much is also made of Congress’s suggestion that the states organize new governments, as if this was the order of a superior power to lesser ones. Actually, several had already established new governments under new constitutions, effectively repudiating British authority before the Declaration had been voted on. Van Tyne writes: "but the advice cannot be twisted into a sovereign command, for the thing is to be done ‘during the continuance of the present dispute between Great Britain and the colonies.’ A body regarding itself as sovereign does not speak thus." 2
Van Tyne notes as well that the colonies – now calling themselves "states" – did in fact exercise powers appropriate to sovereign states. The separate military forces, the navies established by nine states, separate state diplomatic activities, and so on demonstrate this beyond contradiction.3 Virginia ratified the treaty of alliance with France separately and carried on an extensive diplomatic correspondence.
Sort of like the Powhatan did on its Lincoln-authorized mission when it approached Pensacola harbor disguised and under an English (or possibly British?) flag?
Klein again? And just out of curiosity, what is the difference between the English and British flags?
Yeah. Then why did he sign a peace treaty with something called "The United States of America" when it was, in reality, thirteen separate, free, sovereign, and independent states?
This is fascinating. If true then there should be declarations of confederation for the various communities that banded together to form each state, correct? And the tallies from the votes to incorporate?
And documents that formed the foundation and definition for their respective sovereign governments before they were consumed by the British? Or did they declare themselves free, independent, and sovereign country-states after the split from Great Britain? Surely those papers exist somewhere?
Man, I missed a whole bunch of history!
No, but for all I know it might be in Klein. Try: Official Records of the Navies, Series 1, Volume 4, page 132.
I suspect that Captain Poor, commander of the St. Louis, misspoke when he said "English colors" in the above link. I think by that time the British ships were probably flying the flag of Great Britain and not the Cross of St. George flag of England, which is why I posted like I did. See: Yet another link to educate non
As I said in post 1686, by that point in time (1783) the states had banded together in a confederacy under the Articles of Confederation. The confederacy was stiled, "The United States of America" and it sent representatives to negotiate for the 13 states. And, if you will remember, the Articles said: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."
King George was right to call them free, sovereign, and independent states. It was they who served notice on him in 1776.
The states subsequently separately withdrew from this so called "perpetual" confederation and ratified the Constitution. But, wo is me! Maybe I'm getting my perpetual confederations mixed up. Consider this earlier "perpetual" confederation: The Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England; May 19, 1643; see Articles 2 and 12. Lincoln didn't go back far enough in his fabrication.
Swattie, if something like that counts as a rebuttal or and intelligent response, you really are brain-dead.
Actually X, in researching Squat2pee’s posts I’ve discovered that he is Positively Pavlovian - those few times when someone actually responds to one of his nonsensical posts, he can’t help but reply. Every time. Without fail.
In this one case I truly believe that he is one troll that we could “ignore to death”. His posts are colorful and unintentionally hilarious but incoherent to the point of distraction, and ultimately meaningless, so I doubt that anyone would notice him gone, but it would be an interesting experiment...
So it seems.
If true then there should be declarations of confederation for the various communities that banded together to form each state, correct? And the tallies from the votes to incorporate?
They were already organized in colonies, colonies that typically had governing bodies. Your post made me wonder exactly how the delegates to the Continental Congress were chosen. Thank you.
What I found was that delegates were chosen in various ways. Committees of Correspondence were formed to communicate between leaders in the various colonies. These Committees were responsible for pushing for the Continental Congress and the sending of delegates to it. (One of my North Carolina ancestors was a member of Samuel Adams' Committees of Correspondence.)
The House of Representatives in Massachusetts chose their delegates to the Continental Congress that included Samuel and John Adams. The English governor of Massachusetts, Governor Gage, then dissolved the House.
Delegates were sent from the county and city of New York, for example. Exactly how these particular delegates were chosen I don't know. I've seen somewhere that in some places people held meetings and elected/selected delegates to represent them. There was no formal statewide election like what happened when some of the Southern states seceded some 80 plus years later.
There were indeed various documents complaining about Britain's actions. The Suffolk Resolves drafted by Joseph Warren in 1774 and endorsed by the Continental Congress is one. And the 1775 Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence [Link] that said in part, "Resolved . . . That we the citizens of Mecklenburg County, do hereby dissolve the political bands which have connected us with the mother country, and absolve ourselves from all allegiance to the British Crown ... "
They weren't all sanctioned by the Crown, of course. British governors kept dissolving legislative bodies that disagreed with British policy, so the delegates to the Continental Congress picked by those bodies were hardly sanctioned by the British. The New York Provincial Congress, set up by the rebels, selected delegates to the Continental Congress. It was a body organized by the rebels to replace the Province of New York Assembly, which the British governor had dissolved. See: Link.
Georgia sent no delegates to the first Continental Congress. St. John Parish sent Lyman Hall to the Second Continental Congress. Two others came from Georgia. In South Carolina, 104 delegates were selected to represent the entire colony. A general meeting of those delegates selected the representatives of South Carolina at the Continental Congress.
... their sovereignty as independent country-states was presumed but never legally established.
They asserted, then won their independence and sovereignty. George III's acknowledgment in the Treaty of Paris that the 13 states were were free, sovereign and independent states seems to be legal enough support of the states' claims of the same. I pressume you agree the Treaty of Paris is a legal document.
Paul Johnson, in his "A History of the American People," says the states made themselves sovereign. State constitutions may have have been used to do that. Johnson says, "In many respects, the colonies -- henceforth to be called the states -- had been self governing since the 17th century and had many documents and laws to prove it. Connecticut and Rhode Island already had constitutions of a sort, and few changes were needed to make them sovereign." Massachusetts drafted a constitution that was submitted to a vote of the public. It failed, but a second version was approved in 1780.
And if you will read on, "No State, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any King, Prince or State; nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign State; nor shall the United States in Congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility." Which is why the treaty is with the United States and not your "separate, free, sovereign, and independent states..."
King George was right to call them free, sovereign, and independent states. It was they who served notice on him in 1776.
But not right to try and treat with them. The Articles of Confederation prohibited that.
The states subsequently separately withdrew from this so called "perpetual" confederation and ratified the Constitution.
Read Federalist 43.
Lincoln didn't go back far enough in his fabrication.
A trait you don't share with him obviously.
confession is GOOD for the soul.
btw, remind everyone again of WHICH "permanently banished FReeper" that you claimed to have been on FR, before you finally figured out that RE-registering as a different screen-name was going to get you banned AGAIN from FR. (when you said that you LIED about that, your reputation became that of a FOOL as well as FR's most notorious LIAR.)
free dixie,sw
laughing AT you!!!
free dixie,sw
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.