Targeting Lost Causers

Old Virginia Blog ^ | 06/09/2009 | Richard Williams

[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?

[rustbucket]

I didn't expect to see any WBTS monuments on my most recent trip out of town. On the trip I visited Fort Griffin in North Texas. The fort was founded in 1867. Not much is left of the fort, but there was a flag flying there, apparently a flag of one of the units that had served at the fort after the war. Here is a picture of the flag:

This was a flag of the "11th Reg. G Co. U.S. Inf." and the battles shown on the flag were the following:

Rappahannock Station
Mine Run
Wilderness
Spottsylvania

North Anna
Tolopotomoy
Bethesda Church
Petersburg

Antietam
Fredericksburg
Chancellorsville
Gettysburg

Weldon Railroad
Peebles Farm
Hatcher’s Run.1st
Hatcher’s Run.2nd

Boydton Road
Gravelly Run
Five Forks
Appomattox, C.H.

I wonder if any soldier survived all those battles.

On the trip, I did learn that in the late 1850s Robert E. Lee had served as commander of Camp Cooper a few miles NW of Fort Griffin. Camp Cooper was right in the middle of the Clearfork Comanche Reservation.

[rustbucket]

Nice post. I too believe that the colonies/states banded together for security, but I don’t see their situation as necessarily illegitimate.

[rockrr]

Perhaps illegitimate was too strong a term, but the sense I was trying to convey was that, in the absence of deliberate measures to declare their respective formation as a free and independent entities, their status was...questionable...;’}

[PeaRidge]

Well, it is time you know the real truth about the trade figures just before the secession.

First, what was the value of imports at US ports of entry as documented by the Customs house, less specie and re-exports in 1859?

The United States Treasury report gives a figure of $317,000,000.

Now, some of math. Kettel in 1860 reported that according to the US Treasury report of 1856, page 101, it is stated that the amount of European imported goods consumed in the US in 1850 was $163,186,000. According to his data, the distribution of that amount was to the South $43,000,000; to the West $35,000,000; and to the North $85,180,000.

Referring again to the imports of 1859 of $317 million, and if they were distributed in the same proportion, then Southern consumption would be $106,000,000; for Western $63,000,000; and for the North $149,000,000. At the time that he wrote his paper, he did not yet have the 1860 census report.

Kettell then provides data from the 1850 US Census that shows that the sales of domestic manufactures to the South were $146,000,000 for that year.

He then researched the manufacturing data and determined that between 1850 and 1859 that the manufacturing output had doubled, and that also the means of payment (on hand assets) for the South had increased at an even greater ratio.

His extrapolated data then is that the inter-sectional trade of 1859 was Northern manufactures sold to the South $240,000,000; imported goods sold or direct shipped to the South $106,000,000.

Based on this data, for 1859, the total value of goods shipped into the South (imported) was $346,000,000.

You can see the vast amounts of trade goods coming into the South.

As a point of interest, using the same procedure, it is shown that the value of raw materials and produce shipped North from the South in that year was well over $200,000.

[PeaRidge]

You said: "And if the Secretary of State decides to rent the ships then where is that forbidden?

The Secretary of State, just like the President cannot extract funds, appropriated by Congress, and move them into another department. Neither had that authority.

And with regard to your on going denial of the secrecy of Lincoln's activities, had it not been for the storm, the ships would have arrived just a few hours after Chew's visit.

[PeaRidge]

You said: "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 where might the consumer be?

[rustbucket]

Point taken. Post 1686 lists some of the things done by the states that would support their status as sovereign entities. In addition, under the Articles states ran their own commerce and international trade, and some issued their own money.

[PeaRidge]

You said: "But in your scenarion (sic) they are first landed in a Northern port, taxed, re-loaded, and shipped South.

Yes, most of the goods headed for east coast destinations went through that process.

You said: "If such a large percentage was destined for Southern consumers then why not send them direct?

They were. Quite a large percentage of the goods were direct shipped to New Orleans and Mobile.

You said: "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 you would like more information on that, I will give it to you.

[PeaRidge]

Well, let's help you to understand the trade issue. You will agree to a few things:

1. Ships in the transatlantic trade were mostly steam powered and took the shortest route possible....Liverpool to New York.

Agreed?

2. Ships tended to land where all the goods could be offloaded and quickly reloaded.

O K ?

3. Shippers/traders had to follow U S laws covering trade.

You will agree to that.

4. The Warehousing Laws had been in effect since the late 1840s.

O K so far?

[rockrr]

Believe it or not I do read all of your posts on these threads, and I did read that one ;'}

Part of what I see in viewing the back & forth on these threads is the occasional imputation of ideas or ideals to the words of our Founding Fathers based on what should rightfully be called idiomatic speech. (Please note that I am not accusing you of this tactic, but am curious if you have seen it as well) What did a person really mean when he used a particular word or term? Is a state a state a State? Can a state be a nation (or vice versa)?

When pursuing the question of 'legitimacy' of the various colony/states I reviewed a bunch of documents at The Avalon Project - a link that I picked up on these threads. While I admit that my research is by no means comprehensive it does raise questions that I have offered up in the last few posts.

It may be trivial to some (but then delving into WBTS at any length appears trivial to lots of folks), but it speaks not only to what the FF had in mind when engineering our Republic, and how the North & South interpreted those intentions years later, to where we find ourselves at present day and where we may be headed.

[PeaRidge]

More about the following can be found here

After the war of 1812 ended, the British flooded America with manufactured goods to try to drive out the nascent American industries.

They chose the port of New York for their dumping ground, in part because the British had been feeding cargoes to Boston all through the war to encourage anti-war sentiment in New England.

New York was the more starved, therefore it became the port of choice. And the dumping bankrupted many towns, but it assured New York of its sea-trading supremacy.

In the decades to come, New Yorkers made the most of the chance. Four Northern and Mid-Atlantic ports still had the lion's share of the shipping. But Boston and Baltimore mainly served regional markets (though Boston sucked up a lot of Southern cotton and shipped out a lot of fish). Philadelphia's shipping interest had built up trade with the major seaports on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, especially as Pennsylvania's coal regions opened up in the 1820s.

But New York was king. Its merchants had the ready money, it had a superior harbor, it kept freight rates down, and by 1825 some 4,000 coastal trade vessels per year arrived there. In 1828 it was estimated that the clearances from New York to ports on the Delaware Bay alone were 16,508 tons, and to the Chesapeake Bay 51,000 tons.

Early and mid-19th century Atlantic trade was based on "packet lines" -- groups of vessels offering scheduled services. It was a coastal trade at first, but when the Black Ball Line started running between New York and Liverpool in 1817, it became the way to do business across the pond.

The trick was to have a good cargo going each way. The New York packet lines succeeded because they sucked in all the eastbound cotton cargoes from the U.S.

The northeast didn't have enough volume of paying freight on its own. So American vessels, usually owned in the Northeast, sailed off to a cotton port, carrying goods for the southern market. There they loaded cotton (or occasionally naval stores or timber) for Europe. They steamed back from Europe loaded with manufactured goods, raw materials like hemp or coal, and occasionally immigrants.

Since this "triangle trade" involved a domestic leg, foreign vessels were excluded from it (under the 1817 law), except a few English ones that could substitute a Canadian port for a Northern U.S. one.

And since it was subsidized by the U.S. government, it was going to continue to be the only game in town.

Robert Greenhalgh Albion, in his laudatory history of the Port of New York, openly boasts of this selfish monopoly. "By creating a three-cornered trade in the 'cotton triangle,' New York dragged the commerce between the southern ports and Europe out of its normal course some two hundred miles to collect a heavy toll upon it. This trade might perfectly well have taken the form of direct shuttles between Charleston, Savannah, Mobile, or New Orleans on the one hand and Liverpool or Havre on the other, leaving New York far to one side had it not interfered in this way.

To clinch this abnormal arrangement, moreover, New York developed the coastal packet lines without which it would have been extremely difficult to make the east-bound trips of the ocean packets profitable."

Even when the Southern cotton bound for Europe didn't put in at the wharves of Sandy Hook or the East River, unloading and reloading, the combined income from interests, commissions, freight, insurance, and other profits took perhaps 40 cents into New York of every dollar paid for southern cotton. The record shows that ports with moderate quantities of outbound freight couldn't keep up with the New York competition.

Remember, this is a triangle trade. Boston started a packet line in 1833 that, to secure outbound cargo, detoured to Charleston for cotton. But about the only other local commodity it could find to move to Europe was Bostonians. Since most passengers en route to England found little attraction in a layover in South Carolina, the lines failed.

As for the cotton ports themselves, they did not crave enough imports to justify packet lines until 1851, when New Orleans hosted one sailing to Liverpool. Yet New York by the mid-1850s could claim sixteen lines to Liverpool, three to London, three to Havre, two to Antwerp, and one each to Glasgow, Rotterdam, and Marseilles.

Subsidized, it must be remembered, by the federal post office patronage boondogle. U.S. foreign trade rose in value from $134 million in 1830 to $318 million in 1850. It would triple again in the 1850s. Between two-thirds and three-fourths of those imports entered through the port of New York. Which meant that any trading the South did, had to go through New York.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Hmm. Interesting how in one post you say “Quite a large percentage of the goods were direct shipped to New Orleans and Mobile.” and in another you say “As for the cotton ports themselves, they did not crave enough imports to justify packet lines until 1851, when New Orleans hosted one sailing to Liverpool.”

[x]

Knock yourself out - you're obviously a 'cherry picker' when it comes to the historical record. Your refusal to address the citations I posted from The Federalist Papers proves my point.

That's rich coming from the person who tried to distort the meaning of Madison's 1833 Rives letter. You took one sentence out of context to make Madison support views he didn't favor, and you call me a "cherry picker."

Madison, as I pointed out, was trying to salvage his earlier writing on the Virginia Resolutions and reconcile it with his later point of view. Look at the sentence before the one you cite:

But the ability and the motives disclosed in the essay induce me to say, in compliance with the wish expressed, that I do not consider the proceedings of Virginia in ’98-99 as countenancing the doctrine that a State may at will secede from its constitutional compact with the other states. A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact absolving the seceding party from the obligation imposed by it.

He goes on to say:

It surely does not follow from the fact of the states, or rather the people embodied in them, having, as parties to the constitutional compact, no tribunal above them, that, in controverted meanings of the compact, a minority of the parties can rightfully decide against the majority, still less that a single party can decide against the rest, and as little that it can at will withdraw itself altogether from its compact with the rest.

The characteristic distinction between free Governments, and Governments not free is that the former are founded on compact, not between the Government and those for whom it acts, but among the parties creating the Government. Each of these being equal, neither can have more right to say that the compact has been violated and dissolved than every other has to deny the fact and to insist on the execution of the bargain. An inference from the doctrine that a single state has a right to secede at will from the rest is that the rest would have an equal right to secede from it; in other words, to turn it, against its will, out of its union with them. Such a doctrine would not, till of late, have been palatable anywhere, and nowhere less so than where it is now most contended for.

In other words, he rejects secession at will and has a hard time maintaining his earlier idea that a state can decide that the Constitution has been violated and secede on its own. I don't know what to make of this. I can't claim that Madison is being wholly logical. Perhaps his letter can be understood as leaving open the possibility of a break up of the union as an alternative to tyranny, while excluding other occasions for secession. But it's clear that Madison doesn't agree with you. I informed you of this last time and you simply ignored my point.

As to Madison's Federalist 45: you're making far too much of this "few and defined" versus "numerous and indefinite." That's Madison's empirical generalization of the separation of powers under the Constitution, but is that the defining principle that governs Constitutional interpretation? That is to say, is anything you can think up that's vague and indefinite enough going to be a power reserved by the states? That's questionable.

Look at the paragraph after the one you cite:

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.

Matters of war and danger, in other words those of national survival are consigned to the federal government. Should a state be allowed in time of war to withdraw from the union and throw in with our enemies? Your opinion suggests that they could. I doubt the founders would agree. And if unilateral secession isn't allowed during war, is it permissible in peacetime?

Coming around to Hamilton: notice his use of "CONTRADICTORY and REPUGNANT." "Repugnant" didn't just mean something one disliked or found distasteful or immoral. It was a legal term. A "repugnant" condition or interpretation of a contract is one contradictory to the contract itself. I don't think he'd have a problem finding your concept of an unexpressed right to secede embedded in the Constitution "contradictory and repugnant" to the Constitution itself.

Here's Hamilton in Federalist 9:

The definition of a confederate republic seems simply to be "an assemblage of societies," or an association of two or more states into one state. The extent, modifications, and objects of the federal authority are mere matters of discretion. So long as the separate organization of the members be not abolished; so long as it exists, by a constitutional necessity, for local purposes; though it should be in perfect subordination to the general authority of the union, it would still be, in fact and in theory, an association of states, or a confederacy. The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power. This fully corresponds, in every rational import of the terms, with the idea of a federal government.

This is very sophisticated idea of union. You can find some things that might lead you to think that Hamilton advocates merely a loose league of independent states. But read carefully: and you'll see that Hamilton's idea of the union is quite different from yours. He doesn't believe that the states are simply consolidated or amalgamated into a unitary national state, but neither does he believe that they are the font and site of all sovereignty.

If you post a reply, and I don't get back to you immediately, don't worry - I'm visiting three States over the next four days.

I'm definitely not worrying. As I said, this debate is pointless. You've decided that your view is right and aren't even going to consider differing opinions. My point is that things aren't always simple. You can come up with a very definite and clearly defined view of things, but that doesn't make it right. It may just be an oversimplification or a distortion.

[stand watie]

why of course (sarcasm button: ON), everybody who disagrees with your PREJUDICES/STUPID opinions/FOOLishness is wrong/lying/etc/etc/etc, BIGOT.

the sort of ARROGANT,ignorant SELF-delusion/SELF-importantce, that you suffer from, is generally considered to be a PSYCOSIS, caused by your inbred BIGOTRY, low IQ & HATEFULNESS; furthermore, one manifestation of that mental condition is an acquired inability to express yourself in a DECENT manner, especially in front of ladies & children.

laughing AT you, VULGAR-talking LOUT, as ALMOST everyone does.

free dixie,sw

[rockrr]

As usual, you couldn't be more wrong. If you were to pull your head out of your other orifice and look around you would see that I, as well as most of the other posters here, can carry on a civil conversation without excessive vitriol. It's just you Squat2pee.

I'll see your PSYCOSIS (sic - really sic!) and raise you one Sociopath. Your fundamental inability to interact with humans is growing worse and you would do well to keep an eye out for the fellows with butterfly nets.

[rockrr]

furthermore, one manifestation of that mental condition is an acquired inability to express yourself in a DECENT manner, especially in front of ladies & children.

So, which are you - the women or the children?

[rustbucket]

Now you’ve done it! What an interesting site. I’m sure I’ll spend a lot of time reading those documents. Thank you.

[rockrr]

I look forward to seeing what you find. Did you also check out the links that Domainmaster provided in #1725? I know that they are links to featured pages from books and not comprehensive, but I found then interesting nonetheless.

[BroJoeK]

Working down through post 1717, trying to find actual arguments amongst all the insults:

WIJB: "As noted above, you (in your Post 1528) suggested that only Congress "can define just what exactly is an 'insurrection,' or 'invasion.'" Care to substantiate that statement with historical documentation, or court opinions? Of course not..."

You may remember the historical sequence of events in 1861. After the destruction and surrender of Fort Sumter, President Lincoln declared a state of Insurrection. President Davis then declared war on the United States. Congress then voted to approve all of Lincoln's actions:

"And be it further enacted, that all the acts, proclamations, and orders of the President of the United States after the fourth of March, eighteen hundred and sixty-one, respecting the army and navy of the United States, are hereby approved and in all respects legalized and made valid, to the same intent and with the same effect as if they had been issued and done under the previous express authority and direction of the Congress of the United States.39"

WIJG: ""Nonsense?" That certainly applies to your irrational argument, presented in Post 1510, suggesting that "the Constitution does not mention secession because it did not in any way contemplate it." The same Constitution, under your argument, did not mention a "perpetual" union [in essence, the exact opposite of State secession] because it did not in any way contemplate it.

"And congratulations - you just suggested that there WAS discussion in 1787 of something resembling secession or "sun setting" or any other termination of the Constitution -- through such ordinary, peaceful and lawful methods as [amendments] and constitutional conventions. Please provide the citation[s]. Because you can't, I suspect this is just another one of your many 'verbal diarrhea' posts..."

You speak of "verbal diarrhea"...

Here is a historical fact: the words "unilateral secession," or "unapproved withdrawal from the Union," or any similar, are not mentioned in the Constitution, or the Federalist Papers or any other debate of 1787, at least that I've ever seen.

What certainly are mentioned are lawful procedures to amend or even completely rewrite the Constitution -- see Article V. So seems pretty logical to me to say the Founders intended the Constitution to be modified lawfully, not through the unilateral demands of a few states.

WIJG: "The term "perpetual" was applied, in writing, to the union formed under the specific terms of the Articles of Confederation. The Founders were well aware of the language, could easily have included it within the written terms of the new Constitution - and did not."

The omission of the phrase "perpetual union" from the new Constitution of 1787 is a matter of historical interest. But I have never seen where it was commented on at that time, as being significant.

It may simply have been a response to the fact that the Founders did indeed expect their new Constitution to be amended and even rewritten from time to time, and provided lawful procedures for doing that.

Of course President Lincoln's argument in 1861 was that the Articles' term "perpetual union" had been replaced in the Constitution with the phrase, "to form a more perfect union." Lincoln asked: how could a "more perfect union" not also be perpetual?

WIJG: "As noted above, you suggested that there WAS discussion in 1787 of something resembling secession or "sun setting" or any other termination of the Constitution -- through such ordinary, peaceful and lawful methods as [amendments] and constitutional conventions. I have already asked you to please provide the citation"

I detect that you have some kind of problem understanding the difference between legal, lawful & constitutional processes such as amendments or constitutional conventions -- which are fully authorized in the Constitution -- on the one hand, versus violent and unlawful insurrections, rebellions, "domestic violence" and even invasion of Federal property -- which are not. Why is that?

[central_va]

I live 10 miles south of the South Anna Battlefield. An artillery battle with little infantry or cavalry action. Few casualties. Lee was sick and couldn’t get his commanders to move.