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 ...
Anyone that says anything positive about the Confederacy is going to get attacked. It is like the myths of JFK and BHO, reality can be painful. For many people, Lincoln is above human criticism. He is the Union’s Messiah as much as Obama is the Messiah of the left. Of course, there are those that romanticize about the Confederacy, too. It is easy to create that myth. I would like to see and read an accurate history of that era, but authors cannot help, it seems, but to use circular arguments that validate their own views. Maybe a hundred years from now, when people can be less emotional invested in the subject, someone will write an objective history, but it is not going to happen in my lifetime.Let's have some fun with this:
Anyone that says anything positive about the Taliban is going to get attacked. It is like the myth of Reagan, reality can be painful. For many people, Bush is above human criticism. He is the Middle east's Messiah as much as Reagan is the Messiah of the right. Of course, there are those that romanticize about the Taliban, too. It is easy to create that myth. I would like to see and read an accurate history of that era, but authors cannot help, it seems, but to use circular arguments that validate their own views. Maybe a hundred years from now, when people can be less emotional invested in the subject, someone will write an objective history, but it is not going to happen in my lifetime.
Moral relativism?
But of course you do?
Although the term "proceed" was used in several accounts, the definition of proceed was never given....proceed back out?...proceed to the bar to anchor?...proceed to Savannah?
How about 'proceed on her original course?' The Nashville was bound for Charleston. The Lane allowed her to proceed on that course once she identified herself. She did not turn the Nashville back to sea. She did order her to remain with the resupply ships. She did not order her to proceed to another port. She allowed the Nashville to continue in the direction she was originally heading. That does not sound like a blockade to me.
What you do know is that the Nashville stopped........plain and simple. It was stopped from continuing its regular run into Charleston Harbor. That fact, along with the fact that another schooner was seized, constitutes a blockade, and was the first act of war.
Complete nonsense.
Well, you say that, and then you turn around and continue the “niggle” by saying “...she was allowed to proceed.”
Except that’s not niggling - that’s stating the record. What you make of it is niggling - and hysterical.
When I took the time to look up those facts, they confirmed my points.
On the other hand, the South's exports (i.e., cotton) were more than double the value of the North's.
Per capita incomes varied by region within the South and North, with highest in the Northeast & Southwest. But as the 1860 census points out (p.295), per capita western values were increased by the fact that many owners of western property did not live there.
Overall, Northern & Southern per capita incomes were roughly the same, but with nearly four times the free population, the North, even in 1860, dominated economically.
"The vast majority of consumed goods were imported into the South.
This claim makes some sense, if we consider: the North produced and exported many times more manufactured goods than the South, while the South used it's cotton export earnings to purchase manufactured goods from both the North and overseas.
However, I've seen no actual numbers to verify this claim, which brings us back to your debate with Non Sequitur regarding the supposed percentage of goods which first landed at places like New York or Philadelphia, but which ended up eventually shipped to the South.
Since the North's overall economy was roughly four times the South's, it seems unlikely that the "vast majority" of imports went South.
"Large numbers of Northern manufacturers were dependent on their only source of raw materials....the South.
The South exported raw cotton to mills in the North and Britain, both of which somehow survived without it during the Civil War.
"Large numbers of Northern manufacturers were dependent on their primary source of consumption, the Southern consumer."
Oh, really? 5.6 million Southern whites were the "primary source of consumption" of good produced by 21.7 million Northerners? I don't think so:
Let's suppose, for sake of discussion, the South imported half it's manufactured goods from the North, and half from overseas. Since, on the whole, Southerner's had about the same income, and used the same goods as northerners, but produced almost none of their own, we can easily calculate that 5.6 million Southerners would consume roughly the same Northern manufactured goods as 2.6 million Northerners (the rest coming from overseas.)
For the North, an additional 2.6 million Southern consumers represented 12% on top of their existing population of 21.7 million. And the Civil War proved positively, this 12% was not necessary to the North's economy.
Several days prior to the Nashville incident, rebel batteries fired on the Rhoda Shannon for the high crime of flying the American flag. I'm not aware of any ships that entered or left the port after the Shannon was forced to leave. One could say that the blockade started then and that the initiator was the Davis regime, and the opening act of war was that. However most rational people agree that the war was initiated when the South bombarded Sumter.
“Well,” said he, “what about the revenue? What would I do about the collection of duties?""
And your source for, and the context of this particular quote is what?
President Buchanan, a Pennsylvania "dough face" -- meaning Southern sympathizer -- believed both that secession was unconstitutional and that the Union should not use military force to stop secession.
So President Buchanan selected just four Federal forts in the South to defend: Pickens, Taylor, Jefferson (all in Florida) and Sumter. None of these forts can be said to have important revenue collecting functions. Buchanan sent supplies and troops to all of them -- successfully to Pickens, Taylor and Jefferson. At Fort Sumter, on January 10, 1861 The Star of the West was fired on and forced to return to New York.
President Lincoln continued Buchanan's policy of defending the four forts, even though they had no significance to tariff collections. Indeed, immediately after surrendering Fort Sumter, Lincoln declared the South in Insurrection, and imposed a blockade, which effectively eliminated the possibility of revenues from Southern tariffs.
So I think it's laughable to suggest that Lincoln risked and then went to war just to collect Southern tariffs.
The truth is that Lincoln believed his sworn oath the "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" included preserving the Union. It's that simple.
And yet in 1863 there was enough specie available to fund enough imports to generate over $100 million in tariffs. Where did it come from?
Without southern exports, the entire trade/tariff program, that totally financed the US government would come to a halt.
Then why didn't it?
According to you they were in the South.
Why? Why go through the expense of landing, paying tariffs, reloading, and shipping south? Why not take them there directly?
They were. Quite a large percentage of the goods were direct shipped to New Orleans and Mobile.
For every dollar of tariff paid in New Orleans and Mobile almost 17 were paid in New York.
If that were the motivation then wouldn't it make sense to ship goods from New York to Liverpool? Yet all that cotton left Southern ports and went directly to Europe without going through New York. Didn't they care about the shortest route possible on the eastbound leg?
2. Ships tended to land where all the goods could be offloaded and quickly reloaded. O K ?
Why didn't that include Southern ports? Why couldn't goods be offloaded there?
3. Shippers/traders had to follow U S laws covering trade. You will agree to that.
And?
4. The Warehousing Laws had been in effect since the late 1840s. O K so far?
And?
Ah, but you should have read the whole chapter. Albion goes on to note on page 115, "By the mid-'fifties a change took place in the cotton movements. Its principal feature was a sharp diminution of the amount of cotton sent northward to New York for transshipment to Europe. A considerable part of that amount had always been for speculative purposes and the speculators gradually found that it was enough to send the bills of lading and samples to New York. In this way, the speculative trade might be handled without having the bales themselves incur the added charges of freight and handling involved in going abroad by way of Sandy Hook." Albion states on page 116, "For the latest one, ending in midMay, 1859, the total was only 28,800 bales to New York as compared with 310,400 to other coastwise ports (chiefly in New England) and 1,866,000 direct to foreign ports." Now it can be safely assumed that the 310,400 bales sent to other New England ports were for domestic consumption, since the textile industry was centered in New England. But 1.866 million bales were sent directly abroad. If those ships came to pick up the cotton for the trip to Europe then why didn't they come packed to the gunwales with imported goods?
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.
Then how can you claim the consumed the majority of imports and generated the bulk of the tariffs?
WIJG: "Another irrational statement - if secession was constitutional, then the resulting hostilities were NOT "insurrection and rebellion." And you have failed to prove State secession circa 1860-1861 unconstitutional.
Another irrational statement, since I've never said unilateral, unapproved secession is constitutional. Even President Buchanan, a Pennsylvania "dough face" southern sympathizer, who refused to use military force against secession, never claimed it was "constitutional."
But President Buchanan decided that four Federal forts -- amongst the dozens & dozens of federal properties illegally seized by the South -- Forts Pickens, Taylor, Jefferson and Sumter should be defended. In January 1861, he sent reinforcement ships to all of them. Three arrived, the fourth, at Sumter was driven off by Southern cannon fire.
And President Lincoln did not initiate military force to stop secession. Instead he just continued Buchanan's policy of defending those four forts. Only when the South fired on Sumter and forced its surrender did Lincoln declare a state of Insurrection.
WIJG: "In fact, given that the Constitution nowhere prohibited State secession, the maintenance of federal forces within Fort Sumter following the withdrawal of South Carolina from the union, was an act of war on the part of the remaining United States... "
Utter, complete b*ll cr*p. In fact, no law then or now said that ANY Federal property would AUTOMATICALLY belong to a state -- much less a Confederacy -- immediately on declaring secession. Property remained property, and violent seizures of Federal property, including the deaths of federal troops, were by any definition acts of Insurrection.
Finally, your arguments claiming the 10th Amendment, or some states Constitution "signing statements," imply secession is authorized is bogus to the max because:
"Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."
So it was the South's insurrection which triggered the Civil War, not secession alone.
"Old Fort Kearney was taken possession of last night by disunionists... "
Forts Chadbourne and Belknap were in western Texas, near Abilene. No record of "Old Fort Kearney." In Texas all the Federal forts were surrendered relatively peacefully. In San Antonio, in April 1861, US Army officers were treated as POWs.
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.