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 ...
IF you had one ounce of common decency, you would APOLOGIZE to everyone for being a VULGAR-talking BIGOT & RESIGN from FR.
fyi, you make me GAG, every time i see one of your STUPID/PREJUDICED posts.
free dixie,sw
Old Fort Kearney wasn't in Texas. Here is a record of Old Fort Kearney being taken and retaken from an 1861 New York Times article. [Link] This is apparently the same incident I reported on above from a different newspaper.
In San Antonio, in April 1861, US Army officers were treated as POWs.
Texas militia units surrounded and outnumbered the Federal troops in San Antonio. The Federal troops were allowed to take their weapons and horses and some supplies to the Gulf coast where ships started loading them up for the trip back to the Union. Some ships or a ship departed with a portion of the Federal troops and later arrived in New York (I believe it was New York). While this was loading of Federal troops was underway on the Texas Gulf coast, Lincoln sent his armed fleet to Charleston, and the bombardment of Fort Sumter occurred. At this point war was underway, and it made no sense to the Texans to let the Federal troops leave simply to have them come back as invaders. So the remaining Federal troops were captured and given paroles that they agreed to that stated that they would not fight against the Confederacy until exchanged.
As near as I can remember off the top of my head this morning, that is what happened. I don't remember if any of the federal troops were held for a long time. Here is one Link that provides links to other Texas documents of the time including the parole.
There were some tense negotiations in San Antonio and Brownsville over the surrender of federal installations there. One old newspaper report said that Sam Houston was working behind the scene to not have the war start in Texas.
No one is talking to you or wants what passes for your opinion.
Sit down and shut up fool...
you are MORALLY UNFIT to be a FReeper.
free dixie,sw
LEAVE FR & head over to DAILY KOOKS where BIGOTS/HATERS/NITWITS are welcome.
free dixie,sw
And you are morally unfit to walk the planet. BFD Squat2pee...
I do not see anything in your last post to me worth any commentary.
Best regards.
Next, when you have the correct data on tariff collections by year, we can discuss this further.
For FY1863, which ran from July 1863 to June 1864, yes it did. As was reported in Lincon's 1864 Message to Congress in December.
Harper's Weekly, February 9, 1861
A Southern Transatlantic Steam Line
We have reason to believe that negotiations are on foot which may lead to the establishment of a line of ocean steamers between Norfolk, Virginia, and Havre France, touching at New York going and coming. The political troubles in the Southern States seem to have thrown obstacles in the way of the usual exports of cotton from Southern ports.
Some of the leading planters and their financial agents have, consequently, begun to examine the facilities afforded by Northern ports for the export of the staple.
The advantages of New York as a shipping port naturally strike the eye at once. We have the capital, the apparatus, the ships, the harbor, and the internal communications.
Cotton can be sent from points south of Memphis to Liverpool, via New York, about as cheaply as via New Orleans. Such is the rivalry among our railroads, in fact, that if the trade became brisk perhaps this route would prove the cheapest.
But if Norfolk or Baltimore entered into the competition, they would enjoy advantages over New York, By the Virginia and Tennesee Railroad, Norfolk is now in direct connection with Memphis. If a line of steamers were established between Norfolk and Havre, they could rely upon a full cargo of cotton each trip eastward; and there is very reason to believe that they would come westward heavily freighted with French goods for New Orleans and St. Louis.
At present New York receives all the European freights for the Mississippi cities. They could be imported more cheaply via Norfolk, if only a steam line were established to Norfolk.
Memphis being the distributing point for the Upper and Lower Mississippi. We understand that arrangements have already been made with the Virginia and Tennessee Railroad, and with the Mississippi steamers, by which passengers and freight can be sent through from Havre to New Orleans or St. Louis, via the Virginia and Tennessee Railroad and the Mississippi River, at a considerable reduction from the present rate via New York.
The subject has been laid before the leading steamship men of this city and is now under consideration. The chief difficulty in the was seems to be the doubt whether Virginia will be a member of the Federal Union at the time matters are ready for the establishment of the ocean service. If Virginia goes out of the Union, steamship proprietors apprehend difficulties about clearances, and foreign alliances, which might seriously interfere with the success of the enterprise. Their apprehensions may be gratuitous; but capital is proverbially timid. If it were certain that Virginia and Tennessee were going to remain in the Union, we think it morally certain, from what we know, that the transatlantic line from Norfolk would be in operation by the 1st of April next.
You need to keep in mind these figures before you attribute any generalization about my comments that I did not make:
In 1860, the South imported $346 million dollars worth of products. Of this list of goods, $240 million came from the Northern manufacturers and suppliers, and imported goods sold to the South was $106 million.
What was Lincoln's source for the information?
be GONE to DAILY KOOKS. - you'll be a STAR, as they TOO are PREJUDICED,STUPID & SELF-impressed.
free dixie,sw
First of all, comparing the Confederacy to the Taliban is disturbing. Do people actually believe that these two are the same, or morally equivalent? That reminds me of the time that General Patton compared the Nazi Party to the Democratic or Republican parties. I suppose that you can make a comparison with just about anything. Adolf Hitler loved dogs, therefore all dog lovers are Hitler. If someone believes that the Confederacy and the Taliban are morally equivalent, there is no common ground for a discussion. The presuppositions are so different that it simply becomes a series of contradictions.
First of all, comparing the Confederacy to the Taliban is disturbing. Do people actually believe that these two are the same, or morally equivalent? That reminds me of the time that General Patton compared the Nazi Party to the Democratic or Republican parties. I suppose that you can make a comparison with just about anything. Adolf Hitler loved dogs, therefore all dog lovers are Hitler. If someone believes that the Confederacy and the Taliban are morally equivalent, there is no common ground for a discussion. The presuppositions are so different that it simply becomes a series of contradictions.So some slavery and drug dealing is better than others? Sounds awfully morally relativist to me.
What’s your nickname over there - is it Squat2pee like it is here?
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.