Posted on 07/26/2021 4:33:01 PM PDT by ammodotcom
The Battle of Appomattox Courthouse is considered by many historians the end of the Civil War and the start of post-Civil War America. The events of General Robert E. Lee’s surrender to General and future President Ulysses S. Grant at a small town courthouse in Central Virginia put into effect much of what was to follow.
The surrender at Appomattox Courthouse was about reconciliation, healing, and restoring the Union. While the Radical Republicans had their mercifully brief time in the sun rubbing defeated Dixie’s nose in it, they represented the bleeding edge of Northern radicalism that wanted to punish the South, not reintegrate it into the Union as an equal partner.
The sentiment of actual Civil War veterans is far removed from the attitude of the far left in America today. Modern day “woke-Americans” clamor for the removal of Confederate statues in the South, the lion’s share of which were erected while Civil War veterans were still alive. There was little objection to these statues at the time because it was considered an important part of the national reconciliation to allow the defeated South to honor its wartime dead and because there is a longstanding tradition of memorializing defeated foes in honor cultures.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammo.com ...
I think this is where it all began:
7/20/1789 Congress passed the Tonnage Act of 1789 levying a 50 cents per ton tax on foreign ships entering American ports, 30 cents per ton on American built but foreign owned ships, and 6 cents per ton on American ships.
1789 Congress passed the Judiciary Act establishing the Federal Court System. Among its granted authorities was the ability to make laws and regulate the maritime industry. This became known as Admiralty Law.
1789 Through legislative activism, Admiralty Law became protectionist for certain industries.
American shipping companies in the Northeast were protected against foreign shipping competition by laws that required domestic importers and exporters to pay a fee to the Customs department if they used foreign ships for trade. These fees were then disbursed to private shipping companies as compensation Other protectionist laws were arranged to the advantage of Northeastern shipping interests. To discourage competitive shipping, no person or company was permitted to purchase a fully rigged ship from foreign sources.
I think this is where it all began:
7/20/1789 Congress passed the Tonnage Act of 1789 levying a 50 cents per ton tax on foreign ships entering American ports, 30 cents per ton on American built but foreign owned ships, and 6 cents per ton on American ships.
1789 Congress passed the Judiciary Act establishing the Federal Court System. Among its granted authorities was the ability to make laws and regulate the maritime industry. This became known as Admiralty Law.
1789 Through legislative activism, Admiralty Law became protectionist for certain industries.
American shipping companies in the Northeast were protected against foreign shipping competition by laws that required domestic importers and exporters to pay a fee to the Customs department if they used foreign ships for trade. These fees were then disbursed to private shipping companies as compensation Other protectionist laws were arranged to the advantage of Northeastern shipping interests. To discourage competitive shipping, no person or company was permitted to purchase a fully rigged ship from foreign sources.
Okay, let’s set that aside for now. How about these?
“The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation.“
Georgia
“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery— the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.“
Mississippi
If not, I’ve got more.
Northern Business Interests Gained Control of the Cotton Trade
In the early days after the invention of the cotton gin, the American South had controlled its own cotton industry. Southern cotton was shipped directly from southern ports by its owners to the textile mills of England.
During the three decade period before 1860, a combination of factors enabled the cotton trade to become dominated by the North. First, the Navigation Acts authored by Congress at the turn of the century had established protectionist laws favoring American shipping over foreign interests.
The exporting South was required by law to either use American owned, Northern ships, for their shipping, or pay to the Treasury compensation for their use of foreign ships. Foreign ships were prohibited by law from engaging in coastal trade between US harbors.
The laws also discouraged the Southern businessmen from becoming involved in the shipping business by prohibiting the purchasing of finished ships from overseas.
Therefore, Northern shipping companies, with the aid of Federal laws, came to dominate the carrying trade of the South.
As the trade in cotton increased, northern and particularly New York traders saw their opportunity and began sending agents south to purchase all the cotton they could, and ship it themselves by packet ships to England and Europe.
This direct purchase of cotton by the “factors” enabled the Southern growers to quickly turn a profit instead of waiting months for the cotton to be sold, and the money to return to them.
This benefit also cut their profits.
The plantation owners that could retain ownership and ship independently found themselves in a bind. If they wanted to ship their own cotton to market, the packet ship owner would charge them very high rates that were slightly under the rate of the foreign ship rate, plus the Federal shipping penalty that would be added.
Are you serious?
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states
Sorry, your credibility is shot.
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Mississippi_Declaration_and_Ordinance_of_Secession.djvu/5
Then how do you know he didn't say it? Or something to that effect?
It was widely reported at the time. Of course newspaper articles are no good. Unless they support the Neo-Confederate position.
https://www.loc.gov/resource/rbpe.24402000/?st=text
That law was repealed in May 1830. Link
Wide reporting is not confirmation.
The link you provided was to Stephens' address to the Georgia Secession Convention and not the Cornerstone speech. Are you saying that speech was incorrectly reported too?
It was reported in the papers of the time. You have no proof that the quote is not accurate.
Not quite. The secession conventions issued various documents. The Ordinances of Secession were straightforward, and usually simply stated that the Union was dissolved, with the listing of delegates voting in favor, and those not in favor. The statements known as Declaration of Causes were also official documents released by the conventions. These were supporting documents that laid out the rationale for leaving.
In the case of Mississippi, their convention was held between Jan. 7th and Jan. 26th, 1861. I have quoted their words. You cannot hide from nor obfuscate these facts.
https://web.archive.org/web/19980128034930/http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html
No, if I posted the wrong link, that’s my error.
“The speech was first reported in the Savannah Republican newspaper, with this version appearing in a collection of Stephens’s papers, edited by Henry Cleveland and published in 1866.”
https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/cornerstone-speech-by-alexander-h-stephens-march-21-1861/
Note “a collection of Stephen’s papers.”
And neither do you.
“Wide reporting is not confirmation.”
By that rationale the fact that JFK was shot in Dallas has not been confirmed.
How about it was among his papers?
And the link you provided contains the quote that you say is incorrect.
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.