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 ...
When I finally actually paid attention to what was being said in the Gettysburg address, I realized the massive level of chutzpah required to make the Declaration of Independence about *STOPPING* independence.
Lincoln absolutely flipped the meaning of the Declaration of Independence, and his double talk should meet the envy of any conman in history.
To make the thing about the very opposite of what it was, is a level of deception that should put him in the record books as world's greatest liar!
For awhile I thought I was the only one who noticed that his speech was about stopping an effort to gain independence, but I found out later that others have noticed the same thing. One of the best write ups i've seen on the topic was by H.L. Mencken.
"But let us not forget that it is oratory, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it! Put it into the cold words of everyday! The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination — “that government of the people, by the people, for the people,” should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i. e., of the people of the States? The Confederates went into battle an absolutely free people; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and vote of the rest of the country—and for nearly twenty years that vote was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely any freedom at all. Am I the first American to note the fundamental nonsensicality of the Gettysburg address? If so, I plead my aesthetic joy in it in amelioration of the sacrilege."
You haven’t even shown that Southern interests were forced to use Northern shipping. The acts and law you posted show no such thing.
I especially like backhanded ones. :)
Did the slaves govern themselves?
Northern financial interests and their legislators feared losing the commercial advantages they held to Southern states along the Mississippi.
In 1786, John Jay of New York had caused uproar in Congress among the Southern delegates with his attempt to give up rights to the Mississippi River to Spain in exchange for commercial advantages in Spanish ports for the Northern trading ports. Their great fear at the time was that their commerce would shift to the South. They exerted influence then to defeat Southern ports and trade on the Mississippi, and they continued for decades.
Many weeks before Lincoln’s inauguration, the New York Times had been running editorials of how the commerce of the North would be lost to New Orleans and to the rest of the South because of the low Southern tariff. Some Northerners admitted that their reasons for calling for war were not the result of differences in principles of constitutional law, but because their profits would be lost if the South was successful in becoming independent.
In his inauguration speech, Lincoln had said:
“The power confided in me, will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion – no using of force against, or among the people anywhere.... You can have no conflict, without being yourselves the aggressors.”
This was Lincoln’s ultimatum to the South: pay tribute to the North or failure to do so will be interpreted as a declaration of war, by the South, against the North.
3/30/1861 New York Times editorial:
“The predicament in which both the government and the commerce of the country are placed, through the non-enforcement of our revenue laws, is now thoroughly understood the world over…If the manufacturer at Manchester (England) can send his goods into the Western States through New Orleans at a less cost than through New York, he is a fool for not availing himself of his advantage….
“If the importations of the country are made through Southern ports, its exports will go through the same channel.
“The produce of the West, instead of coming to our own port by millions of tons, to be transported abroad by the same ships through which we received our importations, will seek other routes and other outlets. With the loss of our foreign trade, what is to become of our public works, conducted at the cost of many hundred millions of dollars, to turn into our harbor the products of the interior?
“They share in the common ruin. So do our manufacturers.”
“Once at New Orleans, goods may be distributed over the whole country duty free. The process is perfectly simple. The commercial bearing of the question has acted upon the North…. We now see clearly whither we are tending, and the policy we must adopt.
“With us, it is no longer an abstract question - one of Constitutional construction, or of the reserved or delegated power of the State or Federal Government, but of material existence ... We were divided and confused till our pockets were touched.”
Four days later, at the suggestion that he should not send troops to Ft. Sumter, Lincoln said this:
“Well, what about the revenue? What would I do about the collection of duties? “If I do that, I might as well shut up housekeeping at once!” (Housekeeping was a euphemism for federal spending.)
So in fact, property as referred to in the justifications for secession is another word for slave. They were not denied access to the territories, they cannot take slaves with them when they go. The Constitution does not have any language that prohibits congress from limiting slaves in the territories of the United States.
That is the very reason that as soon as secession occurred the issue of slavery extension became a moot point and red herring for the northern press .
Ah but unlike Stephens' Cornerstone Speech there is a evidence that Grant never said that. Here's a discussion from a forum that I think you tried once.
"After due consideration the administration determined upon the arrest of the Chief Justice. A warrant or order was issued for his arrest. Then arose the question of service. Who should make the arrest and where should the imprisonment be? This was done by the President with instructions to use his own discretion about making the arrest unless he should receive further orders from him."
Likewise the fact that none of the Rogery Taney biographers found the claim of a Taney arrest warrant supported by enough evidence to justify including it in any of their biographies of the Chief Justice is evidence that it never happened. Unlike the Stephens' speech.
Wouldn't the tariff be applied once the goods were landed in the United States?
How many of the States in the CSA were free-states?
I didn’t bother reading your screed because I had already deduced you weren’t right about anything or worth listening to.
Slave-free.
Upon secession, federal tariff offices shut down.
He could use some practice in verb conjugation.
The Constitution was not imperfect, but the President and the unelected oligarchs were.
Deep State/Swamp/whatever you want to call it was created in 1788 (John Adams Admin went almost went full totalitarian mode, hell even the Whiskey Rebellion made freedom loving people weep). Heck, I can make an argument Judicial review for and against via Article III’s obscurities and subjectivities. Constitution is extremely ambiguous which is why the document has been easily compromised. Enumeration is very weak for a reason because those who ratified the Constitution were just as divided as we are today.
True. But your editorial was talking about goods entering at New Orleans and spreading througout the country, supposedly without tariffs being paid. My point is that goods going up the Mississippi would have entered the U.S. at one point, the Tennessee border. It would not have been hard for the U.S. to apply their tariffs there, or at whatever U.S. city they were landed at.
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.