Posted on 07/26/2021 4:33:01 PM PDT by ammodotcom
Yes, having a major regional power blockade your trade with warships and pummel you into submission has a tendency to interfere with future prosperity.
But what would have happened if people hadn't used war to stop their natural economic activity?
Lincoln picked the timing, and it appears he did so deliberately to avoid any issues with Congress telling him "no."
If you are going to deliberately start a war, best to do it when Congress cannot stop you.
Their actions were a rebellion in any sense of the word.
Not for a nation that was founded on the premises articulated in the Declaration of Independence. You may not have noticed, but Independence was listed as a right of man, therefore it was rebellion to oppose what they did.
Lincoln rebelled against the principles founded in that document "four score and seven years" earlier.
Also, "rebellion" is what servants do to masters. If England leaves the EU, it's not "rebellion", it's a peer state leaving a collection of other peer states.
Attempts to make a cutesy quip are merely efforts to dodge the fact that the total evidence does not support the claim you are attempting to make.
Most soldiers did not write home about how passionate they were about stopping slavery. Those were the kooks. On the other side, most soldiers did not write home about how passionate they were about defending a nation that used slavery. Those were kooks on the other side.
Your link said it was passed by the House. I didn't see any mention in there about the Senate passing it too. One might assume they did, but it is not yet a fact in evidence.
Do you have evidence indicating otherwise?
Articulated above. I have read a lot of stuff in the Congressional record that passed the house but did not pass the Senate. It may be that this bill passed the Senate as well, but we do not know that without some sort of confirmation that it did.
In any case, if it required ships to come to port empty, it was a non starter anyway.
Those three states clearly say they have a right to secede or "resume" their powers. So what evidence do you have that demonstrates secession to be illegal?
To be clear, the sole truth I’ve been proving is the motivation for Southern secession.
We don't care about the motivation for Southern secession. My argument has always been that they had a right to secede, and no one has a right to say "except for this reason."
Even if their reason for secession is a bad reason, we do not get to put conditions on their right to secede. They can do so for reasons we don't like, in the manner of Free Speech can be about speech we don't like.
But I also put forth the idea that their stated reasons for secession are very likely not their real reason for secession, and the Northern newspapers quoted above by PeaRidge indicate that the Northern newspapers perceived their real reason was to gain commercial independence.
I.E. Money.
The constitutional right to secession, ... etc are side issues,
Absolutely disagree. The fundamental issue of the civil war is whether there is or is not a *RIGHT* to secede.
If there is a right to secede, then there is no right to "preserve the Union." If there is no right to secede, then there is a necessity to "preserve the Union."
The bulk of evidence of which I am aware demonstrates that the right to secede was known and understood when the US Constitution was ratified, and therefore it is legal for states to leave the Union if they so choose.
So the morality and legality of the war hinges on this fundamental point, and your side has precious little evidence to support the claim that a Union freely joined cannot be freely left.
They wouldn't be able to carry a paying cargo while Northern ships would be able to carry a paying cargo. This would put foreign ships at a severe disadvantage in the money making business.
I doubt such an arrangement could be made to work long term with other ships not being constrained in such a war.
Actually he did not. The House had recessed on March 3rd, the day before the inauguration. The Senate stayed in special session a few more days the confirm his cabinet appointments.
Not for a nation that was founded on the premises articulated in the Declaration of Independence.
In any definition of the word.
The tide had turned by that point and most of the hard slog was behind them. They probably felt they were going to win and wanted to be part of the win. Additionally, what would they do for work? Would people look down on them as quitters or even deserters if they were not fighting for the heavily propagandized cause?
The best time to be in the army is after the heavy lifting is already done, and for some people it gives them a sense of belonging so many make a career out of it.
I've known a lot of career army people. Some love the order it imposes on their lives.
Passed the Senate on the same day and is included in the list of List of Act and Resolutions passed by that session of Congress: Link
Be it U.S. ship or foreign ship, once landing the imports in New York or Boston or Philadelphia they would still have to sail empty to a southern port to load up on cotton for the return trip to Europe. Foreign ships because they could not move cargo from one U.S. port to another even if their had been any, U.S. ships because what was there to take to the southern port?
How is it so difficult for you to grasp that contemporary news accounts of British ships carrying Southern goods from Southern ports for export overseas, with the actual names of the vessels and manifests of their cargo listed, proof that no one was forced to use Northern ships?
Spring and summer of 1864? They had the whole Atlanta campaign and Grants overland campaign ahead of them. Nobody was under any illusions that the war was near to being over. More hard fighting lay ahead. Yet they stayed to see it out.
Additionally, what would they do for work? Would people look down on them as quitters or even deserters if they were not fighting for the heavily propagandized cause?
But you would have us believe the war was deeply unpopular in the North. So why would the population turn against them? Public opinion certainly didn't deter Union deserters at other points of the war, and it certainly didn't deter Southern soldiers from deserting in droves.
The best time to be in the army is after the heavy lifting is already done, and for some people it gives them a sense of belonging so many make a career out of it
Your knowledge of the war truly is abysmal.
possibly
The reason for secession was the South's desire to preserve slavery.
The trigger for secession was the election of Abraham Lincoln, which fed fear of the abolitionist foundation of the Republican Party.
The American Civil War began when units of the South Carolina Militia fired upon a Union fort in Charleston harbor.
I do this to state in no uncertain terms that these are the only three points that I am addressing. All other issues have no effect on those three.
“But I also put forth the idea that their stated reasons for secession are very likely not their real reason for secession, and the Northern newspapers quoted above by PeaRidge indicate that the Northern newspapers perceived their real reason was to gain commercial independence.”
What kind of cherries do you prefer, maraschino or bing?
We are all Americans here. We may not agree with each other, but we should at least try to be civil with people who are earnest in their disagreements. I used to be on that side myself.
I regard the Civil War as a terrible tragedy, and I have learned to see it as the main factor by which the Deep State crony influence cartel that runs things now came to power.
So much of our current dysfunction emanates from this period of history, but it hurts no one to remain civil in discussing it.
Actually I didn't read the evidence. I had to go back and look at that message because the first time I saw it, I couldn't understand what you were saying. Now that i've looked at it more closely, it appears you were saying British ships carried cotton for export.
The tariffs and penalties were on imports. Foreign ships were not allowed to carry cargoes between ports, and so the only cargo that could have been carried for import would have had to go to New Orleans. Now it might have been legal for the ship to stop elsewhere, unload it's cargo, then go to New Orleans with an empty hold and then load up cotton from there and then go to Europe, but i'm not completely sure about that.
What I am certain they could not have done was to stop at one port, say Mobile, load cargo and then proceed to New Orleans and load or unload cargo.
Only American ships could do that, and this rule is still in effect today.
And yes I ignore that evidence, because it doesn't directly address the dispute over the cost of tariffs and the effect of the Navigation act of 1817. There were no tariffs or rules on export cargo, only import cargo.
Untrue and unproven do not mean exactly the same thing, though in context there is a lot of overlap.
And my recollection is that you dismissed the whole body of their work merely because they found nothing to support the claim of the Taney arrest warrant.
I have come to regard the Civil War histories written by Northeastern scholars to be akin to "news" provided by CNN. A lot of unconscious bias creeps in and they are oblivious to their own inherent bias.
Also, i've seen at least one other corroborating source from near the same era.
Then by all means provide it.
If it didn't work the first time, I doubt it will work the second time.
I don't believe the BS Taney arrest story because professional historians, people who spent considerable time researching Taney for their biographies of the man, and who stake their professional reputations on the accuracy of their work, have not found enough evidence of the arrest warrant to include it in their books.
I consider the "professional reputations" of some of these historians to be not unlike the "professional ethics" of CNN "journalists."
We're not talking one biographer who did include it and one who didn't. If that were the case then you're half-baked claims of bias might actually hold water. But none of them did. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
I have never been moved by argumentum ad populum. I've seen hosts of people be wrong before. Too many times to count. The current Covid19 hysteria is a good example. These "professionals" have been wrong every step of the way.
Same thing with all these military "experts" who have now created the disaster in Afghanistan, and for that matter who created the disaster in Iraq.
Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) is fond of citing the "death of expertise."
That a bunch of experts agree on something may simply mean that all the fools are on the same side.
" After dinner I visited my brother Judges in Georgetown, and returning home between half past seven and eight o’clock found an armed sentinel stationed at my door by order of the Provost-Marshal. I learned that this guard had been placed at my door as early as five o’clock. Armed sentries from that time continuously until now have been stationed in front of my house. Thus it appears that a military officer against whom a writ in the appointed form of law has first threatened with and afterwards arrested and imprisoned the attorney who rightfully served the writ upon him. He continued, and still continues, in contempt and disregard of the mandate of the law, and has ignominiously placed an armed guard to insult and intimidate by its presence the Judge who ordered the writ to issue, and still keeps up this armed array at his door, in defiance and contempt of the justice of the land. Under the circumstances I respectfully request the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court to cause this memorandum to be read in open Court, to show the reasons for my absence from my place upon the bench, and that he will cause this paper to be entered at length on the minutes of the Court . . .W.M. Merrick Assistant Judge of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Or New York. Or Philadelphia. Or Boston. You know, the places where the demand for imports were.
The claim has been made that Stephens did say what he has been quoted as saying. In other words, claims he did are untrue.
I have come to regard the Civil War histories written by Northeastern scholars to be akin to "news" provided by CNN. A lot of unconscious bias creeps in and they are oblivious to their own inherent bias.
Oh be honest. You consider anything written by any scholar that you do not agree with or which does not fit your agenda as being biased and fake news. You show that all the time.
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.