Posted on 07/26/2021 4:33:01 PM PDT by ammodotcom
I see that Pea Ridge is on an absolute tear here while I’ve been tied down doing the “semi-” part of my semi-retirement. ;-)
Maybe next week will be time to address some of these issues.
Which “top men” advised Davis to seize the fort to draw Virginia into the Confederacy. Davis’s Secretary of State told him that if he attacked Sumter, the South would lose every friend they had in the North and stir up a hornets nest to boot. Lincoln’s efforts to resupply the fort forced Davis’s hand. Davis was not going to allow Sumter to be resupplied under any circumstance. To do so would have only kicked the problem down the road.
Our FRiend Diogeneslamp argues that not every Northern soldier was motivated primarily by abolitionism, and not every Confederate fought to preserve slavery — both true enough and fair enough.
However...
First, historians have actually studied soldiers’ letters to see how many supported or opposed slavery, and, iirc, they were significant percentages.
Second, even in the Civil war’s earliest months, slavery was well understood on both sides to be critical to their efforts.
For Confederates slaves provided a huge workforce doing tasks otherwise requiring soldiers to do.
This slave workforce increased the effective Confederate army numbers by up to one-third — and that in turn reduced the Union Army’s overall manpower advantage from 2.5 to one to about 2 to one.
Such odds meant the Confederate army needed only to remain consistently on the defensive — i.e., behind baracades — to wear down & tire out the Union.
So slaves were critical militarily to Confederates but also personally to Confederate leaders, nearly all of whom were slave holders and so would suffer from abolition.
And precisely as vital as slaves were to Confederates, that’s how important emancipation was to Union leaders.
Even early in the war, every literate Northerner understood the Confederacy could not be fully defeated without emancipating Confederate “Contraband of war”.
So as Diogeneslamp does, to claim average civil war soldiers did not fight to abolish or preserve slavery is beside the larger point, which is that everyone on both sides understood its importance to the war’s outcome.
Lincoln of course understood the benefits of emancipation in Confederate states along with the necessity of preserving slavery in loyal Southern Union states.
In short the man was a complete , obstinate moron who almost single handily rent this nation in two and caused the deaths of 600,000 Americans.
“Davis had advisors who were urging him in that direction as well. L.Q. Washington wrote, "I fear the present Virginia Convention will not pass an ordinance of secession unless a collision or war ensues; then public feeling will force them to it. There is a majority of old Federal submissionists, who got in by pretending to be resistance men." [OR Series I, Vol I, pp. 263-264]
"One Alabamian had warned Davis, 'Unless you sprinkle blood on the face of the Southern people they will be back in the old Union in less than ten days.' A sprinkle of blood, too, should bring the fencesitters--Virginia and the other border states--into the Confederate fold." [W. A. Swanberg, _First Blood: The Story of Fort Sumter,_ p. 286]
There are the words of Virginian Roger Pryor, who, speaking to a Charleston audience on April 10, 1861, said, "But I assure you that just as certain as tomorrow's sun will rise upon us, just so certain will Virginia be a member of the Southern Confederacy; and I will tell your Governor what will put her in the Southern Confederacy in less than an hour by Shrewsbury clock. Strike a blow!" [Ibid.,_ p. 289]
That same day, Davis received a telegram from Louis T. Wigfall, urging, "General Beauregard will not act without your order. Let me suggest to you to send the order to him to begin the attack as soon as he is ready. Virginia is excited by the preparations, and a bold stroke on our side will complete her purposes. Policy and prudence are urgent upon us to begin at once." [Wigfall to Davis, 10 Apr 1861, quoted in Richard N. Current, _Lincoln and the First Shot,_ p. 151]]”
https://soc.history.war.us-civil-war.narkive.com/lblKICU7/jefferson-davis-and-fort-sumter
Thanks
But was it reinstated? I see there was another tariff law passed in 1832. Some version of the Jones act has always been in place, and if this repeal did in fact eliminate the tonnage duties on imports, (which i'm not completely clear that it did) was it the last word on the subject?
Probably not, but I will have to dig around and see if another version pops up at a later time.
They would under the navigation act of 1817, but they wouldn't in a seceded CSA.
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?
The market would sort itself out. The Northerners, not having the previous supply of money they used to have, would buy less, and the Southerners, having substantially more money than they did before, would buy more.
What would they buy? Dunno, but I do know they would buy stuff because what else would they do with the money?
Can anyone explain to me, if Southern exports generated 70% of federal revenue, why, between fiscal years 1860 and 1861, the U.S. Total Direct Revenue only fell from $65M to $50M? Only about $15M was lost from the secession of the Southern States. About 23%. What gives?
You ignore the loss of income from sailing a ship to a Southern port with an empty cargo hold. That represents loss of money.
Sure, they could do it, but Northern ships didn't have to do that. They could carry cargo on every run and thereby make more money than their competition.
It was economically unfeasible.
That would be a question for you to answer.
and if this repeal did in fact eliminate the tonnage duties on imports, (which i'm not completely clear that it did)
The legislation at the links I have provided were pretty clear to me.
If you have to keep telling yourself the same thing over and over again, there is a good chance you don't really believe it yourself.
What exactly would they be bringing to the Confederacy that they didn't before the war?
The Northerners, not having the previous supply of money they used to have, would buy less, and the Southerners, having substantially more money than they did before, would buy more.
Wishful thinking on your part I would think. Losing the south for four years during the rebellion and for several years afterwards did not appear to reduce the flow of imports, if tariff revenue for 1864 and later are any indication.
What would they buy? Dunno, but I do know they would buy stuff because what else would they do with the money?
What they always did. Buy more slaves.
If you believe there is evidence that secession would have produced no negative economic effect on the Northern power brokers, offer it up for us to consider.
You can't accuse me of cherry picking when the only available evidence all falls into the same category. They can't all be cherries.
Why would they have to sail with an empty hold? I posted numerous examples of foreign ships bringing goods with them to Southern ports, all taken from contemporary newspapers. Furthermore, foreign ships could bring passengers from Europe and return with goods from America.
To recap:
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.
If you haven't got the money, your "demand" is irrelevant. Traders go where the money is. If the money moves from New York to New Orleans, the traders will go to New Orleans.
I don’t have to, but I have to try, at least, from letting you muddy the waters.
To recap:
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 don't care what Stephens may or may not have said. So far as I can tell, he was the Joe Biden of the CSA. My focus was on how you behaved when the shoe was on the other foot, and I have to say I was somewhat entertained. :)
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.
There might even be a grain of truth in that statement. Yes, I tend to regard something as biased and fake news when it conflicts with information that I have found to be accurate and correct.
I got to my current position by following facts (like the Corwin Amendment) which did not make any sense in the context of what I had been told all my life.
I had never even heard of the Corwin Amendment till about three years ago, and I had never heard of the war fleet sent to attack Charleston until a few years ago.
So why was *THIS* stuff not in the history books? Why didn't all these vaunted historians bother to mention these bits of information which very solidly contradict what everyone has been saying all these years?
Of course having a bunch of states ripped from the Union was going to chase economic problems. I’m pretty sure having Germany take over Poland put a ding in Poland’s economic outlook. But Hitler never said “What about my revenue?”
Again, my laser focus is on Southern secession, and your Neo-Confederate mythology of the Lost Cause.
To recap:
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.
It doesn't disprove my contention. The economics of the situation forced them to use Northern shipping because foreign shipping was unable to carry cargo between ports. Foreign shipping had to sail empty and this put them at a serious economic disadvantage compared to Northern shipping.
To recap:
I don't care about your mantra. I am not persuaded by argumentum ad nauseam.
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.