Man Born in 1846 Talks About the 1860s and Fighting in the Civil War

https://www.youtube.com ^ | Jul 10, 2022 | Julius Franklin Howell

[Beowulf9]

Pictures were colorized and enhanced using AI optimization software. For the audio, I remastered it using noise gate, compression, loudness normalization, EQ and a Limiter.

Julius Franklin Howell (January 17, 1846 - June 19, 1948) joined the Confederate Army when he was 16. After surviving a few battles, he eventually found himself in a Union prison camp at Point Lookout, Maryland.

In 1947, at the age of 101, Howell made this recording at the Library of Congress.

Our new music channel - Life in the Music: Classic Collections 2-hour videos of music from the 1600s-1900s https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC24p...

Audio has been restored for clarity.

This video is made for educational purposes for fair use under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976.

[DiogenesLamp]

Lincoln knew "full well" that orders to attack Fort Sumter must come from the top of the Confederate government, which is why he announced to them his intentions to peacefully resupply the fort.

Lincoln made "peaceful" public statements to the public. He *WROTE* orders saying these ships would sail in and blow the sh*t out of them.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp on Corwin: "It was "permanent" so far as states wanted it to be.
When all the states gave it up voluntarily, then it would be ended, but so far as the lives of most people at the time, it was well nigh "permanent.""

In fact, Corwin did nothing to change the constitutional status of slavery, as Lincoln understood it.
States who wanted to abolish slavery could still abolish it, states who wanted to restrict slavery could still restrict it, and states who wanted to keep slavery could still keep it under Corwin.
The Federal government could still abolish slavery in its territories and in Washington, DC, if it so decided.
Federal government could still, under Corwin, abolish international imports of slaves.
That was Lincoln's understanding before 1861 and Corwin did nothing to change it.

DiogenesLamp on Corwin: "Because there are varying degrees of slavery?
Somehow the confederate constitution protects slavery more than the Corwin Amendment would protect it?"

Exactly right! In all the ways I mention above, and more!

DiogenesLamp on Corwin: "So where would the Corwin amendment fall short of the Confederate constitution?
What benefit would the Confederate constitution grant that the Corwin amendment would not?"

All of the above!
The Confederate constitution was quite explicit in saying there could be no restrictions -- none, zero, nada restrictions -- on slavery throughout the Confederacy and its territories.

DiogenesLamp: "I guess you simply don't bother to look at or even remember evidence to the contrary.
South Carolina's Address to the Slaveholding States"

Robert Rhett's address said nothing about "money flows from Europe", or "Northeastern power brokers", or "Confederate free trade" or "the Foreign Carriers Act of 1818".

Yes, Rhett does complain about high tariffs and too much Federal spending, claiming "three fourths of them are expended at the North".
But both of those are total propaganda lies!

In fact, US tariffs when Rhett wrote were historically low and had been supported in 1857 by Democrats North and South.
And Rhett's claim that 3/4 of revenues were spent "at the North" if pure nonsense, because it's only conceivably possible if by "at the North" Rhett meant North of South Carolina!!

Further, well over 90% of US tariffs were collected outside of the South, and so Rhett here is just babbling nonsense & lies.

[DiogenesLamp]

There may have been as much nonsense published in Northern papers as Southern, but I've seen nothing suggesting Lincoln must attack Charleston to collect its tariffs.

It didn't specifically say Charleston, but from what it did say, it is only reasonable to believe they were referring to Charleston.

And now you are going to make me look that up? That's annoying. It's been posted so many times, and you say you don't remember it?

The fact is that total tariffs from Charleston were under $300,000 in 1859 or six-tenths of one percent of total US tariff revenues.

The best misdirection contains mostly truth. It is the part left out that clarifies everything.

What you say is true, but it is meant to misdirect. The tariffs from Charleston were indeed paltry in 1859, and what you are wanting us to believe is that this isn't enough money to make an issue out of it.

What you are ignoring is the reason why the tariffs were so small in Charleston. Ships seldom bothered to go there. It was 800 miles further South than New York, and the tariff rates were the exact same, so there was little profit to going there.

But what happens when Charleston's rates are 13% while New York's rates are 40%?

If you don't think those ships would have made the 800 mile trip for another 30% profit, then you don't know how people's minds work.

Charleston would have exploded with traffic after they had thrown off the Union tariff rate. New York would have lost every bit that went to Charleston.

Charleston would have boomed, except for one thing. That fort overlooking the entrance to their harbor and the possibility that it would destroy any ships trying to trade with Charleston.

Sumter was a serious economic threat to Charleston's future as part of an independent nation.

[DiogenesLamp]

In fact, Corwin did nothing to change the constitutional status of slavery, as Lincoln understood it.

As he understood it for almost the first two years of the war. By 1863 he had suddenly discovered he had the power to abolish slavery all by himself.

I glanced at the rest of what you typed, and I don't think it is worth the trouble to reply.

[Bull Snipe]

“Charleston would have exploded with traffic after they had thrown off the Union tariff rate. New York would have lost every bit that went to Charleston.”

You need to take a close look at a harbor chart for the city of Charleston. It could not handle a great increase in shipping traffic. Its pier capacity was limited to a dozen or so ships at a time. Riding at anchor, waiting to off load cargo, costs money and cuts profits. Ship owners don’t want to be floating warehouses for cargo while waiting to offload. If the wait is too long, ships look for different ports. Charleston would never rival New York for shipping volume even if there was zero tariff at the port. A second consideration for ship owners is what is the prospect of picking up a cargo, once off loaded. In Charleston, from November to February, cotton was available in large quantities to load. What else did Charleston have to ship for the rest of the year?

[Bull Snipe]

He *WROTE* orders saying these ships would sail in and blow the sh*t out of them.

Only if they fired first.

[ought-six]

“Correct me if I’m wrong on this, but don’t the Chi-Coms claim all of the waters and islands of the South China Sea and Taiwan as their own sovereign territory?”

The world recognizes them as international waters. But how is that even relevant to the issue? My analogy was the Shanghai Harbor, not the Strait of Taiwan or the South China Sea. Nice try, son.

“But if China’s First Island Chain is a bit obscure for you...”

It’s obscure for any sentient being who isn’t a ChiCom, or you.

“Like Confederates in Charleston, SC, Cuba-Coms renounce their formal relationship with the USA as expressed in the 1903 Cuban–American Treaty of Relations. And just as Confederates claimed the Union Fort Sumter, Cuba-Coms claim the US naval base at Git-mo. And just as Lincoln ignored ridiculous Confederate claims to Fort Sumter, so the US military today ignores ridiculous Cuba-Com claims to Git-mo.”

Too funny! Spain gave ALL of Cuba — which was a Spanish possession — as well as Puerto Rico and some other territories to the US after the Spanish-American War, which ended in 1898. In 1902 Cuba gained its independence. In 1903 Cuba and the US signed a treaty — that was reaffirmed in 1934 — wherein the US recognized Cuban sovereignty over ALL of Cuba, including the area of Guantanamo Bay. In return, Cuba yielded to the US “...complete jurisdiction and control” of Guantanamo through a PERPETUAL LEASE that could be voided only by MUTUAL agreement. Ever since, the US has paid annually its lease obligation. If Cuba chose not to cash those checks that is Cuba’s doing, but it does not void the lease.

That is wholly different from Sumter and South Carolina. For one thing, Lincoln never recognized Sumter as falling under the sovereignty of South Carolina, or the legitimacy of the CSA.

For another, there was no perpetual lease between South Carolina and the Union in regards to Sumter that could only be voided upon mutual agreement of both parties. Your comparison is wholly without merit.

In any event, any transfer of claim on Sumter prior to South Carolina’s secession held no water post secession, as in 1836 South Carolina was part of the United States, and it transferred claim to Sumter on that basis, and in that capacity. That was extinguished in December, 1860 when South Carolina seceded from the Union, and in February, 1861 it became part of the CSA. And the CSA was not bound by acts taken by a former state of the USA, unless by consent of the parties.

You’re floundering, son.

“So there are a number of factual points to make here: Resupplying US forces at Fort Sumter was not an ‘act of war’.”

Yeah, it was. Especially since you omitted — intentionally? — that the ships were resupplying AND REINFORCING Sumter.

“US warships sitting in international waters off shore from Charleston was not and ‘act of war.’”

You change the dynamics because the facts are not on your side. I think you are intentionally being obtuse. The ships in question were not out in the Atlantic somewhere in international waters.

Do you even know the topography and layout of 1861 Charleston Harbor?

Think of it as resembling a crude digestive tract, running east (mouth) to west (stomach). The main harbor is the “stomach”, with the city of Charleston way at the far west end. The “throat” of the harbor is several miles to the east, and is the narrow choke point between the “stomach” and the “mouth, which is just east of the “throat” and would resemble an opened mouth. Sumter is just west of the throat, roughly equidistant between the sides of the “throat” (in this case, Cummings Point to the south and Fort Moultrie to the east-northeast). The “mouth” is opened to ingest the four shipping channels (Beach Channel; North Channel; Swash Channel; and Main Channel, which – as its name implies) is the main channel to inner Charleston Harbor; think of the channels as “noodles.”. The mouth is home to sand bars and shifting sand dunes, and at low tide some of these are visible (hence, the necessity for four channels). East of the mouth is the outer harbor, which could be likened to the bowl which held the noodles. To give you some idea of this description, the USS HOUSATONIC was on blockade duty in the outer harbor when the CSS Hunley (the Confederate “submarine”) sank it. The Hunley had left its base at Dewees Inlet at the extreme northern tip of Sullivan’s Island (this would correspond to the upper lip of the gaping “mouth”).

The Lincoln administration (specifically, Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles) had sent former naval captain (and soon-to-be Assistant Secretary of the Navy in the Lincoln administration) Gustavus Fox as overall command of the fleet sent to resupply and reinforce Sumter. Fox sailed on the SS BALTIC, which had been chartered by the Union navy as a transport. Among the other ships in the fleet were the USS PAWNEE, the USS HARRIET LANE, the USS POCAHONTAS, and the USS POWHATAN (the latter, however—and unbeknownst to Fox, or even Welles — had been secretly pulled from the fleet and sent to reinforce and resupply Ft. Pickens in Pensacola Bay).

The first ships of the fleet began to arrive on April 11, 1861, just offshore (including the BALTIC and the HARRIET LANE); due to some bad weather, a couple were delayed until the 13th. Fox, on the BALTIC, made for Sumter; at around 3:00 A.M on April 12th, it was close enough for loaded landing boats (similar to oar-operated lifeboats) to be launched toward Sumter, but firing from the shore batteries – which had begun at 4:30 A.M. – drove them back to the BALTIC. Thus, the BALTIC had arrived BEFORE the shore batteries had opened fire. Later on the 12th the HARRIET LANE fired a shot across the bow of the merchantman NASHVILLE as the latter attempted to enter the harbor. It was the first shot fired from a naval vessel in the Civil War.

Anderson surrendered Sumter at 2:30 P.M. on the afternoon of April 13, 1861, and Anderson’s forces were evacuated on the BALTIC.

No one was killed on either side during the 36 hours of the fight (however, there were lulls in the fighting during that period, so the shelling – from both sides – was not constant).

“Nothing in Maj. Anderson’s orders authorized him to ‘effectively interdict any ships into and out of the harbor.’”

It doesn’t have to be in his orders. The fact is, from Sumter he would be in a great position to interdict shipping into and out of the harbor. If you’re the CSA, do you want such a threat to exist?

“There was no ‘act of war’ involved in moving Union troops from one Union fort to another.”

Yeah, there was. Because they used Charleston Harbor to do it. And Charleston Harbor was not international water; it was sovereign South Carolina water, and thus sovereign CSA water.

“No Union actions at that time were ‘Acts of War’ any more than today sending US Navy ships to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, or through the South China Sea, despite what the local ‘authorities’ there may claim.”
Ah, but in the case of Guantanamo, there is that PERPETUAL LEASE. There was no such instrument re: Sumter. The Castro brothers may not have liked it, but that lease had and still has legal standing. And, as far as I know, neither side brought the ownership of Sumter before a court of law. Each side had their respective arguments, but neither LEGALLY challenged the other on that issue.

“Nor had there ever been serious Union tariff revenues received from shipping in Charleston harbor.
In 1859 Federal tariff revenues from Charleston totaled about $300,000 or less than 1% of total Federal tariff revenues of nearly $48,000,000.”

This has been addressed countless times over the years here on FR. At its most basic, a tariff is a tax on imported goods, and is collected by the importing country, usually at the POINT OF IMPORT. So, the tariff (tax) is collected at the point of delivery of the goods, and back in the 19th century that was the port of entry of the taxed goods. It was cheaper to export European goods – especially from Britain, which was the biggest exporter—to the ports in Northern states because the journey was much shorter, and took less time, and thus the ships could be put into service with new goods much quicker; thus, more money for the shipping companies and the exporters.

But the party that pays that tariff is generally the party that imported the goods (i.e., the customer). And who had to pay the tariffs? The customers of the European exporters, and that would hit Southerners especially hard. Why? Because it was more economical to buy European manufactured goods because they were of better quality than similar products made in the US (which meant the Northern states, as they were the major manufacturers). Also, because Western Europe was the Southern states’ largest customer, any adverse effects of tariffs would especially affect the South far more than the North.

However, the overly-protectionist Morrill tariff passed the House of Representative in May, 1860, with overwhelming support from the Northern states, and overwhelming rejection from the Southern states. Lincoln ran on support of the Morrill tariff as part of his campaign for the presidency in 1860. The only roadblock was the Senate, where the Democrat-controlled Senate held it up in committee. But, the writing was on the wall, as fence-sitting Northern Democrats in the Senate started to commit to supporting the bill, and Southern Democrats knew they couldn’t stop it in the next session of Congress. And Buchanan, a Northern Democrat from Pennsylvania, supported the tariff because it was widely popular in his home state, and he signed it into law just before Lincoln assumed office on March 4, 1861.
Remember what Lincoln said when discussing the seceded states? “And what is to become of the revenue? I will have no government, no resources.”

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "...but it does not address the moral question of why the Republicans voted to keep slavery forever."

BJK: "They did not!"

DiogenesLamp: This is another bunch of hair splitting and quibbling over the meanings of "forever" and "Republicans."
Yes, Republicans voted to pass it.
Yes, it was effectively forever, so far as the people who voted for it could tell."

No, not at all -- there's no ambiguity in the word "Republicans" and in 1861 the majority of Congressional Republicans voted against Corwin.
That's a fact, deny it all you wish, it's still true.

As for "forever", yes, Corwin does attempt to prevent a future "anti-Corwin" amendment, but we know today that's entirely unconstitutional and at any future time, if Americans wanted to, they could have passed another amendment withdrawing Corwin.
We saw this fact in action when the 1933 21st Amendment withdrew the 1919 18th Amendment.

Regardless, the new Confederate Constitution in 1861 protected slavery vastly better than the proposed Corwin Amendment could ever hope to.
That's why no Confederate state in 1861 seriously considered abandoning the Confederacy for the promises of Corwin.

So, yes Virginia, it was all about slavery.

[BroJoeK]

ought-six: "The original poster’s comment described those states ABOLISHING slavery on their own.
Hence, they exercised their states’ rights."

The three Border States which abolished slavery on their own, before the 13th Amendment, were the Union states of Maryland, West Virginia and Missouri.
But in Kentucky and Delaware, most of their pre-war slaves had already been freed -- in Kentucky about 1/3 remained (~75,000) and in Delaware about 1/2 (900) remained to be freed by the 13th Amendment.

All this is in stark contrast to the Confederate constitution:

• "Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 prohibited the Confederate government from restricting slavery in any way:

  'No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.' "

• "Article IV, Section 2 also prohibited states from interfering with slavery:

  'The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.' "

• "Perhaps the most menacing provision of the Confederate States Constitution was the explicit protection Article IV, Section 3, Clause 3 offered to slavery in all future territories conquered or acquired by the Confederacy:

  'The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several States; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy.
  In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.'

  "This provision ensured the perpetuation of slavery as long and as far as the Confederate States could extend it's political reach, and more then a few Confederates had their eyes fixed on Cuba and Central and South America as objects of future conquest."

[BroJoeK]

ought-six: "Perhaps you missed my earlier post. The act of supplying and reinforcing Sumter was in itself an act of war.
That began under Buchanan, and continued under Lincoln."

No more so than the US today resupplying or reenforcing our troops in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, or sending warships through the Taiwan Straight.
It's only war if the Cub-Coms or Chi-Coms fire on us.

[BroJoeK]

ought-six: "No; when you make a statement that is factually false, it calls into question other statements of yours.
There is an old legal maxim: Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
It simply means, “False in one thing, false in everything.”"

And you've been false on a lot, so the question here is are you ever true on anything?
Well, arguably your word nitpicking over the "Lost Cause" beginning with St. Jude, not Edward Pollard, could be a "win" for you, except that this is a Free Republic Civil War thread, not a discussion of Biblical era Christianity.
So your introducing a different definition of the term "Lost Cause" does not make you right about the Lost Cause of the Confederacy.

BJK: "Pro-Confederates who argue for the Lost Cause on Free Republic Civil War threads have never accepted the term ‘neo-Confederate’ as valid for them."

ought-six: "But you guys do, and you apply the appellation quite liberally.
That is why I rebutted the usage."

The real question here is whether there is some distinction to be pointed out between the terms, "neo-Confederate", "Lost Causer" and "pro-Confederate"?
I've seen none, except that over these many years some posters have objected to the term "neo-Confederate", while nobody I've seen has ever complained about the term "pro-Confederate".
Is there any practical difference?
Well, it would be the distinction between saying, "I support Confederates" (pro-Confederate) versus "I am a (sort of) Confederate" (neo-Confederate).
I personally have no problem using "pro-Confederate" and not "neo-Confederate".

ought-six: "But, from what I’ve seen here on FR you guys categorically reject any argument posed by the Southern side.
So you are categorically rejecting Thomas Jefferson, and Patrick Henry, and Richard Henry Lee, and so many others; because THEIR positions were what guided the South in ITS position."

And that's where you're 100% wrong.
In fact, there is a vast, vast difference between our Patriot Founders of 1776 and your Fire Eater Democrat secessionists of 1860.
The gap between them is so great it's truly laughable that you attempt to equate them.
Here is just a partial listing:

Condition to Compare	1776 Revolutionary War	1861 Civil War
The rebelling party was a full member of the body politic	No	Yes
The rebelling party had willfully and freely entered into the government from which it was rebelling:	No	Yes
The rebelling party had access to full representation on the national stage:	No	Yes
The rebelling party had attempted to have their grievances redressed, and hostilities began before they declared separation and independence:	Yes	No
The rebelling party made clear in their documents of separation that their main concern was protecting chattel slavery of the African race:	No	Yes
The rebelling party made clear the necessity of separation due to abuses, usurpations and war waged against them :	Yes	No

Further Condition to Compare	1776 Revolutionary War	1861 Civil War
The rebelling party had previously dominated national politics for over 60 years:	No	Yes
The rebelling party was overrepresented in its constitutional republic due to the 3/5 of slaves rule:	No	Yes
The rebelling party declared independence based on "all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights":	Yes	No
Spokesmen for the rebelling party declared slavery was the "cornerstone" of their new republic:	No	Yes
The rebelling party declared tariffs were the "real reason" for disunion:	No	No
The rebelling party declared "Northeastern power brokers" and "money flows from Europe" and "free trade" were the "real reasons" for disunion & war:	No	No
The rebelling party waited over a year after being declared in rebellion before declaring themselves independent.	Yes	No
The war began when the Empire/Union tried to seize American militia weapons:	Yes	No
The war began when Rebels assaulted & forced surrender of Union forces in a Union fort:	No	No
The Empire/Union issued a formal "Declaration of Rebellion" before rebels' "secession":	Yes	No
The rebelling party issued a formal "Declaration of War" and granted their leader dictatorial war powers:	No	Yes
The rebelling party invaded the Empire/Union's homeland with large forces many times:	No	Yes
The Empire/Union offered rebel slaves freedom in exchange for military service (1775 Dunmore):	Yes	No
Rebels soon responded by also promising slaves freedom in exchange for military service:	Yes	No
The Empire/Union granted slaves unconditional freedom in states then in rebellion (1779 Phillipsburg):	Yes	Yes
The Empire/Union opposed slavery on moral grounds:	No	Yes
After the war rebels began to abolish slavery voluntarily:	Yes	No

ought-six: "I note with amusement — but not surprise — that you fail to respond to my argument that the conflict that eventually led to the Civil War had been roiling since the closing days of the American Revolution; and that conflict was between federalists and anti-federalists, each of whom saw the country from very different viewpoints: Strong central government, with states subordinate vs. limited federal government, with states retaining their equal share of power.
The names of the political parties may have changed or evolved over the years, but their respective tenets did not."

Then go back and reread my post #127 above, you'll find I addressed your claims in great detail.
Nobody in those days advocated the kind of all-consuming central government we see today.

ought-six: "And then you make the utterly ludicrous comment — well, the comment is really not yours, because you seldom if ever make any comment that is original with you: No, you just cut-and-paste what others have said — that “neo-Confederates” tried to have history books say that “secession was not rebellion,” and that “the Confederacy did not fight for slavery,” and that “the Confederate soldier was defeated by overwhelming numbers and resources.”"

Whether you like them or not, those statements are 100% factual, meaning some Lost Cause supporters do make such claims.

ought-six: "Fighting for slavery?
That is evasion.
It is much the same as saying the Union went to war to END slavery (which, of course, the Union did NOT go to war to do; it went to war to restore the Union)."

The fact remains that protecting slavery was the single biggest reason given for Declarations of Secession, that abolition of slavery was seen from the beginning as necessary to destroying the Confederacy, and that the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments were the war's results.

So, yes, Virginia, it was all about slavery.

[BroJoeK]

ought-six to x: "Southerners favored “Jeffersonian limited government” because they knew what a dominant government could do, as they had just fought a revolution to rid themselves of such a government.
Jeffersonians believed that best government resided locally (i.e., with the states).
Hamiltonians believed that best government was a centralized government superior to the states."

All of that is pure nonsense!
First of all, the new US Constitution in 1787 defined the proper relationship between Federal and state governments.
Federalists wrote it, supported it, and ratified it.
Constitution supporting Federalists included George Washington (Virginia, country) John Adams (Massachusetts, city) James Madison (Virginia, country) Benjamin Franklin (Pennsylvania, city) Alexander Hamilton (New York, city) John Marshall (Virginia, country) Charles Pinckney (South Carolina, "city") Charles Cotesworth Pinckney (South Carolina, "city") John Jay (New York, country) Rufus King (New York, city)

Anti-Federalists opposed the new Constitution on grounds that it made Federal government too powerful.
Notable anti-Federalists included:

Name	State	Positions	Party	Remarks
Patrick Henry	Virginia	Governor	anti-Administration
Samuel Adams	Massachusetts	Governor	Jeffersonian Democrat
George Mason	Virginia	1787 Delegate	anti-Federalist
Richard Henry Lee	Virginia	US Senator	anti-Administration	"Federal Farmer"?
Robert Yates	New York		anti-Federalist	"Brutus"
James Monroe	Virginia	US Senator, POTUS	Jeffersonian Democrat
Amos Singletary	Massachusetts	Mass House & Senate	anti-Federalist
George Clinton	New York		Jeffersonian Democratt	"Cato"
Melancthon Smith	New York	1787 Delegate	anti-Federalist	"Brutus"
Arthur Fermer	Rhode Island	Governor	anti-Federalist
James Winthrop	Massachusetts	scholar	anti-Federalist
Luther Martin	New Jersey	1787 Delegate	anti-Federalist
Samuel Byran	Pennsylvania	1787 Delegate	anti-Federalist	"Centenal"

Thomas Jefferson is sometimes listed as an anti-Federalist based on his support for the Bill of Rights.
What's certain is that many anti-Federalists soon joined Jefferson's anti-Administration Democratic-republican party in opposition to Washington and Adams' Federalists party.

Like all Democratics, even today, when in opposition Jefferson strongly supported "strict construction" for Federalists, and as such he opposed Federalists' plans for infrastructure spending, for a national bank and for protective tariffs.
In those days -- the 1790s -- that's what was meant by "big government", when the entirety of Federal spending amounted to less than 2% of national GDP.

But, like almost every "Democratic" since then (possible exception of Andrew Jackson), once Jefferson's party became the majority, in 1801, they soon supported everything they had previously opposed, including infrastructure spending (the National Road), the national bank and higher tariffs.

So Jefferson's "Democratics" were never, ever truly Constitutional "strict constructionists" for themselves, but only for their political opponents, be they Federalists, Whigs or Republicans.
Once in political power, "Democratics" did whatever the h*ll they wanted to, be that the Louisiana Purchase or the Barbary War without a formal declaration of war, the Constitution be d*mned.

And we know for certain how far Jefferson strayed from "strict construction" by the formation of Virginia Congressman and Senator John Randolf's "Tertium Quids", also called, "the Old Republicans".
"Old Republicans" remained true to strict construction while Jeffersonians (including Madison & Monroe) became as "monarchical" as anything they'd accused the old Federalists of being.

ought-six to x: "As for a national bank, I don’t think Jefferson EVER subscribed to one.
Madison opposed a national bank, but later agreed to have one in 1816 in order to pay off the debt of the War of 1812.
That bank ended in 1836 under Andrew Jackson.
That was the last national bank until 1913 when the big government advocate Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act."

Right, there were three major issues that Jeffersonians weaponized against their Federalist opponents:

1. What we today call "infrastructure spending"
2. The National Bank
3. Tariffs on imports

In every case, once Jefferson's "Democratics" came to political power, they supported all three.
Tariffs for example, went from 10% under Adams' Federalists in 1800, when Jefferson became President, to 20% in 1820 under Democratic President Monroe.

So, Democrats from Day One were all about fraud, deception and double standards, just as they are today.

[BroJoeK]

x: "“I also mentioned how Southern Democrats overwhelmingly supported Woodrow Wilson’s and Franklin Roosevelt’s expansion of the federal government’s powers.”

ought-six: "That was because they had a (D) after their names.
Southerners equated the Republican party with Lincoln and the War."

The key point to remember is that Democrat ideals and practices have not changed since the time of Thomas Jefferson.
Then as now Democrats favor "strict construction" for their opponents (Federalists, Whigs, Republicans), but utterly ignore the Constitution when they themselves are in political power.
Once in power, Democrats have always done whatever the h*ll they wanted, the Constitution be d*mned.

ought-six: "What’s that old saying?
“What was once up, is now down.
What was once right, is now wrong.”
That’s why history is so interesting."

No, it's not, not in the least.
The truth is that Democrats have always been anti-Constitution "Democratics", who only support "strict construction" for their opponents never for themselves.
It's only so interesting because so many people hate the facts and refuse to accept the simple truth: Democrats are anti-American, always have been.

[ought-six]

“And you’ve been false on a lot...”

Name them. Just because you disagree with something, doesn’t mean it is false. So, name my comments that have been false.
Be specific.

[ought-six]

“I don’t think you so much missed my point as you avoided it.

My reference to Jefferson, Henry, and Lee was in the context of their anti-federalist beliefs, as I had stated previously that the struggle between the two visions of the US Constitution – federalist and anti-federalist) and the nation and government it created; a struggle that began before the Constitution was drafted and ratified; was what eventually led to the Civil War (known as the “War of the Rebellion” in the North and the “War for Southern Independence” or “War of Northern Aggression” in the South).

Hamilton was the pre-eminent federalist and Jefferson was the pre-eminent anti-federalist.

Broadly speaking, the Northern states embraced the concept of federalism and the Southern states embraced the concept of anti-federalism.

If applying 21st century labels, Jefferson would be an “originalist” and Hamilton would be a “living document” adherent.

The Jeffersonian anti-federalists were Constitutional originalists: They believed in the strict construction of the Constitution, where the government had only the power allowed it by the Constitution. On the other hand, the Hamiltonian “living document” subscribers believed in a loosely constructed Construction that was malleable; and that the government should not be so strictly restrained by what was or was not specifically written in the Constitution.

Jeffersonian anti-federalists found nothing in the Constitution that prohibited secession; Hamiltonian federalists took the position that such a prohibition was implied.

In a modern context, Hamiltonian federalists would have applauded Roe v. Wade, because it created a federal law at the expense of the states (a clear violation of the 10th Amendment). The 1973 court “found” a federal right to privacy in a Constitution that never addressed it or even mentioned it; that federal right was created out of thin air. Jeffersonian originalists would have applauded the 2022 Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. JWHO, which put the matter back where it constitutionally belonged: With the states themselves.

Today’s conservatives (the so-called “right”) would fall into the Jeffersonian camp; today’s liberals (the so-called “left”) would fall into the Hamiltonian camp.

You can trot out irrelevant minutiae till the cows come home (as you did with your graph, which completely ignored the question of federalism and anti-federalism); but the fact remains that the seceding states believed they had the law on their side, and the states that remained in the Union – except, perhaps, for some of the border states – believed that secession was illegal.

[BroJoeK]

ought-six: "Well, if “neo-Confederate” can be a real term, then necessarily “paleo-Confederate” can also be a real term.
Since the appellation “neo-Confederate” has been used to describe post-bellum Southerners (particularly those from 1866 onward, as that is the year of Pollard’s book, the one that has given you all the vapors, and is the foundation of your “Lost Cause” and “neo-Confederate” angst); then “paleo-Confederate” can be applied to pre-1866 Southerners.
Personally, I think both labels are non-sensical, but you guys started it, so I responded accordingly."

I think we might agree that the term "pro-Confederate" is both accurate and acceptable in most cases.
It has the same sense as, for examples, today being "pro-Ukraine" or "pro-Taiwan" -- doesn't mean we are Ukrainian or Taiwanese, only that we support them against Russia or China.
So I'm OK with using "pro-Confederate" for people today and "Confederate" for actual Confederates like Edward Pollard and Alexander Stephens.

BJK: "But as Edward Pollard amply demonstrates, what actual Confederates said they believed during the war was often quite different from what those same people said they believed after the Civil War.”

ought-six: "Yeah? Show me.
You of the habitual cut-and-paste, surely you can cut-and-paste the specifics to support your claim.
So, show me."

No problem, here's what Wikipedia says about Edward Pollard:

"Pollard wrote several books.
In 1859, he advocated reopening the slave trade in Black Diamonds Gathered in the Darkey Homes of the South.[7][1]
He also rejected ideas that slavery improved the slaves and that slavery should gradually fade away.[8]
Unlike his most prominent uncles, William C. and Alexander Rives, Pollard strongly favored secession and during the civil war continued to write about slave society and Union depredations.
After Union forces occupied Richmond in 1865, Pollard was arrested for continuing to publish pro-Confederate and pro-slavery writings, and he decried emancipation as the North's ultimate war crime."

So that was Pollard the True Confederate, or "paleo-Confederate" if you insist.
His opinions were absolutely typical of Confederates before, say, 1865.
After the war, Pollards views, ahem... "evolved".

"In 1868, Pollard advocated white supremacy (calling it both the "true cause of the war" and the "true hope of the South")[1] during Reconstruction in The Lost Cause Regained, which was written as a Democratic campaign document.[12]
He otherwise wrote that Johnson's programs were right, and that secession was not a legal act.[13]
In this book, Pollard no longer supported former President Jefferson Davis, instead attacking him for being ineffective and ignorant,[14] and a year later he wrote a scathing biography of Davis entitled The Life of Jefferson Davis.
In that book he also criticized many other political and military leaders of the Confederacy.
Pollard wrote that the southern way of life had contributed largely to the defeat.
Biographer Jack Maddex Jr. believes that Pollard found it hard to navigate inconsistencies between his new-found pro-Union white supremacist position and a pro-Confederate position he also attempted to hold..."

In Pollard's last years (he died at age 40), his views changed even more:

"Pollard's opinions continued to change.
By the early 1870s, Pollard wrote in favor of northern capitalism and thrift, limited civil rights legislation, and black suffrage.
He supported segregation, but opposed the Ku Klux Klan, and shortly before his death wrote that by 1860, slavery had "completed its historic mission and its continuance would have been an inexcusable oppression."[16]"

After Pollard's death in 1872, the "Lost Cause of the Confederacy" passed into other hands:

"General Robert E. Lee having urged Southerners to move on after the wartime defeat, but having died in 1870, the Lost Cause movement would then be fostered by "unrepentant Confederate" Gen. Jubal Early (who had moved to Lynchburg), and by well-connected Lynchburg lawyer and future U.S. Senator John Warwick Daniel, as well as by former Confederate President Jefferson Davis."

ought-six: "You disagree with me that the federalists were pro-North and pro-urban. But, they WERE.
Hell, the Federalist PARTY began as a national coalition of bankers and businessmen in support of Hamilton’s fiscal policies."

Ah... no.
First of all, we're talking about the 1788 pro-constitution Federalists versus the anti-Constitution anti-Federalists.
As I listed in previous posts, (i.e., #152) these positions had nothing to do with North versus South.
Federalists included Rufus King, born in Maine and the Pinckney's from Charleston, South Carolina.
Anti-Federalists included Patrick Henry from Virginia and Samuel Adams from Massachusetts.
So, it had nothing to do with "North versus South".

Second of all, after anti-Federalists were defeated by the Constitution's ratification, many then joined in Thomas Jefferson's anti-Administration faction, which later came to be called, "Democratic-republicans".
By the way, they were called "Democratics" because Jefferson favored the "Democratic" French Revolution and the guillotine for monarchists.
Jefferson's "Democratics" claimed to be "strict constructionists" regarding Federalist plans for 1) infrastructure spending, 2) a national bank and 3) import tariffs.
But after they came to political power in 1801, they eventually supported all three, plus more that Federalists never thought of, i.e., the Louisiana Purchase.

Third, as for which party controlled the big cities, when Democratics took over in Washington, DC, in 1801 they also took over New York City and held it almost continuously until 1818 and then the majority of the time until 1862, with only brief interruptions by Whig administrations.
So from the beginning (circa 1801), Democrats were the party of Big Cities, Big Government & masses of poor voters, while Federalists-Whigs-Republicans were the more rural farmers, small town business, traditional values and middle-income voters.

Those are the facts, deny them all you wish.

ought-six: "The hub of business was in the North, in the cities.
Hence, the federalists — no matter where they hailed from — supported actions that favored the North, and the cities."

Ah, no....
After, say, 1800 there were plenty of cities and plenty of business in the South including Baltimore, Charleston, Nashville, Lexington (KY) and (later) New Orleans.
Southern political figures from those cities often supported manufacturing, including Henry Clay, Andrew Jackson and even a young John C. Calhoun.
Among the earliest Southern supporters of "Make America Great" tariffs was a young Virginia Congressman named James Madison.

ought-six: "Your inclusion of Madison in your list of federalists needs an asterisk, because he was not a Hamiltonian federalist, and Hamiltonian federalism dominated the platform.
Madison is unique because he wrote the Constitution and wanted very much for it to succeed.
Thus, he played both sides of the fence trying to make it work."

Nooooo...
In 1788 James Madison was a strong Federalist who partnered up with Alexander Hamilton to write the Federalist Papers which greatly helped ratify their new Constitution.
And there is no significant difference in opinions between Madison and Hamilton in those Federalist Papers -- they were of virtually one mind in 1788.

What happened next is Madison was defeated for election to the US Senate from Virginia and then told, in no uncertain terms, that if he ever wanted a political career, then he must join with Thomas Jefferson's anti-Administration faction, later called the 'Democratic-republicans'.
As such, Madison became Jefferson's loyal follower and supporter, and hid some of his Federalist opinions for sake of party unity -- at least that's how I see it.

But in the very end, Madison's true nature came out, in for example, his 1830 letter to Nicholas P. Trist opposing unilateral unapproved secession at pleasure.

ought-six: "But we’re not talking about today, are we?
We’re talking about the late 18th century, and the first half of the 19th century.
Aside from perhaps Hamilton and after him, Lincoln, I’d venture to say that EVERYONE of any substance or persuasion back in those days would have rebelled against what our government has become.
So, “by today’s standards” is meaningless."

Naw... you're being way too clever here.
The fact is that nobody in those days -- not Hamilton, not Lincoln -- advocated the bloated monstrosity of a government we have today.
Nobody then could even conceive of such a thing.

And by standards of their time, there was no practical difference between the true opinions of James Madison and Alexander Hamilton as expressed in their joint Federalist Papers.
And by the time of his own Presidency, James Madison supported everything he and Jefferson had pretended to oppose under Federalists Washington & Adams administrations, notably 1) infrastructure spending, 2) a national bank and 3) import tariffs.

ought-six: "But, really, it was.
Because the question was how the government and the nation were perceived, and what they were intended to be. It just so happened that the divide on that question pretty much fell along geographical lines:
The industrial North on one side and the agricultural South on the other.
The industrial North was more federalist, the agricultural South was more anti-federalist."

Those are total lies, and you really need to stop lying!
For just one example among many I could give, here is the election map for 1840:
The blue counties are Democrats, the brown counties are Whigs -- you can see, there's nothing "North versus South" about them:

ought-six: "The emigrants, pioneers and gold-seekers among them, were exceptions; but they had no allegiance to a national identity, because for most of them there was no future in it:
They decided to move to the Spanish and British lands in the West.
Remember, prior to 1848 much of the West was Spanish and later Mexican, and even British."

And that's why, first chance they got, Texians applied for statehood -- to where? to Spain? to Mexico? to Britain?
No, of course not!
Texians applied for statehood to the United States because that is where their national loyalties lay.
So your argument here is pure nonsense.

ought-six on abolition of slave imports: "And, do you know who else did?
The Confederate States of America.
In fact, they did more than just propose it, they actually included it in their constitution!"

Well... many Confederates (i.e., Edward Pollard) favored importing new slaves from Africa -- see for example, the Clotilda -- and there's no evidence the Confederacy intended to strongly enforce its ban on such imports.

[x]

If applying 21st century labels, Jefferson would be an “originalist” and Hamilton would be a “living document” adherent.

That is a gross oversimplification. Hamilton, having actually been at the Constitutional Convention, certainly qualifies as an "originalist" as much as Jefferson, who was on the other side of the ocean. The "original" meaning of the Constitution did not mean that the federal government could only do the dozen or score of things explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.

In a modern context, Hamiltonian federalists would have applauded Roe v. Wade, because it created a federal law at the expense of the states (a clear violation of the 10th Amendment).

That is playing games with history. No 18th century Federalist could possibly have conceived of such a case or decision, and they certainly wouldn't have applauded it. Jeffersonians wanted to give the Constitution one meaning because of the 10th Amendment. Modern day liberals want to give it another meaning based on the 14th Amendment. That wasn't part of the Constitution in Hamilton's day.

Nor do I see any attempt by Hamilton to overturn state laws in the areas where states and localities dealt with matters within their borders. You could have a national bank and a protective tariff without invalidating local regulations of local matters. After all, Madison thought the same way.

BroJoe is right. The Jeffersonians believed in one set of standards for themselves and another for their opponents.

[ought-six]

“That is a gross oversimplification. Hamilton, having actually been at the Constitutional Convention, certainly qualifies as an ‘originalist’ as much as Jefferson, who was on the other side of the ocean. The ‘original’ meaning of the Constitution did not mean that the federal government could only do the dozen or score of things explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.”

History disagrees with you. Remember, Hamilton strongly opposed the Bill of Rights. And “originalist” refers to the meaning and intent of the Constitution as written and amended. But, I think you know that. Your assertion that “originalist” just refers to those physically present at the Constitutional Convention is laughable.

“The ‘original’ meaning of the Constitution did not mean that the federal government could only do the dozen or score of things explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.”

Prior to the Bill of Rights, it was just that very fear – that the initial Constitution was too vague on federal power, and that such unrestricted power could lead to tyranny; and those who held such fears pressed for amendments to prohibit that, Hence, the Bill of Rights.

“That is playing games with history.”

No, it’s not.

“No 18th century Federalist could possibly have conceived of such a case or decision, and they certainly wouldn’t have applauded it.”

Your reading comprehension is poor. Did you miss the qualifier, “In a modern context?” That means in modern times, NOT in the 18th century (and why did you limit it to just the 18th century, when I put no such restriction on the term? Hamiltonian federalists didn’t die out in 1799). And, did you miss my paragraph above that comment? The one that said those subscribing to Hamiltonian federalism, “…believed in a loosely constructed Construction that was malleable; and that the government should not be so strictly restrained by what was or was not specifically written in the Constitution.” That belief is prominent today with the left in America. Hence, the modern context.

“Nor do I see any attempt by Hamilton to overturn state laws in the areas where states and localities dealt with matters within their borders. You could have a national bank and a protective tariff without invalidating local regulations of local matters. After all, Madison thought the same way.”

Actually, Madison OPPOSED a national bank, and only signed onto one in 1816 in order to pay off the debt of the War of 1812. And that only lasted until 1836. After that, there was no national bank until 1913 and the passage of the Federal Reserve Act. And look at all the trouble THAT has created!

[ought-six]

“First of all, we’re talking about the 1788 pro-constitution Federalists versus the anti-Constitution anti-Federalists.”

Maybe YOU are, but I set no such limitation. I have been talking about the philosophies, not about political parties or any restriction to just 1788. Do you limit a discussion on communism to just Karl Marx’s 1848 “Communist Manifesto” or his later work, “Das Kapital?” His philosophy and its adherents are alive and well today.

And it’s not that anti-federalists were “anti-Constitution;” but they were concerned that it was too vague, and sought clarification that would specifically show the limits of federal power. They knew that vagueness could lead to abuse.

And about Pollard. His only role in this entire discussion is about his 1866 book, and the context THAT book (published after the war) had in the matter. His position in that book does not differ from the positions of Confederates PRIOR to the book.

You always employ the old tactic of introducing a straw man into the discussion, and then bombard the discussion with reams of cut-and-paste that may address the straw man, but not the original comment.

For instance, you conveniently limit my mention of emigration prior to 1848, to Texas. Actually, I was focusing primarily on the West, mainly California and the Pacific Northwest. As for Texas, prior to its joining the Union in the mid-1840s it was an independent nation, the Republic of Texas (1836-1846), and prior to that it was part of Mexico, and prior to that it was part of Spain; and even France had a slice of it, as it was included in the Louisiana Purchase. So, even if you include Texas, a great deal of emigrants went to Texas before it was a state, and they became Mexican citizens; or, as the case may be, Texians. So, they didn’t think so much of their American citizenship back then, did they?

[BroJoeK]

BJK: "...we’re talking about the 1788 pro-constitution Federalists versus the anti-Constitution anti-Federalists."

ought-six: "Maybe YOU are, but I set no such limitation.
I have been talking about the philosophies, not about political parties or any restriction to just 1788."

But regardless of where you hope to end up, you still have to start with the 1787 Constitution, ratified in 1788.
Those who wrote it & supported ratification were Federalists, roughly evenly divided between North & South, from the Pinckney's in Charleston, SC to James Madison in Virginia to John Adams in Boston.

Those opposed to ratification, the anti-Federalists, were also divided, from, for examples, Patrick Henry in Virginia to Samuel Adams in Boston.
Of the states which most balked at ratification, one was Southern, North Carolina, and the other Northern, Rhode Island.

So Federalist and anti-Federalist in 1788 had nothing to do with North vs. South.
Also, you seem to forget that the alternative to ratifying the new Constitution was the old Articles of Confederation.
That was the other option, had ratification failed in 1788.
To vote "no" on the Constitution was to vote "yes" for the old Articles of Confederation, period.

Then, once the Constitution was ratified, many of the old anti-Federalists gravitated to Thomas Jefferson's anti-Administration faction, later to be called the "Democratic-republicans", eventually just "Democratics" or "the Democracy"", today's Democrats.
In opposition to Federalist presidents Washington and Adams, Jefferson posed under the banner of "strict construction" and "limited government", claiming Federalists were "monarchists" for wanting 1) infrastructure spending, 2) a national bank and 3) import tariffs.

But it was all pure nonsense because when Jeffersonians came to power they did all they'd accused Federalists of, and much more, including the Louisiana Purchase and an undeclared Barbary War.

ought-six: "And it’s not that anti-federalists were “anti-Constitution;” but they were concerned that it was too vague, and sought clarification that would specifically show the limits of federal power.
They knew that vagueness could lead to abuse."

Sorry, but the vote was "yes" or "no", just like any other vote.
"Yes" meant ratify the Constitution as written.
"No" meant keep the old Articles of Confederation.

And yes, some states did attempt a "conditional ratification" but James Madison himself clearly ruled that was impossible -- it was yes or no, period.
Of course, Madison himself recognized some of the anti-Federalists' concerns, hence his Bill of Rights adopted as the first ten amendments.
It was one of the compromises which saved the Constitution.

ought-six: "And about Pollard. His only role in this entire discussion is about his 1866 book, and the context THAT book (published after the war) had in the matter.
His position in that book does not differ from the positions of Confederates PRIOR to the book."

Most Confederates before 1865 well understood the importance of slavery to their entire enterprise, and made no effort to minimize it as a cause or motivation for Civil War.
If you doubt me on it, I have a long list of quotes from Confederates saying just that, to prove my point.

ought-six: "So, even if you include Texas, a great deal of emigrants went to Texas before it was a state, and they became Mexican citizens; or, as the case may be, Texians.
So, they didn’t think so much of their American citizenship back then, did they?"

More than you suggest, for one reason, Mexico outlawed slavery and many Texians were slaveholders.
That put them in constant conflict with Mexican authorities and forced Texians to seek allies, of which none were more agreeable than those in Washington, DC.

By the way, the same can be said of California -- when war came in 1846 it was American settlers in California who first rose up and overthrew the Mexican garrison there.
So, there's no need for you to claim that American settlers moving west were somehow not patriotic Americans.
They were entirely patriotic, be it Texas, California or anywhere else.
The proof is, as soon as enough were settled there, they applied for and received recognition as new states in the United States.