Davis' bicentennial eclipsed by Lincoln

The Kentucky Kernel ^ | 3/28/08 | Jill Laster

[Sherman Logan]

establish justice ... and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

"Africans" not included in this formula. Justice, liberty and all that are for white folks only.

[smug]

I suspect Clemenza was referencing Davis’ betrayal of the USA, not the CSA.

I figured that, I was just sticking my wet finger in Clemz ear. However I don't call Davis's actions betrayal. He was a senator from the state of Mississippi. His state withdrew from the U.S. (legal or not), and whether he liked it or not. And he stated for the record he did not, he was no longer bound to a country he was no longer a citizen of.

I have an extensive War of the Rebellion library I have Foote's 3 volume set, 11 volume illustrated set and the spoken word DVD set, among some 800 other books, DVD's on the subject. I have read his Narrative thru once. But the DVD has afforded me the opportunity to listen to it through 4 times now.

You are right about Davis having his wife's rain coat, but it was the same as his nearly. The exaggeration of Lincoln disguise was also uncalled for, as neither was true.

[purpleraine]

My statement was based upon noticing that obvious omission.

[Sherman Logan]

You betcha. I’ve always wondered if they would eventually have gotten around to defining “people” even more finely by excluding less popular groups. Perhaps poor white people?

[cowboyway]

in order to form a permanent federal government,

Surely if the government is to be permanent then states cannot secede whenever they feel like it.

In the preamble, they then tried to have it both ways.

I disagree that they were trying to have it both ways.

The word 'permanent' is simply defining the permanence of the federal government, not the permanence of the 'sovereign' states within the confederation. The language is quite clear. (Of course, as we both know, nothing is permanent. I think that the use of those kinds of words are merely to show conviction to a cause, such as the 'till death do us part' of a marriage pact.)

For instance, a permanent job is one that last as long as the employee or employer wants it to last; e.g. there is no predetermined termination date. However, that doesn't mean that the employment can't be terminated.

Besides, like you said, wouldn't it have been utterly hypocritical and ludicrous to secede from one union only to form an alliance that makes secession illegal.

Otherwise the government is an alliance, not a federal union.

That's exactly what a 'confederation' is, an alliance.

confederation - an alliance, the state of being allied or confederated; an association of sovereign states or communities, usually created by treaty but often later adopting a common constitution; a federal state in which the provinces have significantly more power than the federal government; a political model which involves a loose grouping of states, characterized by the fact that the central government has fewer powers than the states or regions; a form of government in which the member states give up a small amount of power to a central government but retain most of the power for themselves. Sovereignty remains with the member states.

[cowboyway]

See, that's what I mean when I say you've got to stop getting all your information off Southron fairy tale sites.

It was metaphorical.

Speaking of fairy tales, how many times have you stated that the Southern states never seceded and that there never was a Confederacy?

You can't even find a fairy tale site to support that lunacy unless you have your own website full of your anti-Reb pablum, NS lies and delusional scribblings.

(If you don't have such a website, you're in luck because http://www.yankeelunacy.com/ is available. Hell, I may register it just to keep you from getting it.)

[Non-Sequitur]

Speaking of fairy tales, how many times have you stated that the Southern states never seceded and that there never was a Confederacy?

I've lost count, but since the Supreme Court ruled that their acts of unilateral secession were illegal then that would mean that none of the Southern states did secede. And if they didn't secede then that would mean there was never a confederate states.

[smug]

the Supreme Court ruled that their acts of unilateral secession were illegal then that would mean that none of the Southern states did secede.

If I rob a bank and the courts rule that my act was illegal, was the bank never robbed?

[Non-Sequitur]

If I rob a bank and the courts rule that my act was illegal, was the bank never robbed?

The illegality of bank robbery is not a constitutional question. If I am proclaimed the Autocratic King of Kansas by act of the state legislature, and the court rules that under Article IV, Section 4 that this is prohibited, then I'm not the King and never was king.

[smug]

The illegality of bank robbery is not a constitutional question. If I am proclaimed the Autocratic King of Kansas by act of the state legislature, and the court rules that under Article IV, Section 4 that this is prohibited, then I'm not the King and never was king.

Shucks, that answer just ruined my idea.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

The fact Kentucky declared neutrality, suggest that they considered themselves to be a sovereign state.

The fact that it was the confederate army that violated neutrality suggests that they didn't much care what Kentucky thought about its sovereignty.

[Sherman Logan]

If I am proclaimed the Autocratic King of Kansas by act of the state legislature

FWIW, I believe all the states seceded by act of a state convention, not their legislature.

[BillyBoy]

>> You're just another yankee floating down the river of denial. <<

Just curious, since you use the word "yankee" is such a derongatory manner, do you all you guys in the hate the USA wing of "conservativism" cringe when you hear the song Yankee Doodle Dandy?

You might be happier moving to Europe where you're anti-yankee rhetoric will be far more popular with the snooty locals. They sure hate the "yanks" over there.

Mexico is also a good choice if you want to be free of the yankees. Nobody is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to remain a citizen of the U.S.A.

[BillyBoy]

>> The truly hilarious part is that the CSA constitution prohibited any state from seceding. <<

The CSA said nothing about the issue of whether secession was legal, and had little to say about tariffs that wasn't already in the U.S. consitution. They basically copied about 90% of the U.S. constiution word-for-word, updated the language to be a bit more "modern" and put in major clause stating that slavery shall forever be legal and perpetual in the CSA.

Which gives me a good deal of insight on what was on the minds of the "founding fathers" of the CSA.

[Sherman Logan]

The CSA constitution preamble did refer to it as "form(ing) a permanent federal government."

Despite what some others have posted, I do not see how any government can be considered permanent if states are able to withdraw whenever they feel like it.

BTW, here's an interesting clause by clause comparison of the two documents, with commentary.

http://www.filibustercartoons.com/CSA.htm

With regard to tariffs the CSA added the following language to Section 8, "nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry." This was done to prevent protective tariffs.

Had the CSA won its independence, I suspect they would have regretted this clause very quickly. It would have prevented them from doing anything to protect even essential military industries from foreign competition. This would have left them permanently vulnerable to blockade in time of war.

[Sherman Logan]

The Founding Fathers of the CSA also prohibited the confederate government or any state from banning slavery at any time in the future. They were determined that negro slavery would be a permanent institution.

So much for states' rights. Under the US Constitution states could decide whether to be slave or free. Under the CSA Constitution states could not decide to get rid of slavery.

[rustbucket]

Nevertheless, if a federal (or confederate) government were to be maintained, funds would have to be raised. Most of the apologists for the South seem to assume that tariffs could be dumped and the government run on air. Tariffs on imports are easily collected and require minimal intrusion on the lives of those who eventually pay the tax.

I agree that tariffs were the right way to raise funds. The Confederate Congress created a tariff rate below that of the 1857 US tariff. I presume they had calculated that the rates would provide enough revenue to run their government. Shortly afterwards, the US passed the Morrill Tariff. All of a sudden the North had a tariff that was (I'm guessing) about twice the Southern tariff. All hell then broke loose in the Northern ports. Northern import firms closed and went out of business. Imports to Northern ports dropped sharply. Tariff revenue fell. Port officials and newspaper editorials beseeched Lincoln to do something. If we are to believe reports of the time, Lincoln expressed concern about where his revenue would come from.

The North did this to themselves. It was due largely to passing the Morrill Tariff. That and the fact that there was now a low tariff country to the south of them. European imports to the South were going to be shipped directly to Southern ports with their cheaper tariff. Southerners could now buy European goods more cheaply than Northern ones. However, Southerners now had to pay a tariff on Northern goods. They were going to buy less goods from the North. The prices of Northern goods would have to drop if they wanted to maintain volume and Northern employment.

Using your numbers above, the South apparently viewed paying $20M/year in "tribute" to the North as a greater problem than even a potential threat to accumulated capital worth well over $2,000M.

I don't think you are thinking broadly enough about the causes of the war. The tariff situation wasn't the main driver for the South. I suspect it was for the North though.

In my oft stated opinion, slavery was the main cause or occasion for the South to secede and to fight. It was easier for Southern politicians to generate enthusiasm for secession using slavery than using tariff rates.

On the other hand, I think the tariff situation (i.e., the potential employment problem in the North that might be brought about by the disparate tariffs of the two regions and the loss of tariff revenue to run the Northern government and pay their debts) was a strong driving force for Lincoln to provoke war and blockade Southern ports.

I believe Lincoln did provoke the war. He was no dummy. He thought outside the box as to what to do about his situation. First, he supported the proposed Corwin amendment that would have prevented the Federal government from abolishing slavery thus wooing the South back into the Union. That didn't work; it was too late. He had to do something else. No doubt he was smart enough to realize that sending a battle fleet down to Charleston would likely provoke a shooting war. And it did.

[Sherman Logan]

I find it odd that so many “conservative” Americans buy into the vulgar Marxist notion that “wars are always about money.”

While nobody at the time thought the war would last as long or cost as much as it did, it was perfectly obvious to all that a war was going to cost a great deal more money than was being lost to lower tariffs at southern ports.

Let us assume that the Union would have lost 50% of its revenue. They had the alternatives of finding another way to raise $25M or $30M per year, or getting into a war that would by anybody’s reckoning cost hundreds of millions. In theory they would have lower expenses, so maybe they wouldn’t need as much money to run the government.

Despite the immense authority of Charles Dickens (who hated America and Americans) and a few articles in northern newspapers, I prefer to believe the immense majority of contemporary evidence.

Southern states seceded to protect their “peculiar institution” against what they viewed as a threat.

Northern states resisted their secession to preserve the Union, with the war goal of emancipation added later.

This is what those who made the decision to fight said they were fighting for.

BTW, thanks for agreeing that the South seceded over slavery. Ever since they lost the war southern apologists have tried to portray slavery as an issue that was of only marginal importance. This is, of course, in direct conflict with what those who seceded said at the time.

[cowboyway]

"yankee" is such a derongatory manner

'Yankee' is not synonymous with 'American' to a Southerner.

I don't how long you been living in the US but if you've been here very long, you should know that.

I mean, you're not really that dumb, right?

derongatory.........do you all you guys in the

Do they still have college classes in English spelling and grammar these days? Just asking is all..........

You might be happier moving to Europe where you're anti-yankee rhetoric will be far more popular with the snooty locals.

I'm quite happy down South, thank you, except, of course, all the damnyankees moving in on us and I do hope that your hatred of Southerners will convince you to remain in the land of disHonest Abe Lincoln for a long, long time.

BTW, I'm highly offended by the 35 star union flag that you display and request that you remove it as soon as possible.

I'd like to suggest some replacement pics: