Posted on 06/09/2009 8:47:35 AM PDT by Davy Buck
First decent post from you....ever!
Do you think she is secesh?
Is that how y’all spell sexy where you come from?
Don't talk ridiculous. Half my relatives are southerners, but all of my ancestors & relatives who served, fought for the United States -- in the Revolutionary War, in the Civil War, and in every war since Pearl Harbor. Today I'm not a young man any more, and there's no way I'd abandon the cause I served or supported all my life.
There will be no secession, but if you can get your friends to start voting for conservatives again, we can start to improve the current situation.
There will be no freedom, then.
Imaginary flaws do not an argument make.
Nor do imaginary facts. And your posts tend to be loaded with them.
Harriett Lane- three 9-inch Dahlgrens, one 30-pounder Parrott Rifle, and one 12-pounder -to be used as an armed escort ship for the troop carrying passenger steamer Baltic
Pawnee-15 gun warship-crew of 94
Pocahontas-6 gun warship-crew of 95
Powhatan-warship-many guns plus 4-12 pounders-300 sailors and launches (Klein p414)
Baltic-civilian merchant/passenger steamer-10 small boats-300 men (troops) (Klien p358)
Illinois-civilian merchant/passenger steamer-carrying an unspecified number of troops (Klien p406)
Atlantic- civilian merchant/passenger steamer-600 troops aboard (U.S. Navy History records)
Yankee-ocean tug-returned to port
Uncle Ben-ocean tug-returned to port
Freeborn-ocean tug-never got to sea.
Just by itself, the Sumter supply fleet consisted of eight warships carrying 26 guns and 1,400 troops. (Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government by Jefferson Davis Volume 1 p284).
You said: "(Right about) Everything I post".
Well, you made an error when you attributed the above data to only Klein. You incorrectly left out two other sources: 1. Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government by Jefferson Davis Volume 1 p284, and 2.U.S. Navy History records. So you do make errors after all, don't you.
Also: http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/libraryarchives/ihc/cyrus.asp
The panic of 1857 was caused by shifts in the world market as a result of the conclusion of the Crimean war and by corruption-induced business troubles at home in America.
Specifically, as the war concluded, the wheat demands it had created bottomed out.
With the end of the war, the Russians were able to send their grain crops to market. Needing to raise quick cash, they under priced their crops, and depressed American grain product prices. Demand for US grain dropped, and soon Northern exports dwindled.
With overproduction in the mid-west, the wheat market collapsed, causing an economic depression in the West.
At the exact same time the continental European banks were being adversely affected by the war's conclusion. The British were withdrawing specie from US banks, further compounding the problems.
Simultaneously, several major railroad embezzlement scandals were exposed, shaking up their creditors on Wall Street, all of them already uneasy due to the wheat problem and shaky banking state in France.
The banks then panicked and a recession set in.
Northern politicians at the time fraudulently used the panic as an excuse to promote their tariff policies that would be detrimental to the recovery.
“Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety,
prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or
private interest of any one man, family, or class of men.”
-—John Adams
* * * * *
8/24/1857 The New York Branch of the Ohio Life and Insurance Company failed. This was important because it was the largest bank in Ohio, and purveyor of Eastern credit and hard currency to the West. It failure jarred the national banking system.
As a result, 4,932 U. S. firms eventually failed.
The next month, one of the largest banks in Philadelphia, alarmed by the drains on its coin reserves, suspended specie payments. Most Northern banks reacted by hoarding reserves, and tightening credit. Soon, many banks in the North began to close.
9/11/1857 Northern banks relied heavily on newly mined gold sources from California.
On this date the Steamship SS Central America sailed directly into the path of a severe hurricane. The ship carried $1,000,000 in commercial gold and a secret cargo of 15 tons of California gold valued at $20 per ounce ($9,600,000). New York banks were waiting for the gold to meet depositor withdrawal demands.
9/12/1857 The SS Central America sank with the loss of 400 passengers. The loss of the ship and its important cargo, devastated the banking and financial system of the country.
Fall/1857 Tens of thousands of Americans were thrown out of work. Over 800 banks collapsed. The sale of public lands nearly stopped altogether. Numerous wealthy manufacturers and investors went bankrupt. The panic turned into national depression that lasted for several years.
The banking failures were due to several reasons, primarily insolvency due to overextended credit to land speculators and railroad construction.
Cotton and tobacco production was not affected by the economic downturn. The South survived the 1857 panic, in large part, because of Europe’s continued demand for cotton.
Due to the fact that Southern cotton and tobacco producers took European manufactured goods in trade and were thus not dependant upon specie for payment, they were further removed from the financial crisis. Production increased, and the South prospered.
In the North, there was a flood of people to the industrial cities because of the failure of the farms as a employment option. Many believed that the great jobs and money were to be made in the factories.
Industrialization was having an impact on the northern and western farms - no longer were large crews needed.
By 1858 the McCormick Harvesting Machine Company was the largest farm equipment manufacturer in the United States, with assets totaling over one million dollars.
The family farm was beginning to disappear because of the economics of the time. Railroads were charging more for transporting their grain and a farm had to be large and mechanized to survive.
Vagrancy laws were enacted to keep the newly relocated workers, not on the farm but in the factories. Laws were enacted that forbid people to leave a town if they owed any debt.
With rising personal debt, these former farm hands either worked or went to prison. The father worked, the mother worked and the kids worked. Most often it still was not enough wage earning to survive without debt to the Company Store
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Results of the Recession
The slavery issue was re-ignited since Cotton was mostly unaffected by the depression. Slavery flourished.
The success of slavery incited the abolitionists to renew their attack on the institution. A huge religious movement occurred in both the North and South. In the South, some believed that the South was mostly untouched by the depression as a sign of God’s validation of the rightness of slavery.
A Senate report by Senator Johnson showed that the Daily wages for bricklayers in New Orleans and Charleston averaged $3. Wages for bricklayers in Chicago and Pittsburg was $1.50.
Carpenters in New Orleans/Charleston earned $2.50 a day. The same in Chicago/Pittsburg earned $1.50.
General laborers in these Southern cities earned $1.25. Their counterparts in the North earned $.75.
Marxism took hold in the country as the division between rich and poor widened.
The Central Government gained more power using the excuse of preventing future recessions and depressions.
Many Southern farmers realized that if the tariffs were removed, they could ship their cotton directly to European markets for greater profit.
More importantly, sectional denunciation became common.
South Carolina Senator James Hammond stated,
“When the abuse of credit had…annihilated confidence, when thousands of the strongest commercial houses in the world were coming down and hundreds of millions of dollars of supposed property were evaporating in thin air, when you came to a deadlock and revolutions were threatened, what brought you up? Fortunately for you it was the commencement of the cotton season, and we have poured upon you 1,600,000 bales of cotton…to save you from destruction.”
The tariff law was the same, but it only affected those who paid it. Those who paid it were vastly the Southern consumer.
So, it would be true to say that it did not "hit" all parts of the country equally.
The idea that that statement is true is absurd
The South was importing much more than any other section of the country and consuming the products.
They were paying the tariffs, whether directly on goods purchased at the docks, or from Northern middlemen who added the cost of the tariff to the selling prices. Remember, the consumer paid the tariff as a part of the purchase price, and most consumption of goods was occurring in the South.
And as I said, neither the Official Record or any of the other books on Sumter that I've read include the Atlantic or the Illinois in any attempt to resupply Sumter. The Atlantic did bring troops to Pickens after the Sumter attack, but fewer than half the number you mention. So you can repeat Klein's summary all you want, it is not supported by any evidence I've seen. And you're summary also neglects to mention that the Baltic was also loaded with food and supplies destined for Sumter.
ust by itself, the Sumter supply fleet consisted of eight warships carrying 26 guns and 1,400 troops. (Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government by Jefferson Davis Volume 1 p284).
Davis' claims are even less accurate than your's are. There weren't 1400 troops available in New York to send to Sumter even if Lincoln had wanted to. He was scraping the bottom of the barrel to round up the few hundred that actually went.
Then why were approximately 95% of all tariff revenue collected at three Northern ports? If the South was consuming it all then why didn't it go directly to the Southern ports instead of being landed in Northern ones?
Then why was about 95 cents of every dollar of tariff revenue collected in Northern ports?
I think she needs to shed the flag,know what I mean....
Pure speculation and a total misrepresentation of the commentary. You are commenting on a point that was not being made, i.e. you are using red herrings.
The point of the sentence was that the ECONOMIC SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION SHOULD NOT BE DISTURBED. That was an appeal to the financial issues facing Southern states, not the issue of slavery in and of itself.
Do you have data that supports this conclusion?
Three pieces. The first are figures listed in "Lifeline of the Confederacy: Blockade Running During the Civil War" by Stephen Wise. In one of his appendix he lists the net amount of revenue collected at each Customs House and lists a Congressional report as his source. According to his figures, the total net tariff revenue from the 11 busiest Southern ports in the year prior to the rebellion was $2,855,496.15. The net tariff revenue from the three busiest Northern ports was $42,551,216.87. That almost a 20 to 1 margin and means that 94% of tariff revenue was collected in Northern ports.
Second figure is from Alexander Stephens' speech to the Georgia legislature where he notes that the North accounts for three quarters of all overseas business, but Southerners hold most of the foreign embassy's.
Finally there is Lincolns December 1864 annual message to Congress where he lists the tariff revenue for FY 1863 as $102,136,152.99. That is without Southern consumers and with the Morrill Tariff. If the South did consume almost all of imports prior to the rebellion
Taken all together it's clear that the overwhelming majority of imports prior to the rebellion were consumed by Northerners. A minimum of 75% and a maximum of 96%.
Absolute nonsense. Lincoln could not interfere with slavery where it existed and he knew that. Anyone with half a brain could see that. Ending slavery where it existed would require a Constitutional amendment, a total impossibility. But halting the expansion was something the government could do by challenging the Dred Scott decision and halting slavery in the territories. And Lincoln knew that, too.
The point of the sentence was that the ECONOMIC SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION SHOULD NOT BE DISTURBED
Now who's engaging in pure speculation and total misrepresentation?
The actual historical record shows five war ships plus three hired tug boats. The Baltic transported about 200 troops, and the Powhatan another 300 sailors, but neither landed at Fort Sumter.
Troop strength within Fort Sumter was effectively zero before Major Anderson moved there from nearby Fort Moultree on December 26, 1860 with around 100 troops.
Soon after, President Buchanan, who did not believe military force could be used to prevent Southern secession, sent a hired civilian ship Star of the West to Fort Sumter with supplies for Major Anderson.
The Southern forces then in Fort Moultree fired on the Star of the West and these were the first shots of the Civil War -- against an unarmed civilian ship attempting to supply Fort Sumter.
Of course, President "dough-face" Buchanan did nothing about it, but President Lincoln on April 6 notified South Carolina Governor Francis W. Pickens that:
"an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only, and that if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition will be made without further notice, [except] in case of an attack on the fort."
"In response, the Confederate cabinet, meeting in Montgomery, decided on April 9 to open fire on Fort Sumter in an attempt to force its surrender before the relief fleet arrived."
Point is this: the SIZE of the federal resupply force sent to Fort Sumter had nothing to do with it. The South had already fired on the unarmed civilian Star of the West sent by President Buchanan in January.
So, whether Lincoln had sent one ship or fifty wouldn't have mattered. The South was determined to prevent resupply of Fort Sumter, no matter what.
Bottom line: Beaureguard's firings on Fort Sumter on April 12 were not the first shots of the war. Firing on the Star of the West on January 9 were the first shots. And Lincoln in April was simply attempting to accomplish what Buchanan had failed at in January.
The South was committed to using military force against the North on January 9 -- just three weeks after South Carolina declared its secession, and in the face of a President Buchanan who declared he would use no military force to prevent secession.
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.