Posted on 06/09/2009 8:47:35 AM PDT by Davy Buck
My oh my, what would the critics, the Civil War publications, publishers, and bloggers do if it weren't for the bad boys of the Confederacy and those who study them and also those who wish to honor their ancestors who fought for the Confederacy?
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
http://books.google.com/books?id=9y4OAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA5-PA49&lpg=RA5-PA49&dq=fort+sumter+baltic+atlantic+lane&source=bl&ots=A51jNWXB3e&sig=vtLf-caZrA0i5FdJ1c1Up0WAl8Q&hl=en&ei=wZxQSunTC8GJtgeIpeSzBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1
And your source for that, that will refute both the Official Records, and Davis, and the US Naval Records?
instead of continuing to INFEST this site, why not prance over to DAILY KOOKS, with "your buddy","DUH,snake", where the two of you HATERS will be STARS. FYI, the KOOKS also HATE the southland & southerners, so you'll feel right at home.
free dixie,sw
You have been laying out that deceptive bunny path for years, and is irrelevant to this string.
face it "Bro", you have a "non starter" there, that is NEITHER truthful nor logical. instead, it is simply FOOLISH & UN-educated.
had ANY of the original states believed that "once in, never out" was the rule, NONE of the 13 states would have joined that (highly experimental) union.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
Let's examine your three examples for the truth.
Your first point from Wise's book insinuates that the majority of tariff dollars was collected in Northern ports. That is collection data that would represent the shipping patterns, but does not support any contention about secession disrupted flow.
And your post does not provide any explanation about the relevancy.
Point 1......irrelevant.
Point 2.....must be a mispost. It makes no sense. There is no conclusion to your assertion.
Point 3.....The 1863 data you report is misleading at best. That is wartime imports and has no relationship with peacetime trade.
In summary, all nonsense.
Let me say again: The point of the sentence was that the ECONOMIC SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION SHOULD NOT BE DISTURBED
inasmuch as there was NO Confederate Navy in WWII, you look (once more) really clue-LESS, DIS-honest & STUPID.
actually any number of people have seen & "heard of" the book in question (i believe even your buddy, "bubba, the LIAR", has stopped denying its existence, as the book was REVIEWED in at least FOUR major publications.). - in order to DENY that there is such a book as YACHTS AGAINST SUBS, you must believe that MOTORBOATING & SAILING, YACHTING, THE RUDDER & THE SAN ANTONIO LIGHT SUNDAY MAGAZINE conspired to FOOL their own subscribers. (would you care to defend THAT position, "DUH,snake?? - PLEASE try, as we all need yet another belly-laugh at YOUR expense.)
laughing AT you.
free dixie,sw
I thought as much. Never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Never squander a chance to crawl up out of your cesspool and try to slime someone. Squat2pee, you witless baboon, on your best day there wasn’t a trollish lefty, much less an honorable FReeper who couldn’t figuratively kick your pathetic azz on these pages.
Ordinarily I would be embarrassed for you. But since you are so willful in your ignorance and obdurate nature I feel nothing for you but disgust.
Now, go practice your shift-key exercises some more...
fact it, "rockrr", you are a SICK JOKE to every DECENT person on FR.
free dixie,sw
But Stand that was your claim for what at least five years?
That the confederate navy capture a U boat with a pleasure cruiser and that said U Boat was on display in Galveston Texas.
Are you saying that you or someone else made the whole thing up?
Or that you only now discovered that it was a piece of fiction you read
The intersection of truth and Stand Watie is purely coincidental and unintended.
http://civilwartalk.com/Resource_Center/Arms_and_Ordnance/Famous_Weapons/famous-weapons-the-last-shot-gun-from-appomattox-court-house-a87.html
If one assumes that cannon fire brings about war, then Vicksburg is the location of the first shot.
But why assume that cannon fire alone starts a war.
How about rifle fire?
Well then, the Union troops in Pensacola would have been the first to fire in the war.
You were right.
As long as you have been doing this with me, hasn’t he always claimed that it was the Confederate navy that Captured a U Boat on display in Galveston TX with a yacht of all things?
And that it was written about in some article called “Yachts against Subs”?
Now he is trying to say that I made it all up...
He is becoming unglued.
How CAN you DECIPHER what HE is CLAIMING at ANY particular MOMENT?!
Actually I think Bubba might be in a better position to answer your question. I stopped paying attention to Squat2pee’s posts when I saw that he was an idiot-savant at content-less posting.
You know what I wish I still had?
The list of all the claims that Stand has made over the years.
It was hilarious.
I would post it on this thread and have a fourth of july fireworks session coming out of his head the likes of which would rivals New York’s best.
Although most states had not officially seceded, it was almost certain those states were going out of the Union. Forts and armories were taken by those states to prevent them being used against the states in case they did secede and to prevent them from being taken by mobs of Southerners. States have a basic right to protect their state and their people. In some cases receipts were given to the Feds for arms and equipment taken.
Northern actions had already pushed Southerners over the edge. John Brown's raid to incite a slave rebellion had been widely praised by Northerners. Abolitionists burned cities in Texas and fomented slave rebellion in the summer of 1860. Basically, parts of Dallas, Denton, Pilot Point, Belknap, Gainesville, Black-jack Grove, Kaufman, Navarro, Waxahachie, Henderson, Jefferson, Tyler, Georgetown, Bright Star, and Austin either burned or suffered arson attacks that were thwarted. Many of these attacks happened on the same day. A number of the arsonists were caught and confessed.
These actions matched what abolitionist groups had been proposing be done to the South. On December 14, 1859 on the floor of the House, Clement Vallandigham read the contents of an antislavery circular that had been "extensively circulated throughout the northern, western, and southern States of this Union, and which contains the plans of associations to be formed for the purpose of carrying on armed hostilities against a portion of this Confederacy." Among the circular’s contents:
Our plan is –
1. To make war (openly or secretly, as circumstances may dictate,) upon the property of the slaveholders and their abettors – not for its destruction, if that can be easily avoided, but to convert it to the use of the slaves. If it cannot be converted, then we advise its destruction. Teach the slaves to burn their master’s buildings, to kill their cattle and horses, to conceal or destroy farming utensils, to abandon labor in seed-time and harvest, and let crops perish. Make slavery unprofitable in this way if it can be done in no other.
That's exactly what happened in Texas in the summer of 1860.
Obviously, the South WAS in rebellion even before it seceded, and was determined to use military force in situations where the Founding Fathers had spent years in patient negotiations, after the war, to remove British forces from the United States.
The South had spent far more years than that arguing peaceably that the personal liberty laws of many Northern states violated the Constitution with respect to the return of fugitive slaves. Here is what some distinguished Massachusetts lawyers said about their personal liberty laws (From the Philadelphia Public Ledger of December 20, 1860; my bold font below):
THE CITIZENS OF MASSACHUSETTS AND THE PERSONAL LIBERTY BILLS
Chief Justice Shaw, B. R. Curtis, Joel Parker, and other citizens of Massachusetts equally distinguished, have addressed a letter to the people of that State on the Personal Liberty Bills, which they declare to be unconstitutional. They urge strongly the repeal of them and say:
... We would repeal them under our own love of right; under our own sense of sacredness of compacts; ...
... we firmly believe that the men from whom the worst consequences to our country and ourselves are likely to proceed, have no wish that these laws should be repealed, and no disposition to use any threats in reference to them. On the contrary, they desire to have them stand as conspicuous and palpable breaches of the national compact by ourselves ...
Shaw was Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Curtis was a former Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court who resigned in protest of the Dred Scott decision. Parker was professor of constitutional law at Harvard and former Chief Justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
Here is one example of appeal to the court system against this Northern nullification of the Constitution. From Prigg v. Pennsylvania (SCOTUS, 1842; my bold again):
The clause manifestly contemplates the existence of a positive, unqualified right on the part of the owner of the slave, which no state law or regulation can in any way qualify, regulate, control or restrain. The slave is not to be discharged from service or labor, in consequence of any state law or regulation. Now certainly, without indulging in any nicety of criticism upon words, it may be fairly said, that any state law or state regulation which interrupts, limits, delays, or postpones the right of the owner of the slave to the immediate possession of the slave, and the immediate command of his service and labor, operates, pro tanto, a discharge of the slave therefrom.
Northern States kept flaunting the Constitution. The last fugitive slave returned from Massachusetts was in 1854 and large numbers of them were living openly in some communities in the North. A thousand fugitive slaves living openly in Chicago left for Canada when the Lincoln administration started enforcing the fugitive slave law there in early April 1861.
Once Southern states started seceding, several Northern states amended or repealed their personal liberty laws. But it was too late. The years of nullification of the Constitution by Northern states had tilted the scale toward secession.
I have seen nothing to make me believe otherwise.
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.