Targeting Lost Causers

Old Virginia Blog ^ | 06/09/2009 | Richard Williams

[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?

[stand watie]

almost EVERYONE who has been here on TWBTS threads remembers that you tried to drag my teen-aged niece into your conspiracy theory. (of course, you weren't smart enough to KNOW her real last name, so you "made one up" for her & thereby simply looked FOOLISH, especially to those who have met "Tara" at FReeps,GOP fundraisers, "tea parties" & SAS rallies.)

given your post #1188, i presume that you now, finally, ADMIT that the book does, in fact, EXIST & that you tried to buy a copy of it.

you cannot have it BOTH ways. TRYING (that you claim you attempted) to buy a book, that you CLAIM does NOT exist, makes you look SILLY, as well as DISHONEST.

laughing AT you, LIAR. (after incidents like that one,do you REALLY wonder why you are ridiculed behind your back???)

free dixie,sw

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

given your post #1188, i presume that you now, finally, ADMIT that the book does, in fact, EXIST & that you tried to buy a copy of it.

If only. What I assumed at the time, given how you loudly trotted onto the boards and told everyone how a Craigslist posting from Providence, Rhode Island that you'd just happened to come across PROVED that the book existed just at the same time we'd been discussing the matter here, was that you'd taken advantage of CL's lack of verification to put it up yourself. I figured it was probably a hoax on your part. Given what followed--the book sold, a story almost identical to one you'd told in the past (the nice stranger who pays the starving student's entire debt in return for the item) and that it was signed by a combination of names you've used in the past--I wasn't disappointed.

you cannot have it BOTH ways. TRYING (that you claim you attempted) to buy a book, that you CLAIM does NOT exist, makes you look SILLY, as well as DISHONEST.

Not really. If someone offered a unicorn for sale and I said, "I'm interested, show me the unicorn," only to have the seller make up a story like, "Oh, sorry, the unicorn escaped" doesn't mean I ever believed they had a unicorn. It means I called their bluff.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

By the way, do you still maintain that the “Motor Boating and Sailing” article was a review of the book? Because I can post the article again for everyone to read.

[rockrr]

Maybe it would, and maybe it wouldn't (I like to think that I provide a nice counter-balance to your lunacy). What are you going to do about it?

The answer is wet your panties and then whine about it...

[stand watie]

just out of curiosity, do you REALLY believe that ANYBODY here believes you on ANY subject???

IF you DO, you are as much to be pitied as despised as FR's most notorious LIAR, as you are out of touch with the REALITY that everyone else perceives.

laughing AT you, as MOST FReepers do.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

"Motorboating & Sailing" posted an article, which was a "condensation of" a portion of the book AND a regular review as well.

frankly, i think you are bright enough to KNOW the difference in the TWO things, BUT you are HOPING that at least a FEW of our readers are FOOLED. (sadly, for YOU, most FReepers on these threads are "wise to your tricks" & CONSTANT, KNOWING, LIES.)

further, your REPUTATION is that of a CLUMSY, "not overly clever", SERIAL LIAR & nothing more than that.

laughing AT you.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

the ONLY thing that you "counterbalance" is the general DECENCY, honor & cleverness of most other FReepers.

haven't you figured out that BIGOTS, DUNCES & HATERS like you are DESPISED & RIDICULED by most FReepers???

free dixie,sw

[rockrr]

Squat2pee, haven’t you figured out by now that you don’t speak for “most FReepers”? Much to the contrary, you’re quite a ways out on the fringe of opinion.

It’s so pathetic when you make those pleas “to ALL” ... because you’re too dimwitted to recognize that no one cares. They don’t care what I say, and they don’t care what you say. Haven’t you noticed that on one here ever comes to your defense? That not only the southerners, but even the other Lost Causers give you wide berth? And more than a few make jokes at your expense. Why do you think that is?

You’re never gonna win this Squat2pee. You’ve slandered too many decent folks. You’ve uttered a thousand imbecilities, and more than your fair share of lies. You go way beyond the bounds of decency to the point where the only thing you do at FreeRepublic is post a few inanities on this thread against your perceived enemies.

Why do you suppose everyone is against you Squat2pee? How is it that you could have racked up so many foes? Could it be your sunny disposition? Your general effervescence? Maybe it’s the way you sweet-talk all us ferigners.

Or maybe it is that you carry around a chip on your shoulder that’s bigger than your whole head. Perhaps it is the bigotry that you show anyone with a different experience or point of view. Or maybe it’s the fact that you were dropped on your head as a child too many times. I don’t know and I don’t care.

You’re a bitter old loser Squat2pee - not just a Lost Cause Loser, but a loser as a southerner, a gentleman, and a man. You’ve got nothing going for you and it’s only going to get worse.

You would be pitiable if you weren’t so disgusting.

[BroJoeK]

"Although most states had not officially seceded, it was almost certain those states were going out of the Union.

And do you claim that "almost certain" makes "rebellion," "insurrection" and "domestic violence" against federal property and people somehow legal? Does "almost certain" turn federal property magically into state property? I don't think so.

"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.

I've never seen where "mobs of Southerners" were EVER used as the excuse for these seizures -- what is your source?

Your other reason -- "prevent them being used" by the North -- was certainly the reason given, but how is that reason legal? Federal property and people were still federal, and violence against them was still rebellion, insurrection and/or "domestic violence."

"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."

And those "receipts" were worth what? And states have a basic right to what? To assault and confiscate nearly unmanned FEDERAL forts? Which law says that?

"Northern actions had already pushed Southerners over the edge."

Nonsense. The South was content to work through normal politics under Southern sympathizer President Buchanan. Indeed the real issue in the 1860 election had nothing to do with ABOLISHING slavery -- instead it was Senator Jefferson Davis' resolution of February to defend slavery in the states & territories, and also guarantee returns of fugitive slaves from Northern states. Naturally, Candidate Lincoln opposed Senator Davis' resolution.

"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."

Your argument that "personal liberty laws" somehow violate the Constitution has to be utterly insane, and I challenge you to seriously defend it, here on FREE REPUBLIC!

"Northern States kept flaunting the Constitution."

And you can cite Constitutional language to prove this claim?

[BroJoeK]

"It seems that the war college at West Point believes that the first shot was fired in Vicksburg, several days before Ft. Sumter. "

From Fredriksen Civil War Almanac

Selected events:

November 7, 1860: "Defiant authorities in Charleston, South Carolina, take umbrage over Abraham Lincoln's recent victory; they raise the traditional Palmetto flag over the city and detain a US officer caught in the act of transferring military supplies from the Charleston arsenal to Fort Moultrie."

November 10: "The South Carolina legislature reacts to Abraham Lincoln's victory by authorizing a convention to contemplate secession from the Union..."

November 13: "The South Carolina legislature authorizes raising 10,000 volunteers to defend the state from a possible invasion by US forces."

November 18: "The Georgia legislature, following South Carolina's lead, procures $1 million to purchase arms and begin to train troops."

November 20: "President Buchanan is advised by Attorney General Jeremiah S. Black of his obligation to protect public property from illegal seizure and of the necessity of refraining from military force unless violence is initiated by the secessionists. He further counseled not to wage offensive warfare against rebellious states but rather to rely on the courts to uphold the law."

December 4: "President James Buchanan makes his final State of the Union message to Congress, noting with trepidation that different sections of the Union were "now arrayed against each other." He attributes the mounting crisis to the machinations of free states, and he questions the constitutionality of using military force to interfere with secession. Buchanan nonetheless opposes secession, despite his strong sympathies for the South."

December 5: "President-elect Abraham Lincoln strongly rebukes President James Buchanan's recent State of the Union address."

December 6: "The House of Representatives appoints the Committee of Thirty Three, with one member representing each state, to discuss the present crisis and to suggest possible solutions."

December 10: "A delegation of South Carolinians meets with President James Buchanan in Washington, DC, assuring him that US troops and installations will not be disturbed in the event of secession. The president remains unconvinced and begins to mobilize military resources for action. Buchanan continues wrestling with the issue of dispatching reinforcements to the South, however.

December 12: "The Committee of Thirty-Three, meeting in the US House of Representatives, concocts more than 30 well-intentioned suggestions for avoiding war and secession -- none of which prove viable.

December 13: "President James Buchanan declines to send reinforcements to Fort Sumter, South Carolina, despite the urging of several cabinet members.

December 17: "The secession convention convenes in Columbia, South Carolina.

"Attorney General Jeremiah S. Black, a close confidant of President James Buchanan, is appointed as temporary secretary of state to succeed Lewis Cass. However, Black cannot prevail on Buchanan to reinforce the threatened posts [Federal Forts in the South]; the president is convinced that the Southern polity will be more pliable if new troops are withheld.

December 18: "In an attempt to stave off violence and conciliate Southerners, Senator John J. Crittenden of Kentucky promulgates the Crittenden Compromise, restricting slavery to the boundaries of the old Missouri Compromise (1819) and extending that line across the continent. Slavery is thus kept out of northern territories but otherwise the "peculiar institution" is left intact. Significantly, President-elect Abraham Lincoln opposes the measure."

December 19: "Delegates to the South Carolina Convention declare that no Federal soldiers can be sent to the forts in Charleston Harbor."

December 20: "The South Carolina State Convention meeting at Charleston votes 169 to 0 -- unanimously -- to secede from the United States, declaring all prior associations with that entity null and void. This single act sets in motion a chain of events culminating in a mammoth military confrontation between North and south. Charleston's inhabitants nonetheless slip into near-delirious celebrations.

December 22: "The South Carolina State Convention demands that the Federal Government yield control of Fort Moultree, Fort Sumter, and the US arsenal in Charleston to state authorities. Three commissioners are then dispatched to Washington, DC, to reiterate those demands.

December 24: "Governor Francis W. Pickens of South Carolina declares his state free and independent from the United States, consistent with the "Declaration of Immediate Causes" issued by the convention.

December 26: "Major Robert Anderson, commanding the Union garrison at Fort Moultree, South Carolina, remains cognizant of the dangers to his command. Henceforth, under the cover of darkness, he surreptitiously transfers soldiers from the mainland to the more defensible position at nearby Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor..."

December 27: "President James Buchanan expresses his surprise and regrets to Southern congressmen that the garrison of Charleston shifted itself to Fort Sumter, but he declines ordering them back to the mainland.

"South Carolina state forces occupy Fort Moultrie and Castle Pinckney in Charleston Harbor. This constitutes the first overt act of military agression against the US government.

"South Carolina forces seize the US revenue cutter William Aiken in Charleston Harbor.

December 28: "A South Carolina delegation arrives in Washington, DC, demanding that President James Buchanan transfer all Federal troops from Charleston. He receives them only as private citizens and again declines all demands for removing US troops. Meanwhile, General in Chief Winfield Scott opposes abandoning the fort and urges Secretary of War John B. Floyd to dispatch immediate supplies and reinforcements.

December 29: "President James Buchanan requests and receives the resignation of Secretary of War John B. Floyd after Floyd insists on removing Federal forces from Charleston, South Carolina, and the president declines."

December 30: "Continuing seizure of Federal property by South Carolina authorities prompts threats of additional resignations from President James Buchanan's cabinet if he fails to take more forceful action.

"The US arsenal at Charleston, South Carolina, is seized by state forces. They also occupy all remaining Federal property in the city save one -- Fort Sumter in the harbor."

December 31: "...President James Buchanan refuses another demand by South Carolina commissioners to withdraw Federal troops from Charleston. Upon repeated insistence by Secretary of State Jeremiah S. Black, he finally and reluctantly orders the army and navy departments to mobilize troops and ships for the relief of Fort Sumter. Lines are being drawn inexorably in the sand and will have to be crossed soon.

"The Senate Committee of Thirteen fails to reach agreement on any possible political solutions, including the so-called "Crittenden Compromise."

So ends 1860 -- two months before Lincoln became President. In this time the South has begun to mobilize and threaten military force against Federal property, even before seceding.

Within a week of South Carolina's secession, it committed overt military aggression against Federal forts and against the federal revenue cutter William Aiken.

[BroJoeK]

"This site says there were two men at Fort Pulaski at the time the Georgia militia took it over on January 3"

And by what legal definition was Fort Pulaski (with those two men) not federal property on January 3?

In what legal definition was this not an act of rebellion, insurrection or "domestic violence"?

[BroJoeK]

"in other words, the war against the southern states was UN-Constitutional. period. end of story."

What is certainly unconstitutional is rebellion, insurrection and "domestic violence" against the United States -- all of which Southerners committed in abundance.

[BroJoeK]

"What good is personal freedom without economic freedom? "

And so what is more likely to increase your "economic freedom" -- b*tching about the Civil War, or talking to your neighbors about voting conservative again?

[PeaRidge]

You said: "But shows your claim that the South consumed the majority of all imports to be impossible." As you have been told before, point of landing of imports, point of tariff payment, and point of final consumption are all different variables and are generally not dependent. So, your point, again, is irrelevant.

[PeaRidge]

What does point of collection have to do with consumption?

[PeaRidge]

You said: "If $19 out of every $20 of tariff revenue was generated by Northern consumers then how could the South's secession break that?"

Point of initial payment tells nothing about location of final consumption. Any figure you draw from collection points is nonsense.

You said: "It may reduce it slightly. It may cause some budget shortfalls. But the revenue stream would continue, with or without the South's exports.

That is nonsense and not the issue. The point is that without southern cotton financing the imports, then the North would have to be paying tariffs in either specie or credit notes. There was not enough specie in Northern banks to pay for one eighth of the annual tariff fees on imports.

The problem was not only the with drawl of the southern consumers as a primary market for northern manufactures and reexport of European goods, but also the fact that the North would have to find other ways to pay for their imports.

You said: "As the FY1863 figures showed; without the South providing anything close to pre-rebellion export levels the U.S. still imported enough to generate $103 million in tariffs.

Your data is incorrect. According to the "Statistical Abstract of the United States Government" for year 1863, there were only $63.7 million collected.

But that data is misleading since by 1863 the Morrill Tariff had doubled the tax rates. Therefore, the amount of tariff paid in 1863, unless corrected in rate change, does not provide any meaningful data on the amounts imported, as you insinuated in the incorrect data that you gave.

You said: "So that's why one can easily show that your claim that the South's secession broke the revenue stream is complete nonsense.

According to the "Statistical Abstracts", the dutiable imports dropped by over 55% between 1860 and 1862. That should make the point clear that the revenues were down when the debt of the US Treasury was climbing at a remarkable rate.

"And why the three pieces of evidence I gave supports this.

Your "three pieces of evidence were total nonsense. It seems as if you failed to read you own incomplete sentences in that post.

[PeaRidge]

You quoted Lincoln's inauguration speech: "...but beyond what may be necessary for these objects (collect tariffs), there will be no invasion,..."

That was on March 4, 1861.

Four days later, the US Congress adjourned.

The next day, Mr. Lincoln invited the Cabinet to begin planning the invasion of Ft. Sumter and Pensacola.

Mr. Lincoln's statesman like efforts for peace lasted for 5 days.

[Non-Sequitur]

What does point of collection have to do with consumption?

Common sense. Tariffs are collected where the goods are landed. If the South was consuming the overwhelming majority of imported goods then why weren't those goods landed where the consumers were, in Charleston or Mobile or New Orleans? Why were they landed at New York and Boston and Philadelphia?

[Non-Sequitur]

As you have been told before, point of landing of imports, point of tariff payment, and point of final consumption are all different variables and are generally not dependent. So, your point, again, is irrelevant.

And as you have been told before, all that is nonsense. Point of landing and point of tariff payment are the same, and point of consumption should be closely aligned with point of landing. So your statement, once again, is nonsense.

[PeaRidge]

When I plainly asked who paid for the fleet of Union and private ships that sailed south, you said in post #1126:

What do you mean 'who paid for it'? The federal government, of course. The budgets for the Navy Department and the War Department covered it. You want to imply that Lincoln violated the Constitution by appropriating money for the resupply effort instead of Congress. Such an implication is too ludicrous to deserve a reasonable answer.

I am not implying anything. I am stating fact.

According to several sources there were not enough funds in the Navy Department budget to finance the operation, but that did not stop Lincoln.

(Meigs, "Meigs on Civil War", 301; Crawford, "Genesis", 411-412; Basler, "Lincoln", 4:320; and the ORN, 4:108-09.)

"Money was needed to prepare and finance the expedition, and Congress had provided no secret service funds for the military.

"Seward's department (State) alone did have extra funds. With Lincoln's consent, he got $10,000 in coin from State, carried it home, and gave it to Meigs (Captain Montgomery C. Meigs) for his work."

Meigs then traveled to New York, and with Gustavus Fox, engaged and paid for civilian shipping to move troops and supplies south.

He clearly instructed a Cabinet member to remove cash from a non-military department, secretly move it to private hands, and directed it to be spent on an unauthorized and clandestine military operation against the South.

I am not implying that Lincoln violated the Constitution. I am giving you the evidence that he did.