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 ...
It was a conflict of state authority versus federal authority, and it was an action against the threat of coercion by the federal government as my earlier Harper's Weekly link about Georgia indicated. State officials would be avoiding their responsibility if they did not protect their state from coercive threats by the federal government. As Alexander Hamilton said in the New York Ratification Convention:
It has been well observed, that to coerce the States is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised. A failure of compliance will never be confined to a single State. This being the case, can we suppose it wise to hazard a civil war? Suppose Massachusetts or any large State should refuse, and Congress should attempt to compel them, would not they have influence to procure assistance, especially from those States which are in the same situation as themselves? What picture does this present to our view? A complying State at war with a non-complying State; Congress marching the troops of one State into the bosom of another; this State collecting auxiliaries, and forming, perhaps, a majority against its federal head. Here is a nation at war with itself! Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards a Government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself -- a Government that can exist only by the sword? Every such war must involve the innocent with the guilty. This single consideration should be sufficient to dispose every peaceable citizen against such a Government.
Lincoln’s call for troops to coerce the South led to four more states seceding.
I've never seen where "mobs of Southerners" were EVER used as the excuse for these seizures -- what is your source?
Here below is a description of the first occasion where I became aware of this. I don't remember where I ran across it originally, but this excerpt from a Wikipedia article captures the possibility of a clash between a citizen army that sprung up and the federal troops guarding an armory. The governor stepped in to prevent the clash. My bold below.
On January 28 then Governor Henry Massey Rector informed Captain Totten that he and his soldiers would be "permitted to remain in the possession of the Federal officers until the State, by authority of the people, shall have determined to sever their connection with the General Government," Totten responded to this by telling the Governor that his orders came from the United States Government and began a desperate but ultimately futile dispatch of letters and telegrams asking for reinforcements, although rumors were widely spread that they were already coming. The first telegraph wire to span between Little Rock and Memphis had recently been completed. Local attorney John Harrel was asked to compose the first telegraph dispatched from Arkansas's capital. In his message, Harrel reported unconfirmed rumors that more federal troops had been sent to reinforce the Little Rock Arsenal.[4]
The United States troops at the outposts of the western frontier of the state and in the Indian nation have all been recalled from winter quarters to reinforce the garrison at Fort Smith. The garrison at Fort Smith had been previously transferred to the United States Arsenal in this city (Little Rock). The arsenal is one of the richest depositories of military stores in the United States and is supposed to be the ultimate destination of the tropps[sic]ordered from the frontier.[4]The item was intended simply as a piece of news, but telegraph lines quickly spread the news through out the state, fueling procession sentiment. The rumor was interpreted by some Arkansans as a call from the governor to assemble to help expel the federal troops from the arsenal. By February 5, six militia units, consisting of 1,000 men, with a guarantee that the numbers could be increased to 5,000 if the situations deemed it necessary, had assembled in Little Rock. Governor Rector vehemently denied ordering the troops to assemble or giving any order at all in connection with the troops. Faced with the fact that the military had assembled believing they were following his orders and the consensus of the citizens of Little Rock against any armed conflict between the civilian army and federal troops, Governor Rector was forced to take control of the situation.[4] On February 6, he sent a formal demand for surrender of the arsenal to Captain Totten,
-John Harrel Telegram, January 31, 1861
This movement is prompted by the feeling that pervades the citizens of this State that in the present emergency the arms and munitions of war in the Arsenal should be under the control of the State authorities, in order to their security. This movement, although not authorized by me, has assumed such an aspect that it becomes my duty, as the executive of this State, to interpose my official authority to prevent a collision between the people of the State and the Federal troops under your command. I therefore demand in the name of the State the delivery of the possession of the Arsenal and munitions of war under your charge to the State authorities, to be held subject to the action of the convention to be held on the 4th of March next.[4]
Perhaps because Abraham Lincoln had not yet been inaugurated as President, Captain Totten received no instructions from his superiors and was forced to withdraw his troops. He agreed to surrender the arsenal as long as the governor agreed to three provisions:
The governor would take possession of the arsenal in the name of the United States.
The soldiers would be allowed safe passage in any direction carrying any personal and public property besides munitions of war.
The soldiers would be allowed to march away as men leaving under orders, not as conquered and surrendering soldiers.
On the morning of February 8, 1861, Rector and Totten signed an agreement placing the arsenal in the hands of state officials. That afternoon, the citizen militia marched to the arsenal with Governor Rector at its head. All of the federal troops had left at this point, except Totten who had stayed behind to listen to the Governor's speech and to hand the arsenal over in person.
Here's another mention of citizens versus potential future federal troops that was averted by the state seizing the fort. My NPS link above said in part (my bold and underline and red below):
For their own safety, therefore, the people of Savannah determined to seize Fort Pulaski before the Federal Government had time to send a garrison to defend it.
Military men in Savannah realized the gravity of taking so serious a step toward revolution as, no doubt, did thoughtful civilians, but the popular spirit of the mob had been stirred to the point of spontaneous action.
The governor took control of the situation so that a mob didn't. Further from that NPS link I posted:
On that same evening, Maj. Robert Anderson, in command of the United States troops stationed in Charleston Harbor, moved his small garrison from an insecure position at Fort Moultrie on Sullivan's Island, to Fort Sumter, a strong fortification in the middle of the harbor. This unexpected move enraged not only the people of Charleston, but of all the slave-holding States. President James Buchanan, it was understood, had assured the Government of South Carolina that no change in the status of the United States forces at Charleston would be made until the difficulties between the State and Federal Governments had been settled. Major Anderson, however, fearing that an attack was imminent, evacuated Fort Moultrie with great secrecy, spiked the cannons and burned most of the gun carriages.
So, I gather you feel it was OK for a US army major to make a move to increase the safety of his troops from possible future actions against them, but not for Southern governors to make moves that protect their state and citizens from potential actions of federal troops against them. The first bunch of Anderson's troops snuck across to Fort Sumter at dusk to avoid the patrol boat, and the rest of them overpowered a schooner captain and hijacked his ship to take their supplies over to Sumter. Pirates, those Anderson troops! They basically lit the powder keg.
More later. It's been fun, but I'm gone for the rest of the day. Sorry.
How do you invade your own forts located in your own cities?
Nonsense is believing the two are unrelated.
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.
Then how did the North pay for enough imports to generate $102 million in tariff revenue in FY 1863?
Your data is incorrect. According to the "Statistical Abstract of the United States Government" for year 1863, there were only $63.7 million collected.
"Deduct from these amounts the amount of the principal of the public debt redeemed and the amount of issues in substitution therefor, and the actual cash operations of the Treasury were: Receipts, $884,076,646.57; disbursements, $865,234,087.86; which leaves a cash balance in the Treasury of $18,842,558.71.
Of the receipts there were derived from customs $102,316,152.99, from lands $588,333.29. from direct taxes $475,648.96, from internal revenue $109,741,134.10, from miscellaneous sources $47,511,448.10, and from loans applied to actual expenditures, including former balance, $623,443,929.13." -- Lincoln Message to Congress, December 1864 Link
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.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the purpose of a protective tariff is to discourage imports and direct consumers to domestic goods. So the Morrill Tariff should have reduced imports, not increased them.
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.
You don't suppose the rebellion had anything to do with that, do you?
Oh, and the fiscal year back then was from June to May. So when Lincoln reported the $102 million in December that was the time frame he was talking about. And it is also a figure reported by the Statistical Abstract under 1864. Better than 1865 when the amount dropped to $84 million, but not as good as 1866 when it exceeded $170 million. And all withough your Southern consumers.
And how does that violate the Constitution? What clause?
Oh, now you’re just toying with him...;’}
Actually the Fiscal Year was July through June. My bad.
"And how does that violate the Constitution?"
You yourself stated the answer to your own question... that:
" 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.
So are you going to give us another answer as to why Lincoln was taking and spending money that he did not have the right to do?
Even we insane people are right sometimes.
Nicolay and Hay, Lincoln’s personal secretaries and no friends of the South, in Volume 3 of their book Abraham Lincoln, A History noted that a December 11, 1860, "careful analysis and review of all Northern personal liberty bills" by the National Intelligencer found that the personal liberty laws of Vermont, Massachusetts, Michigan and Wisconsin were unconstitutional. Nicolay and Hay also say the National Intelligencer "certainly could not be accused of a desire to misrepresent either the North or the South." [Source: Nicolay and Hay]
From that National Intelligencer article as quoted by Nicolai and Hay:
"But all laws interfering with the exercise of the powers conferred by Congress under the fugitive-slave law of 1850, as is the case with the laws of Vermont, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Wisconsin are unconstitutional, and, as such, are null and void."
I found the following in researching the personal liberty laws of the period:
The Vermont and Massachusetts laws made it illegal for a citizen to execute or help execute the fugitive slave act or to arrest a fugitive slave under penalty of one year in jail or $1,000 fine. In Massachusetts it was illegal to assist someone in arresting a fugitive slave.
The fugitive slave act was judged constitutional by the US Supreme Court. In other words, in Vermont and Massachusetts you could be imprisoned for assisting in the execution of a constitutional US law or the arrest of a fugitive slave. Slaves brought into Vermont were also declared to be free.
Massachusetts law made it more expensive than a slave was worth to have the slave returned. Wisconsin forbad the enforcement of a judgment for violation of the constitutional fugitive slave act. The Michigan legislature declared that their law "was designed to and if faithfully executed will prevent the delivering up of fugitive slaves" [from the Detroit Free Press quoted in the March 2, 1861, issue of the State Gazette of Austin, Texas].
Look at the above restrictions in light of the earlier Prigg v Pennsylvania ruling of the US Supreme Court. Did the restrictions above discharge the slave from service or labor or interrupt, limit, delay, or postpone the right of the owner of the slave to the immediate possession of the slave, and the immediate command of his service and labor? If so, then those state personal liberty laws violated the Constitution.
Violation of the Constitution by a state is not one of the "states rights." States rights refers to those powers and rights not given to the federal government, prohibited the states, or specified in the Constitution. The right of a state to pass laws that violate a clause in the Constitution agreed to by all states (Article IV, Section 2) is not a "states right."
I trust that the Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court who resigned the Court over the Dred Scott decision, the Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, and the professor of constitutional law at Harvard who was the former Chief Justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court had pretty good insight into whether the Massachusetts law was unconstitutional. If you can show that they were wrong, please do so. Similarly, if you can show that the analysts of the National Intelligencer quoted by Lincoln's secretaries were wrong, I’d be interested.
I have said on these threads that I think the problem of escaped slaves would probably get worse for the South if they successfully seceded. Slaves could then escape to a separate slave-free Northern country right across the border that would probably do away with the fugitive slave law. The return of escaped slaves in that case would probably have had to be negotiated by treaty. Some reports indicate that some 10,000 slaves, mostly from states next to the Mason-Dixon line, escaped in the decade before the WBTS. Less than a thousand (from my possibly faulty memory) were returned.
Stand I read the article, and have to say that it is nothing like you have claimed it was all these many years.
There was no U-boat captured and on display in Galveston, there was no texas or even a confederate navy and the most powerful weapon on any of these boats was a hunting rifle that was the sole property of one of the crew.
You ought to be horsewhipped for this charade that you have knowingly forced upon us all these years, frankly I am disgusted to think that a retired Army Officer could be so deranged as to actually continue to believe what had to be a fever dream of sorts in your complete and total misrepresentation of the original story.
Rather than tell the true story you concocted a fictitious account and dared everyone not to believe your rendering of a very real story about how unarmed sailboats played an important role in WWII protecting or coastlines.
It’s really sad to think about.
Don’t bother going off on me, I’ve decided that you are better off ignored that way people won’t think I know you.
The Constitution says that only Congress can appropriate money. It doesn't say Congress has to approve every expenditure. Or maybe it does, can you show me where?
So are you going to give us another answer as to why Lincoln was taking and spending money that he did not have the right to do?
No, because Lincoln and Seward had the right to spend money appropriated by Congress for their budget as they saw fit.
Do you see any meaning in posting that data other than to 'look smart'. Of course the majority of cotton bales left Southern ports...it was grown in the South, dummy.
From where else would it leave...Bangor, Maine?
Here is the information, paragraph 2.
http://books.google.com/books?id=cnq4UO9YD5IC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA31&ots=AWFl7h6rYK&dq=powhatan+disguised+lincoln&ie=ISO-8859-1&output=html
"Your claims are all over the board and it's hard to keep up with them.
Not really. Just read instead of looking for opportunities to prove someone wrong .
You said:
"You post on link claiming 11 ships."
That is right. The History Channel link said that was the number that left New York area for the South.
You said:
"You post another showing only 8."
That is right. That is the number that was supposed to arrive in Charleston.
You said:
"You post 2,000 troops at one instance and a few hundred in another."
The History Channel poster was listing troops that were on ships leaving New York as well as the troops already on ships in Pensacola harbor.
I would be glad to name them for you and give you the troop count, but I am sure that would further confuse you, and then you would start posting on that subject and re-post again and again.......and well you know the drill.
"Common sense.
Common sense? Common sense did not run the tariff program, determine who and what amount was paid, or what was to be paid now, or later, and where the final tariff payment would be made.
No sir, not common sense, but Federal Treasury policy. You said:
"Tariffs are collected where the goods are landed."
Do you think that was always true. Then since you claim that most goods landed in New York, how many tariff houses were there besides New York or Philadelphia?
"If the South was consuming the overwhelming majority of imported goods."
You continue to try to make that point.
You are trying to reduce a complex issue to a slogan. You need more information.
From this source, Southern Wealth and Northern Profits by Thomas Prentice Kettell, published in 1860, the total figures for import consumption have been broken down, and the numbers for the distribution of imports to regions by consumption is simplified.
For 1859, calculations show Southern consumption of imports as $106,000,000, Western consumption as $63,000,000, and Northern consumption of imports as $149,000,000. Kettell bases the split among regions on Treasury figures from 1856.
Kettell also estimates that the North sent $240,000,000 in domestic goods to the South in 1859.
"And as you have been told before, all that is nonsense. Point of landing and point of tariff payment are the same.
You seem to rely on your own common sense, so let's reason this one out.
You would agree that tariffs are paid on foreign imports, wouldn't you?
You would agree that foreign imports are moved on board seagoing vessels, right?
According to the "Report of the Secretary of the Treasury for 1860", there were tariff collection houses in places like Oswego, New York; Camden, New Jersey; Augusta, Georgia; Fernandina, Fl; Sandusky, Ohio; Detroit, MI; Cairo, IL; Milwaukee, WI; Knoxville, TN; and many others.
So, if your statement of "Point of landing and point of tariff payment are the same" were true, then foreign imports were being direct shipped to places like Knoxville?
Can you explain that?
Likewise the majority of imports were landed in Northern ports...that's where the consumers were. Dummy.
So what happened to Klein? You posted his link and he only claims 8.
Common sense would say that goods would be brought to the port closest to where the consumers were. If the overwhelming majority of all imports were consumed by Southerners then they would be brought to Southern ports, where those consumers were. Instead they were landed in Northern ports.
Do you think that was always true. Then since you claim that most goods landed in New York, how many tariff houses were there besides New York or Philadelphia?
Yes, it is always true. Duties were collected where the goods were landed, and there were customs houses in any port where imports arrived. Charleston had one. New Orleans had one. Mobile, Galveston, Pensacola, Norfolk, even Richmond.
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.