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 ...
But once again I ask, what was the "Extreme Oppression: that justified secession in 1860?
By that logic, nothing he ever said before 1809 and after 1817 bear any weight either. Nor do anything Washington, Jefferson or any of the founders have to say when they were not in office and making public declarations.
But if you care to close your eyes to a not so private declaration from the man who was the most influential of the men who crafted the Constitution, please don't allow me to take the blinders off your eyes and your hands off your ears. Enjoy your myth.
But I have no doubt that if Mr. Madison were with us today, he would tell you your formula for anarchy (i.e. Unilateral Secession) has no place in the Constitution.
Madison had no use for either Democracy nor Anarchy. He belived in Liberty under Law.
I argue history, not moral platitudes. You sound as though you would have been one of the "laws higher than the Constitution" Republicans of the pre-war period. Would that we were all as perfect as you think you are.
I was once threatened with death for arguing as an adult in the Deep South in the 1950s that blacks should have the same rights as whites. Did you ever stick your neck out like that in such a place or such a time for the rights of others? If not, then I'd suggest you get down off your moral high horse.
I'll try to discuss history with you again to expand your understanding the period. Both fugitive slave laws were ruled to be constitutional by the Supreme Court. Lincoln said he would enforce the fugitive slave law. I assume you would not call him a Neo-Nazi.
In early April 1861, an Illinois commissioner friend of Lincoln's in Springfield, Illinois, issued a warrant and ruled that some fugitive slaves caught in Chicago, a sanctuary city for fugitive slaves, should be returned to their owners. I've always suspected that Abe was pulling strings behind the curtain to make this happen to show the South he would enforce the fugitive slave law and live up to his word. Previous presidents had left Chicago alone. When this happened, the fugitive slaves living in Chicago made a mad dash for Canada. See the following three short New York Times articles about it: Link1, Link2, and Link3
The book, The Slave Catchers, subtitled Enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law 1850-1860, by Stanley W. Campbell is a reasonably balanced book. The author points out on page 132 of the paperback version that "Because the federal courts did insist upon the supremacy of laws of the United States, these provisions of the personal liberty laws were ineffective in deterring enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law by officers of the federal government." I imagine the federal courts were using the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution to rule against the state laws, well intentioned though those state laws might be. Here is a reminder of what the Supremacy Clause is: Link4. In other words, once the federal commissioners got involved and started enforcing federal law, state laws that conflicted with it were moot and unconstitutional.
The war and the issues surrounding it are more than one dimensional. I encourage you to stick around and partake in the discussion.
Go back and check out your own post #1,128, and then my response on #1,130. We were reviewing those Federal forts seized by Southern states BEFORE secession. Here is the list again:
rustbucket: "Consider that forts and armories were being taken all over the South before the official secession of the states.
"- Jan 3rd - US Ft Pulaski & Ft Jackson, Savannah, seized by Georgia
Georgia seceded on January 19
"- Jan 4th - US Ft Morgan, Mobile, seized by Alabama
Alabama seceded on January 11
"- Jan 5th - Alabama troops seize Forts Morgan & Gaines at Mobile Bay
Alabama seceded on January 11
"- Jan 6th - Florida troops seize Federal arsenal at Apalachicola
Florida seceded on January 10
"- Jan 7th - Florida troops takeover Ft Marion at St Augustine
Florida seceded on January 10
"- Jan 10th - Ft Jackson & Ft Philip are taken over by LA state troops"
Louisiana seceded on January 26
This partial list includes 10 Federal forts, all minimally manned, seized by Southern states BEFORE their secession. So my argument here is as simple as possible: by definition these were acts of "rebellion," "insurrection" and/or "domestic violence," which the US Constitution empowers the Federal Government to defeat.
AFTER secession, then possibly certain claims could be made about the rights of states to defend themselves. However, Federal property and people should no more become automatically Confederate than, say, the property of citizens of France. Negotiations are required, compensation needs to be agreed to etc., etc.
OK so that's where Klein claims that the message was sent. What is Klein's source for that information? As I pointed out, Buchanan denies sending a message in his letter to the rebel delegation from South Carolina, there is nothing in the OR indicating a message was sent to Anderson and nothing indicating any sort of reply. Where did Klein find his evidence?
Your claim in post 1110. Among others of yours.
Then look it up yourself. Link
Customs revenue for 1864, which was FY1863, $102,316,152.99. As Lincoln said
I don't see where the Constitution requires Congressional approval for departmental expenditures.
Therein lies the Constitutional violation, but it would only be the first by that man.
Not at all.
Tariffs are paid at the point of delivery. Where they are landed and delivered. Always.
My question is, how could deep draft ocean transports land dutiable goods first at places like Augusta and Knoxville?
Ocean transports wouldn't, but there was a very active steamboat traffic on all the rivers.
And why would tariffs not be charged before transshipment?
You introduced the solution yourself. Goods landed in New Orleans and placed in bond, as the Warehousing Act allowed, would not be taxed until they were delivered. Be that New Orleans or Nashville. Have you forgotten the Warehousing Act to begin with? There were warehouses in New Orleans, since it was the busiest Southern port and the gateway to the midwest. Just nothing like the warehouses in New York.
And you still haven't mentioned exactly how much in the way of tariffs we're talking about.
Doesn't that seem inconsistent with your scheme of payment at the point of arrival, which, in your mind, means that the final consumer is standing there on the wharf in New York, waiting for his clock and stemware from England?
I'm not being inconsistent at all, you are. You brought up the Warehousing Act. The act, as I assume you know, allows for the delay of paying tariffs until delivery to the ultimate customer. Now if that customer is in Charleston then the tariff is paid when delivered to Charleston. If the customer is in New York, the tax is collected in New York. The fact that comparatively little was paid in Charleston and New Orleans is further proof that few imports were consumed by people in those areas.
According to the Mortimer Snerd of the Southron cause, that copy of Blackerby's book should be in any day now.
So where the hell is it?
I'm not doubting the authenticity of the quote, just the accuracy of the claims he's making.
Is that your claim? Or his?
Yes, in the North.
How the hell did you stumble to that conclusion? That is a complete misinterpretation of what I said. Point of entry is where they were landed and taxed. Upwards of 95% of those taxes were paid in Northern ports. If the goods had been landed in Southern ports then the tariff would have been paid there.
What you are suggesting is that the Northern importer brought the goods to New York, stored them in a warehouse, then brought them out of the warehouse, paid the tariff himself, put them on a ship, and sent them South for delivery. Wouldn't it be far more financially advantageous for him to take them from the warehouse back to the ship, send them South, deliver them to his customer, and let the customer pay the tariff? Even better, if the bulk of imports were destined for Southern consumers to begin with then wouldn't it be better to build those warehouses closer to where the customers actually were?
For several days, non-swquitur has persisted in trying to minimize Lincoln's responsibility in starting a shooting confrontation in Charleston Harbor.
He claims that Lincoln was insulated from blame because he sent an un-addressed, un-signed, scribbled message on plain paper to a senior government official, through a low level governmental operative, and expected that to suffice as an official warning. Had it not been for the New York newspapers, warning of military ships moving south, this "message" could be considered a forgery.
Despite repeated postings and links to the Official Records, he refused to admit that it was Lincoln himself that was requiring secrecy from the men he was using to start hostilities.
And just who were the men abetting Lincoln? Were they official military with authority? Were they known to Congress and openly given authority to engage in war preparations?
There was one Gustavus Fox...a retired low level officer who had been recommended to Lincoln by a cabinet member without military or command experience.
Then there was a naval lieutenant who was recommended to Lincoln because he was thought to be able to keep a secret.
These men were meeting with private citizens in New York City, in an attempt to get civilian shipping for the planned mission south.
Where was the money comimg from to pay these men? Well, non-sequitur just found out that the Navy department did not have Congressionally approved funds for this type of mission. ("Money was needed to prepare and finance the expedition, and Congress had provided no secret service funds for the military. Klein, "Days..." pg. 378)
So, what did Lincoln do? He sent Seward over to the offices of the State Department, where Seward then put $10,000 in his pocket and headed home.
Having money available to pay for some unapproved governmental action against the states was exactly why the Constitution reserved authorization of monetary expenditures to the full Congress, and not a President or some government official acting unilaterally.
Well, the money ended up in the pockets of a Lt. Meigs. He then joined Fox in New York for the secret outfitting of ships in the harbor.
They had had several conversations with citizens there about this mission, and several were not going to participate. They feared that their business interests would be severely harmed by any action in the South.
They did succeed in getting one Mr. Aspinwall to agree to lease transports.
The Powhatan was put into service to protect others in this mission. What did the commanding officer do to the vessel in his charge?
"Organizing en route, he (Porter) drilled the men at the guns and disguised the ship (Powhatan) as a mail steamer.
A mail steamer? Here we have evidence that United States Naval officers were engaging in misconduct aboard a ship of the government.
Do we need more evidence?
"The Powhatan Steams into Pensacola"
During the early morning hours of April 17, while the reinforcement of Fort Pickens was underway, the Powhatan arrived on the scene. It had been delayed by "heavy gales, head winds, and defective boilers." Lieutenant Porter disguised his vessel as an English steamer and, flying English colors and burning English coal...
So, some reports say that gunports were painted out. Here we see that a British flag was flying. And where did the "english coal" come from?
Sounds like a great deal of secrecy to any unbiased reader.
But here is more:
"Meantime Porter was coming in rapidly with his ship, which he had disguised as a British man-of-war, her thick smoke from soft coal aiding in misleading as to her nationality. He had hoisted the British colors...."
Since there has been some question about the validity of these points, then what does that ultimate website, the Official Records say about this event:
Here from the ORN, correspondence from Lt. Porter saying, "I had disguised the ship so that she deceived those who had not known her......"
There is no question that Lincoln was avoiding any resolution to this matter. He would not accept a meeting with the Confederate commissioners who had more legal and official standing than the men trying to organize hostilities.
He was requiring secrecy from all of his cabinet. He would not involve anyone from Congress. He was taking money without authorization.
And his military men, low levels that they were, were out negotiating for ships, and disguising their real intent.
I said that upwards of 95% of all tariff income was collected in 3 Northern ports, because that's where the consumers were. You can claim that tariff was collected in 300 places or 3000. Until you post some dollar figures on the amounts collected that gives me no reason to doubt what I've said.
I did not say secession was illegal. I said unilateral secession was. You should not misquote me.
Citation, please?
An 1833 letter to Alexander Rives. Link.
Mr. Madison addressed the issue of State secession (specifically, the secession of States from a self-proclaimed "perpetual" union) in Federalist No. 43...
And nowhere in there does Madison state that the state may leave unilaterally. Unlike Webster or Clay, or even Lincoln and Buchanan, Madison did not believe that once in the Union a state could never leave under any circumstances. But he did understand, even if you do not, that the Constitution protects all states equally and doesn't grant one state any more rights or any more protections than another state enjoys. A proper ending of the compact requires the consent of all the impacted parties. Only then are the interests and rights of all the parties protected, those leaving and those staying.
His book didn't say. However, the book The Siege of Charleston 1861 - 1865 by the director of the Charleston Museum, E. Milby Burton, does give a reference for it: "Battle and Leaders" Volume 1, page 103. I suspect Burton is referring to "Battle and Leaders of the Civil War" Vol. 1. That's possibly the five volume set that is listed on Amazon as "by Robert Underwood and Clarence Clough Buel, eds. (Peter Cozzens, ed. of vol. 5) Johnson." I don't have those books. It might also refer to an older "Battle and Leaders of the Civil War" published in the 1800s by the Century Press, but I suspect the former.
At various times in the past I have run into copies of army or government communications reprinted in newspapers that did not make it into the Official Records. The Official Records is a great resource, but unfortunately it does not contain all government and army communications of the period.
From Buchanan's letter in the OR you linked to [my bold and underline]:
These were the last instructions transmitted to Major Anderson before his removal to Fort Sumter, with a single exception, in regard to a particular which does not in any degree affect the present question. Under these circumstances it is clear that Major Anderson acted upon his own responsibility, and without authority, unless, indeed, he had "tangible evidence of a design to proceed to a hostile act" on the part of the authorities of South Carolina, which as not yet been alleged.
So, was Anderson basing his move on anything more than rumors and "Ha, ha, we're going to get you suckers" type of taunts and his own assessment of 'what if I were attacked here?' I think the latter. From Klein again:
... every time his officers had urged him to move the command to Sumter, Anderson reminded them that he had been assigned to Moultrie and could not vacate it without orders. Now he realized that no orders would be forthcoming and that Moultrie would be even more helpless if state troops seized Sumter and turned its guns on him. With an energy and decisiveness that surprised perhaps even himself, Anderson perfected his plan. He had hoped to make his move on Christmas, while the city was preoccupied, but rain forced him to wait until the next day.
After Anderson moved to Sumter, Floyd sent him a telegram on the 27th saying in essence, what the hey, you didn't have orders to move. Anderson replied that that was correct.
Buchanan also said in his letter you linked to [my bold and underline]:
But I acted in the same manner as I would have done had I enter into a positive and formal agreement with parties capable of contracting, although such an agreement would have been on my part, from the nature of my official duties, impossible. The world knows that I have never sent any re-enforcements to the forts in Charleston Harbor and I have certainly never authorized any change to be made "in their relative military status."
Seems to me that is consistent with Klein's account of Buchanan's response to Anderson's move in my post 1287 above.
Now back to my mother's inventory.
Do I take it then that you are comparing the CSA to the world's Banana Republics or Communist dictatorships, and whatever they do is just OK by you?
Illegal seizures are illegal regardless of who does them. When committed by Americans against Federal property and people, they are rebellion, insurrection or "domestic violence."
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.