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 ...
You will, of course, believe what you want to believe. A clear reading of the Insurrection Act shows the steps to be unnecessary. It should also be noted that Congress only modified the Militia Act, and left the Insurrection Act alone. And their changes, in fact, made it easier for the president to call up the militia to suppress rebellion.
Ha Ha...etc.
You sent a bogus link. You quoted an amount from the “Statistical History of the US.” But you did not send that.
That came from the Secretary of the Treasury’s office.
And your alleged number of dollars for tariff revenue is no where to be found.
I told you that the Treasury Report contains reexports that are not backed out of the data.
But you want to stick with the highly inflated data because that suits your needs.
Bogus data? Publish the real link.
But do you see in the Constitution where the President has the right to instruct a Cabinet member to transfer, literally in his pocket, departmental cash money to another department for unauthorized military action?
And where do you see in the Constitution that a President has the authority to send a couple of lieutenants in the Navy out to rent ships to be used in a secret invasion of Southern states?
From Recollections of Abraham Lincoln by Ward Hill Lamon:
After saying to him what President Lincoln had directed me to say, a general discussion took place touching the critical state of public affairs.
From Klein (page 343 paperback):
Having been graciously received by Pickens, he [Lamon] had presented himself as a confidential agent of the president's to arrange the garrison's transfer to another post.
I'll do some more research on it (got a book ordered), and let you know if I learn anything else about Lamon.
Lamon was a bit of a loose cannon and his partner on the trip, Stephen Hurlburt, abandoned him soon after arriving in Charleston.
Translation: You don't like what Lamon had to say about this or Lincoln's arrest warrant for Chief Justice Taney.
Hurlburt was a native Charlestonian. His job was to go visit his prominent Charleston friends and find out what they thought. It would have been hard to get their candid opinion if Hurlburt had dragged Lamon around with him.
Hurlburt and his wife got on the same train headed back north as Lamon. Hurlburt then sent Lamon a note via the conductor that said: "Don't recognize us until this train gets out of South Carolina. There is danger ahead, and a damned sight of it."
Lincoln's goal was resupply, not war.
If resupply were his goal, why did he tell Fox the cause of the country was advanced by the failure of the expedition. The outcome of the failed expedition was war. Lincoln saw war as advancing the cause of the nation? War is Peace? Wasn't that a slogan from George Orwell's "1984"?
Lincoln's messenger met with Governor Pickens on April 8, six days before the resupply effort would arrive. How much time was needed?
I thought the Harriet Lane arrived April 11. What kind of calendar are you using? AM and PM are not separate days.
Then in #1330 you change the description from "landed" to "Tariffs are paid at the point of delivery. Where they are landed and delivered. Always"
Let's see now. First the tariff is paid at landing....ie the warehouses in New York, Philadelphia, or Boston....or so you said.
But now you say that the tariff is paid at point of delivery.
Is delivery the same as landed?
Then you say that tariffs are "always paid at point of landing and delivery.
So, if the goods land in New York, and are posted to be delivered to a dealer in Charleston, then where is the tariff paid?
Why must it be a Southern State? My neighboring State {Montana} sure likes causing a ruckus
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0246.htm
Perhaps the eye of the next storm will be North of the Dixie line?
Self Determination is not exclusive to Southern States
You said: "Ocean transports wouldn't, but there was a very active steamboat traffic on all the rivers.
Was that just like the very active steamboat traffic that ran coastal routes? You know, like the Star of the West, and the Nashville, and the Baltic?
I see nothing in the Constitution that prevents it. Nor do I see where the President needs authorization from Congress to order the military to move men, ships, and supplies. Perhaps you can point it out? Article and section, if you please?
And where do you see in the Constitution that a President has the authority to send a couple of lieutenants in the Navy out to rent ships to be used in a secret invasion of Southern states?
As commander-in-chief I imagine the president can order a couple of lieutenants to rent some ships if he wants. But there was no invasion, secret or otherwise. You invade other countries. Lincoln was ordering federal supplies to a federal post.
Then in post #1330 you first say tariffs are paid at point of "landing", but then you add the concept of the goods being "delivered".
Good, because sometimes goods "landed" in New York and then had to be "delivered" to Charleston or Savannah.
Then you add this statement:
" 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."
That is true some of the time.
Some customers came to New York from other areas to inspect and sign for bonds. They paid the tariffs on their goods shipped back home, maybe Charleston.
Therefore that consumer paid the tariff in a state other than where it was consumed.
Then, sometimes, a New York importer paid the tariff, shipped the item south, and charged the consumer the tariff and freight charges.
So, again, examples of the fact that point of landing and point of consumption, ie where the tariff was paid, are not related.
You are not doubting claims, you are claiming doubt about facts.
No I did not. If goods are landed and delivered, tariff is paid. If goods are landed and placed in bond in an approved warehouse then tariff is not. And tariff will not be paid until the goods are landed and delivered. If that delivery point is New York then the tariff is paid in New York. If that delivery point is Charleston, the the tariff is paid in Charleston. If the delivery point is Nashville, well, you get the idea.
You are aware of the whole point behind the warehousing program, aren't you?
Is delivery the same as landed?
I would think not. If I'm the ultimate consumer then delivery to me would be when it's placed in my hot little hands. If I'm in Charleston then I'm not going to tell the importer that all if fine and pay my money for the goods while they're in New York? I'm going to insist on delivery to me - why should I bear the risk of the voyage from New York to South Carolina? If I'm the importer, why should I pay the tariff if my customer will do that in Charleston? So the goods are taken out of that warehouse you love so much, sent to Charleston, and tariff is paid upon landing and delivery there.
Because the people I've met from Montana always have struck be as being down-to-earth and intelligent.
Perhaps the eye of the next storm will be North of the Dixie line?
Or perhaps the movement to take the entire country back will begin here.
There was, yes. And no doubt you will try and explain that that was how all those massive amounts of imports the South consumed got there. Which goes back to the question if the South was consuming all those imports why weren't they delivered to them?
Unsubstantiated facts. I can claim anything I want as well, so long as I don't have to produce documentation to back me up.
Same sort of thing happened in Virginia, Arkansas, and Tennessee. The Virginia Secession Convention voted 90 to 45 against secession on April 4, then 88 to 55 for secession on April 17, two days after Lincoln’s call for troops to coerce the South.
Arkansas voted 39 to 35 against secession on March 19, then 69 to 1 for secession on May 6.
On February 9 Tennessee voted against secession 68282 to 59449, then on June 8 voted to secede 108,339 to 47,233.
Your hatred towards the Southern people have blinded your already diminished thought process! Is it jealous envy?
Hardly. Most Southerners I've met are down-to-earth and intelligent, too. But you do meet some of real tin-foil types around here, from all sections of the country.
I've been watching these Court opinions regarding State vs Federal Gun laws
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=12654
Every favorable Federal Court ruling {everyone} demands Federal supremacy and vise v Just asking your thoughts http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/litigation/NRAAmicusFinal.pdf
What is your opinion?
Will this backfire on States such as Idaho with a State Constitutional guarantee to bear arms?
Oh it's not me, at least not entirely. According to Wikipedia your source of choice, Maury Klein, had this to say about Lamon's account in your book of choice, "Days of Defiance": "Lamon's own account in his Recollections, [pp.] 69-79, is so inflated in his own favor and contradictory to Hurlbut's contemporary account to Lincoln as to be virtually useless as a source for his mission." Not a ringing endorsement of ol' Ward.
And as for the Taney arrest warrant, I had the opportunity to communicate with James F. Simon, author of "Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President's War Powers" and I specifically asked him what support for the Taney arrest warrant story he had found during the course of his research. His answer was, "None". Nothing supports Lamon's claim. So believe me, while I'd like to take credit for being skeptical of Lamon and his stories a lot of people far more knowledgeable on the subject than I have beaten me to it.
I thought the Harriet Lane arrived April 11. What kind of calendar are you using? AM and PM are not separate days.
The resupply arrived a day or so later.
Then that is four days after the unsigned note to the governor, not six as you said. Did you skip the grade where they covered numbers?
According to Wikipedia your source of choice, Maury Klein, had this to say about Lamon's account in your book of choice, "Days of Defiance": "Lamon's own account in his Recollections, [pp.] 69-79, is so inflated in his own favor and contradictory to Hurlbut's contemporary account to Lincoln as to be virtually useless as a source for his mission.
It is not in the regular text of the book or the index. I know because I checked every reference to Hurlburt or Lamon in the book. Where it is in a little unindexed footnote in the back of the book. The footnote concerned Hurlburt's description of the harbor and its fortifications, useful perhaps from a military perspective. Lamon's Recollections contains little of that kind of information.
Lamon did meet with Pickens and Anderson as he said and their comments seem to bear out what Lamon said. Pickens says the following about Lamon's visit: "In a very few days after, another confidential agent, Colonel Lamon, was sent by the President, who informed me that he had come to try and arrange for the removal of the garrison, and, when he returned from the fort, asked if a war vessel could not be allowed to remove them." [Link]. I've already noted above what Anderson said re Lamon in the OR.
Like Hurlburt, Lamon reports that any attempt to reinforce Sumter would result in war. However, Lamon does overstate his importance concerning the visit with Petigru, Hurburt's old law school contact.
Let's see. We have Seward giving messages to the Commissioners promising Sumter's evacuation. And we have Lamon doing the same to Governor Pickens. The common link between them is Lincoln, a master manipulator.
And as for the Taney arrest warrant, I had the opportunity to communicate with James F. Simon, author of "Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President's War Powers" and I specifically asked him what support for the Taney arrest warrant story he had found during the course of his research. His answer was, "None". Nothing supports Lamon's claim.
With respect to the potential arrest of Taney by Lincoln, there is, of course, George William Brown, the mayor of Baltimore, who reports that Taney told him that Taney's imprisonment had a matter of consultation but the danger had past [Source: Baltimore and the Nineteenth of April, 1861, by Brown].
Then there is Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Robbins Curtis who states about Taney in his memoirs: "If he had never done anything else that was high, heroic, and important, his noble vindication of the writ of habeas corpus, and of the dignity and authority of his office, against a rash minister of state [rb: guess who], who, in the pride of a fancied executive power, came near to the commission of a great crime [rb: the arrest of Taney], will command the admiration and graditude of every lover of constitutional liberty, so long as our institutions shall indure." Curtis is speaking, of course, of Ex Parte Merriman, a ruling whose words still give me goosebumps.
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.