Posted on 06/09/2009 8:47:35 AM PDT by Davy Buck
Standing up to brutal dictators is always worth it.
What are you even doing here? If you truly believe that any of our presidents is/was a “brutal dictator” you have no business on a pro-American site like FreeRepublic.
Why don’t you go peddle your nonsense over at Stormfront?
Free Republic - A concept alien to all F-ing neo-Yankee Lincoln cultists twerps like you. You wouldn't know a free Republic from your /deleted/. BTW Jim Robinson is secesh and has stated so, especially with regards to Texas Independence. So /deleted/.
Wanting a better republic than the disaster this one has become is non-sense, then you are the idiot. Preserve this:
Written by the great hero of the "lost cause" Major Randolph PACS.
Oh, I'm a good old Rebel, Now that's just what I am; For this "fair land of Freedom" I do not care a damn. I'm glad I fit against it- I only wish we'd won. And I don't want no pardon For anything I've done. I hates the Constitution, This great Republic too; I hates the Freedmen's Buro, In uniforms of blue. I hates the nasty eagle, With all his brag and fuss; But the lyin', thievin' Yankees I hates' em wuss and wuss. We got three hundred thousand Befo' they conquered us. They died of Southern fever And Southern steel and shot; And I wish it was three million Instead of what we got. I can't take up my musket And fight' em now no mo', But I ain't a-goin'to love' em, Now that is sartin sho'; And I don't want no pardon For what I was and am; And I won't be reconstructed, And I do not give a damn.
post 1464 is for you....
Then what in the book does Klein quote from Lamon's story?
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.
Of course he was.
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].
Taney told Brown that he heard he was to be arrested on April 18th, after he threatened Cadwallader from the bench but before he issued the Merryman ruling. He also said he thought the danger had passed. According to Lamon's tale, the warrant was issued in May after the Merryman ruling was released. So where did Taney learn of his arrest if the actual arrest wasn't ordered until a month later? Taney told several people he feared arrest for standing up to Lincoln, that doesn't mean his paranoia was justified. And if none of the Taney biographers have found enough evidence to include the story in their books then that should be an indication of something.
but really that makes little difference here, as you are WELL-known as a DECEIVER. otoh, you are about 10 times as intelligent as the rest of "The Members of The DAMNyankee Coven of LUNATICS, BIGOTS, CRETINS, FOOLS & ANTISEMITES".
free dixie,sw
Where’s the book, Mortie?
Must have been written before they found a cure for syphilis...
114 days and counting. Maybe you should make sure they didn't lose the order, Watie.
Admit it. You don't want the book to come, because then you'd have to either put up or shut up, neither of which you've ever shown any inclination to do. As long as you can keep claiming the book is on its way, the longer you can keep claiming what it says without support, and the longer you can keep telling us all how sorry we'll be when it does show up.
There are maybe 15 to 20 references to Lamon in the book. The pages that deal with his trip to Charleston mention he and Hurlburt's meeting with Petigru. In Klein, Petigru urged Lamon to go see the governor about visiting Sumter. There were then a couple of paragraphs about Hurlburt's findings. Then mention of what Lamon told the governor, which corresponds to the Pickens link I posted above. Then Klein says Lincoln knew nothing of these "pledges" by Lamon, apparently pledges to come back or pledges that the forts would be evacuated. Of course, at the time Lamon left Washington for this trip, evacuating Sumter had been the publicly released or leaked position of the cabinet, at least according to newspapers.
Taney told Brown that he heard he was to be arrested on April 18th, after he threatened Cadwallader from the bench but before he issued the Merryman ruling.
I think you've got your dates way screwed up. April 18th was before the Baltimore riots. If Cadwallader had any problem back at the time of the riots, it was with rioters who burned his home outside of Baltimore. Merryman did not get arrested until May 25.
Lincoln had to have known the Merryman case was going on. It was in the papers. Before Taney issued his ruling he could have leaked in a way that Taney would hear that the arrest of Taney was being considered. That might have been what Taney was referring to in his conversation with Brown. He evidently feared he was going to be arrested the day he verbally issued his ruling.
Afterward, Lincoln could have been so angered by the brilliance of Taney's ruling and the stain it left on Lincoln that he might have had the warrant prepared. That is not out of line with other intimidation of judges that were going on at the time. One Washington DC judge was put under house arrest to prevent him going to court and making a ruling. Another judge that used Ex Parte Merryman as a basis for a ruling was arrested in a Maryland court. I don't know the details of that latter arrest for sure other than the judge struggled with the arresting officers in court.
It's not nice to mess with Mother Nature Lincoln.
Point of entry is nothing more than point of entry. Goods may have landed in New York, but the extensive coastal trade is evidence that goods were then shipped elsewhere.
Tariffs may have been paid to the government in New York, but were repaid to the shipper/owner when landed in Southern Ports.
You said it yourself: "the Warehousing Act of 1846. Good landed in New Orleans (or New York, or Philadelphia) and placed in bond could then be sent on to their ultimate customer and the tariff paid at that point"
Or the tariff could be paid anywhere and recollected.
You are purposefully trying to create a picture of import/consumption that does not comport with history.
You may have no doubt, but you would also be wrong.
The only factual basis for a contention of the sort you are making would be shipping data associated with the landing of goods. Dollar value collected tells you nothing.
Whether or not you can bring yourself to admit it, point of landing data on the value of goods and tariff collection tells you nothing more than that certain goods of a specific value landed at a particular place, and that a tariff value was assigned.
The customs data you have quoted tells you nothing more than that.
I have given you a post that shows several hundred locations where tariffs were collected.
You again insist that a dollar amount of collection in any of these locations is a firm indicator of the amount of imported goods landing at that spot.
Well, you cannot extrapolate that data to provide any valid data on who finally consumed the goods, and was therefore, the ultimate payer of the tariffs.
Concerning your questions on why goods were not direct shipped, the answer has already been given.
It's called the Warehousing Act of and it gave importers a strong economic incentive to drop their goods off at one place where there were warehouses. In 1860 that place for not only the south but for all of North America as well as Central and South America happened to be New York City, which had a large preexisting warehousing industry when the act came into being. The result? Many goods destined for virtually anywhere be it Ohio or Alabama went in through New York.
Goods landed, some tariffs were paid and some not.
But you have no data to support any contention of where the goods were consumed, and ultimately paid for.
You may claim that, but Congress issued their changes despite the scope of the two acts used together.
They made changes to insulate Lincoln after the fact, and nothing changes that fact...despite your contentions which are contradictory.
And yet another non sequitur from Non-Sequitur.
Yawn...
There is nothing [in the Constitution] that prohibits secession. But Article IV says that a state can be admitted only with consent of the other states, as expressed through a vote in Congress. Once allowed to join, Article IV and Article I say that a state cannot partition or join with another state without approval of Congress and cannot change their border by a fraction of an inch without consent of Congress. Implied in this is the need to obtain the approval of the other states when leaving as well.
Please see Article I, Section 2, Clause 2:
"No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."
Under your sorry substitute for rational thought, because the Constitution specifies requirements for the admission of an elected representative to Congress, the Constitution also 'implies' that the federal government can prevent (apparently under the threat of lethal, military force) the resignation of a representative from Congress.
Congratulations, on yet another non sequitur.
So you say that the Southern states claimed the compact was violated, and this gave them the right to leave. The Northern states say it was not, and their leaving was illegal. What made the Southern states right and the Northern states wrong?
If you are attempting to suggest that the Northern States proclaimed, in writing, in public, that their opposition to State secession was based upon Thomas Jefferson's view of State's rights, by all means please provide a citation.
So why should we believe his public writings express his true beliefs since you seem to believe he was merely trying to peddle the Constitution to a skeptical population?
Fine - let's skip the writings (public or private) of James Madison. Where's your argument without them (i.e., his later, "confidential," entirely private writings)? You are still left with your admission that "[t]here is nothing [in the Constitution] that prohibits secession."
You misunderstand me. By all the impacted parties I meant both sides of the equation, those leaving and those staying. I did not mean to imply that unanimous approval of all states would be needed.
Your argument is absolutely nonsensical - based on your reasoning (that the departure of a State from the union required the "approval" of "those leaving and those staying"), the first nine States to ratify the new Constitution were required to obtain the "approval" of the non-ratifying States to do so - where, precisely, was that requirement spelled out, in writing, in the Constitution? You might have an argument based on Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation, but that specific requirement was blatantly ignored by the specific written terms of the Constitution, by those promoting the adoption of the new Constitution, and by the ratifying States.
Just a suggestion, but you might try to find an argument that is not self-contradictory (of course, you are our own, beloved "Non-Sequitur" ;>)...
A 1979 article from the "Journal of Economic History" where Thomas F. Huertas estimated the likely confederate tariff revenue based on imports from abroad and imports from the North. Based on goods brought into the South in 1860 he estimated their tariff income would be around $34 million. This was from $200 million in goods brought in from the North and $37 million brought in from abroad broken down in 32 categories. He, too, says he went from government statistics and darned if his figures don't differ - considerably - from Kettell's.
Which goes back to the original question: If all those goods were destined for Southern consumers then why weren't they landed at the port closest to where those consumers were? You keep throwing out warehousing and costal traffic and evil Yankee businessmen, but at the end of the day it makes no sense for imports to go North if the majority of them were destined for Southern consumers. There was no lack of ports in the South where those goods could be landed, no lack of land where warehouses could be build, nothing but a lack of customers for imported goods.
Tariffs may have been paid to the government in New York, but were repaid to the shipper/owner when landed in Southern Ports.
And if you are the importer then why should you pay the tariff when you can get your customer to do it at their port? Why would you assume that financial burden? If you are the customer, why would you pay the tax in New York when you're not going to see your goods until they arrive in Charleston? Why would you assume that risk?
You are purposefully trying to create a picture of import/consumption that does not comport with history.
But which does conform with the evidence.
Yes, as you claim. But you have not provided a breakdown. If $35 million in tariff revenue is collected at New York and $50 in Nashville then how does that support your claims?
It's called the Warehousing Act of and it gave importers a strong economic incentive to drop their goods off at one place where there were warehouses. In 1860 that place for not only the south but for all of North America as well as Central and South America happened to be New York City, which had a large preexisting warehousing industry when the act came into being. The result? Many goods destined for virtually anywhere be it Ohio or Alabama went in through New York.
And the questions still is why? If most of those goods were destined for Southern consumers then why weren't those warehouses built in Southern ports near the Southern consumer you claim were the ultimate users. Why go to the additional time and expense and risk of transsipping them through New York. And it wan't because the infrastructure was there, the expansion of New York warehouses occured after 1846 to take advantage of the legislation. Those warehouses could have easily been built in Charleston or Mobile. They were not. Why? Because the demand for imports didn't exist.
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.