Targeting Lost Causers

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?

Marshall did not say that. The first paragraph of you post is a quote by Marshall, but he was talking about whether states had control of their own militia, not whether states could secede.

Marshall is reported in Elliot's Debates to have said the quote I indented. He did indeed say, "... does not a power remain till it is given away?" and "All the restraints intended to be laid on the state governments (besides where an exclusive power is expressly given to Congress) are contained in the 10th section of the 1st article."

If Marshall were talking only about the militia he would have said, "Does not the power remain till it is given away?"

So, you are implying that Marshall was two-faced -- saying whatever was needed to get the Constitution ratified, then years later saying there was secret writing in invisible ink on the back of the Constitution that said "Oh, by the way, this Constitution is a tar baby."

Later modified by the 10th Amendment.

????

I have found nothing to support it. Just because they believed they could drop out unilaterally at will does not mean that such a right existed. And as the Supreme Court has pointed out, it doesn't.

You mean you have found nothing to counter it. I trust the people who ratified the Constitution more than an ipse dixit Supreme Court declaration that they couldn't secede by a Chief Justice who had spent years in Lincoln's cabinet fighting that secession.

from 1,803 BJK: "I would note first, according to this 1871 article, the "armistice, [was] not reduced to writing, seems to have been faithfully observed".

rustbucket: "There apparently was no single document signed by both sides, but the terms were put in writing, which is more in line with what your next link said. As I posted above (Post 1519) Florida Senator Mallory sent a telegram proposing the armistice and the US government responded by putting Mallory's terms in writing in its instructions to its commanders in the Pensacola area."

No single document signed by both sides? I question the very word "armistice" to describe the situation -- especially since Southern propagandists use that word "armistice" to argue: since the North violated the "armistice," the North started the War. Nonsense!

Here's my analogy:

Suppose a gang of armed thugs comes to your house, announces it's no longer your house, and you must evacuate immediately so they can take over. Since they are armed, you have basically two choices:

You can do what they say, since you have no wish to cause unnecessary violence. Your compliance does not in any way mean you "agree" with them, just that you have chosen: today will not be the time or place to make your stand.
You can try to "negotiate" with them along the following lines: "Look pals, you've got weapons, and I've got weapons here too, but I won't use my weapons against against you if you don't attack me." In the mean time, you call the authorities and just hope they arrive before your food runs out, or the thugs get ancy.

The first choice is what happened at dozens and dozens of Federal forts, arsenals, customs houses and ships in early 1861.

The second choice is what happened at just a few places, like Forts Pickens & Sumter. None of those actions represented official Northern recognition of the legitimacy of the South's forceful seizures of Federal property.

Indeed, we should take just a minute to note the supreme irony here. Why did the South secede? Because some Northern states, in effect, "nullified" Fugitive Slave laws -- they "disrespected" Southern "property rights."

And what was the very first thing the South did after seceding? They completely ignored Federal property rights to dozens of forts, arsenals, customs houses & ships. ;-)

from 1,828 WIHAIY: "The 1860 individual per capita income in the South was $3,978; in the North it was $2,040..."

"The typical southern state farm in 1860 had a valuation of $7,101. In the northern states this figure was $3,311."

"According to this measure of accumulation of personal wealth, the leading and most wealthy states among all of the United States were Mississippi, South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana."

"Now, whether or not you want to call that income or value per person calculated every 10 years, it still shows your points for what they are, BS."

Did you ever take time to actually read the 1860 census? Here it is again.

The link is a real pain -- takes a long time to find what you're looking for. But if you take the time, and look down to page 294, you'll see a brief discussion (followed by pages of numbers), including the following:

"in the whole United States each man, woman and child is represented by the figure of $607."

You'll see that it cites New York as having the highest value of real and personal property ($2.3 billion) followed by Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Illinois, Tennessee, Alabama, Massachusetts, Kentucky and Mississippi ($755 million).

On the economic growth rates of various states:

"The rate of increase in the western states has been immense, while the absolute gain in the older states has been no less remarkable.

"For example, the rate of increase in Iowa has been more than nine hundred percent, while the absolute increase of wealth has been two hundred and forty-seven millions of dollars; while Pennsylvania has increased at the rate of ninety-six percent, with an absolute gain in wealth of seven hundred million dollars.

"The wealth per capita of Iowa in 1850 was $123 while in 1860 it amounted to $366, a rate of increase of one hundred and ninety-seven and a half percent.

"The wealth of Pennsylvania in 1850 per capita was $312 in 1860 per capita $487, the rate of increase fifty-six percent."

Now, by all appearances, these numbers in no way square with yours, but since these are indisputably official 1860 census numbers, I'd suppose you might want to reconsider the question of which one of us is just spewing "BS".

As I was saying: The U S Treasury report you use gives revenue on hand at the end of the fiscal year on deposit in their account.

You said: "That's not what the Statistical Abstract says. It lists it as Revenue derived from Customs collections. Period."

Rather than sounding confident, that only sounds dismissive. Having read that chart, I know that the report does not use the word "period" to define its numbers.

A little history for you. The tariff data amount that you list, $102 millions for fiscal year 1863-64 was placed in Lincoln's state of the Union address as a part of the full report from the Department of Treasury.

At that time, each governmental department supplied Congress with a full and lengthly annual report of their areas of responsibility.

The U S Treasury department listed pages of data, part of which was U S Customs data.

Customs produced records of monthly and quarterly figures on imports, values, exports, reexports, duties, drawbacks, etc.

The data that you present is the total amount of revenue on deposit from customs on June 30, 1864. That amount is duties collected, bond deposits, penalties, and unpaid portions of drawbacks.

If you are going to discuss specifics on duties collected, then the data must be taken from the Commerce data report.

From that source, the amount of duties collected from January 1 to Dec. 31, 1863 was $63.7 million.

So, let's compare the two closest years, despite the fact that Treasury used a fiscal year, and Commerce used a calendar year.

U S Treasury, 1862-63, revenue deposits were $69 million.

Commerce, 1863, duties collected were $$63.7 millon

U S Treasury 1863-64, revenue deposits were $102 millions.

Commerce, 1864, duties collected were $96.5 millions.

In the first case, Treasury data was 8% higher, and in the next year, Treasury data was 5.7% higher.

Referring back to your post #1328, your source is accurate but your assumption is not.

If you need additional documentation: here

Scroll back to the Appendix and see Table 1.

from 1,842 WIJG: "Perhaps you should re-read Federalist No. 46, regarding the right of the several States to oppose unconstitutional actions by the federal government, up to & including the use of State military (militia) force..."

Took your advice, thought possibly I'd missed something when first read that, years ago. Turns out I didn't. Nothing in Federalist 46 speaks of:

Unilateral secession
unapproved withdrawal from the Union.

What Madison does suppose is a Federal Army attempting to impose some injustice on the states:

Suppose "a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger."

But this is not in the least what happened in 1860, when South Carolina seceded -- indeed just the opposite. The issue then was not some new Federal intrusion on states' rights, but rather the refusal of some Northern states to vigorously enforce the South's Fugitive Slave laws. It was Southern fears of this LACK of Federal power to enforce slave laws which caused secession.

And the war which followed did not result from some new Federal effort to suppress the South, but rather from it's weak attempts to reinforce a few small Federal forts not already abandoned to Southern lawlessness.

You didn’t answer my question, except to spam the thread. Are you obdurate by nature or is the Alzheimer’s kicking in?

Chew on this,RockSmokerr:

That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General [federal] Government for special purposes, -- delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the [federal] government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each [State as a] party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

Once again, Thomas Jefferson disagreed with you, and agreed with stand watie (no surprise there). And your so-called "spam" is everyone else's 'historical documentation' (something you obviously lack - in spades... ;>)

Took your advice, thought possibly I'd missed something when first read that, years ago. Turns out I didn't. Nothing in Federalist 46 speaks of:
* Unilateral secession
* unapproved withdrawal from the Union.

Hey, BJ, as usual you are completely 'clueless.' As a non-profit notice to the 'clueless' (meaning you, and your idiot friends ;>), let's look at your Post 1,899:

...your arguments claiming the 10th Amendment, or some states Constitution "signing statements," imply secession is authorized is bogus to the max because...
* As Lincoln pointed out, any party can break a contract, but to change it requires approval of all parties, which the South manifestly refused to even seek.

As usual, you are completely clueless. "[T]o change [a contract] requires approval of all parties?" If Mr. Lincoln actually said that he was actually as clueless as you (& your moronic 'fellow cool-aide-drinkers' ;>). Here, free-of-charge, is the applicable language from the US Constitution:

"Article. V. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress..."

The US Constitution says "three fourths," not "all parties." Read the Constitution some time, you freaking idiot. And if Mr. Lincoln actually stated what you claimed he stated (which is highly doubtful, in my opinion), then he was just as ignorant - and as big a liar - as you...

;>)

from 1,868 BJK: "You may remember the historical sequence of events in 1861. After the ... surrender of Fort Sumter, President Lincoln declared a state of Insurrection."

WIJG: What if Mr. Lincoln had declared a 'National Sodomy Day?' Care to elaborate, with citations from the Constitution that define the President's power to define "a state of Insurrection?" By the way, you yourself 'declared' in your Post 1528 that only Congress "can define just what exactly is an 'insurrection.' "

WIJG: "Looks like Mr. Lincoln must have been in violation of the Constitution, as you read it..."

First of all, as I quoted to you in 1,799:

"And be it further enacted, that all the acts, proclamations, and orders of the President of the United States after the fourth of March, eighteen hundred and sixty-one, respecting the army and navy of the United States, are hereby approved and in all respects legalized and made valid, to the same intent and with the same effect as if they had been issued and done under the previous express authority and direction of the Congress of the United States." see page 1,140

So, the issue cannot be whether President Lincoln, by himself, overstepped Constitutional limits, but rather did the Federal government as a whole do so?

Unlike the previous Articles of Confederation, the new US Constitution of 1787 specifically mentions and provides for cases of violence against the United States, such as invasion, insurrection, rebellion, "domestic violence" and treason. Only in the case of "domestic violence" is a specific request from the states required before the Federal government can respond.

So, by any reasonable inference, a Congress which can declare War, can also declare those other conditions. And what is your argument to claim it cannot? And if not Congress, then constitutionally, who?

WIJG: "So what? The words "marriage," and "funeral," are not mentioned in the Constitution either. You would suggest that both are therefore unconstitutional. Congratulations."

Do you even know what you just said? Go back and read your own words again. Do you still claim they make sense? And you accuse me of "irrational" argument? Come on, pal, clear your head! You can do better than that.

What the US Constitution is ALL about is separating those few designated powers of the Federal government from those many but unlisted powers of state & local governments. Since legal matters relating to marriage and funerals are clearly local or state matters, they are not mentioned in the Constitution. This does not make those "unconstitutional," but only means the Federal government should not be delving in such matters. Is that hard for you to understand?

WIJG: "As I have noted repeatedly, your arguments are completely irrational "

I'd say you are "projecting" your own problems onto others, and you may need some therapy. Might I suggest, oh, say, the Ayn Rand institute? They are very good at logical thinking... and no doubt take a "special interest" in monikers mentioning John Galt...;-)

WIJG: "Bull crap - all they had to do was include 'boiler plate' language from the previous compact, including the words 'perpetual union.' They did not - and by your own argument, presented in Post 1510 (paraphrasing), "the Constitution does not mention [a perpetual union] because it did not in any way contemplate it." "

Now I'm pretty sure you have a problem with logical thinking. Of course the Constitution, as first written in 1787 was not intended to be "perpetual." That's why provisions were made for legal amendments and constitutional conventions to modify or even abolish it in favor of something else.

But no provisions were made, and no discussion recorded for such things as unilateral secession or unapproved withdrawal from the Union.

WIJG: "Actually, you ARE saying that Mr. Jackson was a constitutional expert, if you weight his opinions more heavily than Mr. Rawle's. "Jackson was a very popular war hero elected president... his strong words against nullification and secession can be said to express the beliefs of most Americans at that time?" Bull crap - you might just as well weight Barack Obama's opinion of constitutional law, over Thomas Jefferson's, or William Rawle's."

I consider Jefferson's actions as President of more Constitutional weight than his partisan political opinions, either before or after. For example, Jefferson's arrest of secessionist Aaron Burr on charges of treason says FAR more about his true beliefs than other writings.

Same with Jackson, in his proclamation to South Carolina in 1832:

" I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which It was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed."

FYI: Andrew Jackson was a veteran of the Revolutionary War, and became a lawyer in 1787, same year the Constitution was written. He became a Congressman in 1796, a US Senator in 1797, and a judge of the Tennessee Supreme Court in 1798. In 1801 he was appointed commander of the Tennessee militia, with the rank of Colonel. Not too shabby for a man barely 30.

Point is, young Jackson lived the Revolution as a soldier, and lived the Constitution as a delegate to the Tennessee constitutional convention, as a Congressman, US Senator, judge and military commander.

So yes, I'd say President Jackson's constitutional opinions count for quite a bit.

As for our present Obamanation -- don't get me started... ;-(

As near as I can figure, the first person to call it an armistice was a Captain Barron who had been sent by the Secretary of the Navy to Pensacola with Senator Mallory to confirm to federal troops and ships that an agreement for peace was in place.

You remember Mallory. He is the ex-Florida senator who stopped hostilities from occurring at Pensacola by sending a telegram directed to Buchanan proposing that no attack on Fort Pickens would be made if the fort was not reinforced. Mallory's telegram to Buchanan (via some other senators) said, "I am determined to stave off war if possible." But, but, but ... I thought you said the South wanted war (your post 1342). How do you reconcile Mallory's action with your earlier statement that the South wanted war?

Let's look at what US Navy Captain Barron said about this being an armistice. [Official Records of the Navies, Series I, Volume 4, page 77]:

I understand that some of the forces which have assembled here from other States will in a short time return to their homes, in consequence of the armistice established by these papers.

The papers referred to by Barron were the pledges by Mallory and the head of the Florida forces (Colonel Chase, the military officer who built Fort Pickens) pledging no attack if the fort wasn't reinforced. These were the assurances mentioned in the order by Holt and Toucey (see post 1519).

Suppose a gang of armed thugs comes to your house, announces it's no longer your house, and you must evacuate immediately so they can take over.

Two can play this game. Suppose a gang of armed pirates threatens to shoot ships in your harbor from the fort in your territory they occupied against the wishes of their own leader.

And what was the very first thing the South did after seceding? They completely ignored Federal property rights to dozens of forts, arsenals, customs houses & ships. ;-)

The South offered to negotiate for a fair compensation for the forts, armories, etc., in their territory and a division of the public debt and property. The South Carolina Commissioners did this. The Confederate Commissioners did the same. The attorney general of South Carolina met with Buchanan and offered in a letter to buy Fort Sumter.

A fair division of the property of the United States would have been in the South's favor because of the Southern share of the territories that had been purchased with Southern money and blood. Here's an old post about the value of the territorial land: [The elephant in the room]. A fair division of the property of the country would have given part of the territories to the South. But the North didn't want a fair division of the property. Their position was like arguing that all that I have is mine and all you have is mine too.

Then it is agreed that these are facts.

"Facts," as one of your Massachusetts predecessors once said, "are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." And your continued claim that the Lane firing a warning shot at the Nashville was the first shot fired in the war, and that such an action constituted a blockade does not turn your Southron myth into fact.

The Lane arrived on station on April 11th and halted the Nashville on April 12th. Once the Nashville identified herself then she was allowed to proceed. But she did not enter Charleston harbor until several days later. You ask why and claim nobody knows the reason she didn't proceed into the harbor. Your claims, if sincere, reveal an abysmal lack of knowledge about the rebellion and it's history. The reason why the Nashville didn't proceed into the harbor on the 12th is easily understood - fear of flaming death and destruction. Because as any student of the rebellion knows, confederate batteries began bombarding Sumter at 4:30 in the morning of April 12th and they continued firing on the fort until roughly 2:30 in the afternoon of April 13th. The Nashville remained off the bar because the only way to enter the port was to pass through the fire between the fort and the shore. The warning shot that the Lane fired was not the first shot of the war, nor was the Lane's actions a blockade against a peaceful port. It was, perhaps, the first naval shot of the war. But the actual war had started hours before.

I hope that you have found this enlightening. When Southron myth is pricked and deflates, exposing the truth of the matter, that's usually the result.

from 1,885 DM: "Why persist in recycling your errors when they are so obvious. You just said......"Why would you misstate my argument, when it's right there staring you in the face?" The obvious answer to that is to revisit your own language. So, here you are in your own words from your original posted comment #1801"..... [should ref: post 1,534]

quoting BJK: "I take this all to say that the Harriet Lane landed troops at Fort Pickens on April 8, then arrived at Fort Sumter on April 12, triggering the Southern bombardment."

You're just stuck on this, aren't you, pal? And you just can't get your facts straight, no matter how hard you try, right? Here, for example, you claim to review the history of this point, but you don't really.

This is it:

post 1,509: BJK quotes from Fredriksen "Civil War Almanac" -- April 8: "Federal troops onboard the US revenue cutter Harriot Lane land to bolster the garrison of Fort Pickens, Florida."
post 1,520 rustbucket notes possible error: "Is the "Harriot Lane" different from the "Harriet Lane?" If so, it might explain the supposed landing of troops from the "Harriot Lane" at Fort Pickens on April 8, of which I have no knowledge..."
post 1,534 BJK responds to rustbucket: "I take this all to say that the Harriet Lane landed troops at Fort Pickens on April 8, then arrived at Fort Sumter on April 12, triggering the Southern bombardment."
post 1,545 rustbucket again notes possible error: "I'm sorry, but would you mind providing a source for what you posted about the Harriet Lane landing troops for Fort Pickens on April 8?"
post 1,559 DomainMaster: "Of course that poster, Brojoek has an incorrect account involving the Harriet Lane."
post 1,589 responding to rustbucket, BJK posts link to "Civil War Almanac".
post 1,604 responding to DM, BJK reports: "So, the issue here is whether, as reported in the Civil War Almanac, on April 8 "federal troops onboard the US revenue cutter Harriet Lane land to bolster the garrison of Fort Pickens, Florida."
BJK: "Since I can't find anything to confirm this, I'm wondering if it is possibly being confused with the following, from May of 1862..."
post 1,678 DomainMaster again challenges Harriet Lane timeline: "More specifically, and to correct your assertions which you now seem to be backing away from, the Harriet Lane arrived in the vicinity of Charleston Harbor on the afternoon of the 11th of April, 1861."
post 1,704 BJK responds to DM: "This Almanac says, on April 8: "Federal troops on board the US revenue cutter Harriet Lane land to bolster the garrison at Fort Pickens, Florida."
BJK: "To date, I've been unable to verify this, and now suspect the report is in error."
post 1,728 DM drives home his point: "You agree that you were in error on your contention that the Harriet Lane landed troops in Florida in April of 1861."
post 1801 BJK growing a bit testy: "Why would you misstate my argument, when it's right there staring you in the face?
"What I said was that my source, Civil War Almanac, reported for April 8, 1861: "Federal troops on board the US revenue cutter Harriet Lane land to bolster the garrison of Fort Pickens, Florida."
"But since I can't confirm that, I suspect the report is in error."
post 1,885 DM returning testy for testy: "That is not what you originally said. Now, you only made that last phrase 'disclaimer' after you had been shown your error by Rustbucket. You had no intention of trying to confirm that at all until you were shown your own errors.
DM: "So, the question has been answered....you will not acknowledge when you are in error."

Seems to me that one of us has a real problem with truth-telling, but I'm not certain it's me... ;-)

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.