Targeting Lost Causers

from 2,179 DM: "I would also point out that posts # 2156, 2186, and 2170 are all essentially incorrect."

You have presented not one word of proof that Nashville was anything other than a mainly New York owned & registered Union ship on its usual commercial business, and normally flying the Union flag.
Your claim that Nashville -- having carried US mail since at least 1855 -- no longer carried mail in 1861 is based on what evidence?

Regardless of mail, Nashville's encounter with Harriet Lane on April 11/12 was strictly a Union on Union action, having NOTHING to do with "first naval shots" of the Civil War.

Later, of course, Nashville became a highly successful Confederate blockade runner. But that was decidedly not the case during the period April 11 - 14, 1861. On those days, Nashville was simply doing what it had always done.

rustbucket: "The South correctly believed that they could legally secede from the Union.

BJ: I will certainly grant you this much: many in the South incorrectly believed they could legally and peacefully secede. A study of history and of the Constitution itself would have shown them their errors.

"Errors?" That's historical revisionist bullsh!t. In reality, a "study of history and of the Constitution itself" provides no evidence of any explicit prohibition of the right of State secession. Quite the opposite, in fact (if you take the time to read the records of the debates in the federal convention, The Federalist Papers, the ratification documents of the several States, Amendment X, the public writings of Jefferson & Madison, Tucker's Blackstone's, etc., etc., etc.).

You're a bullsh!t artist, plain & simple...

Back for a little while.

My source for most of this data is Fredriksen's Civil War Almanac.

One entry for March 3, 1861 says:
"President Jefferson Davis appoints General Pierre G.T. Beauregard commander of Confederate forces in the vicinity of Charleston, South Carolina. He is instructed to prepare for military action against the Federal garrison sequestered inside Fort Sumter in the harbor."

Here are Beauregard's orders dated March 1, 1861. He arrived in Charleston on March 3. Davis must have had a large megaphone to reach him on the 3rd..

WAR DEPARTMENT,
Montgomery, March 1, 1861.

Brigadier General P. G. T. BEAUREGARD:

SIR: You will proceed without delay to Charleston and report to Governor Pickens for military duty in that State.

You are authorized by your appointment as brigadier-general, under the provisions of the third section of an act of the Congress to raise Provisional Forces for the Confederate States, to receive into the service of this Government such forces as may be tendered or may volunteer, not to exceed five thousand men, as you may require, or for whom you can make suitable provision. A copy of the act referred to has been this day transmitted to Governor Pickens.

You will report to this Department your arrival at Charleston, and give such information with respect to the defenses of that harbor as you may consider important. You will also secure, if possible, the services of a competent adjutant, and report your action in that behalf to this Department.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

L. P. WALKER,
Secretary of War

Defense of the harbor would have certainly involved defending against bombardment from Fort Sumter.

I will certainly grant you this much: many in the South incorrectly believed they could legally and peacefully secede. A study of history and of the Constitution itself would have shown them their errors.

I suggest you read Albert Taylor Bledsoe's 1866 book, "Is Davis a Traitor? Or Was Secession a Constitutional Right Previous to the War of 1861". Here's a Link. Bledsoe knew Lincoln in Springfield and bested him in court more than Lincoln bested Bledsoe.

Some have argued Bledsoe's book helped the Supreme Court realize that they couldn't prove that Davis was a traitor. Whether that is true or not, I don't know. Chief Justice Chase was supposedly on record saying in 1865 that by the Constitution secession was not rebellion [from Shelby Foote, I think]. There were treason trials in Tennessee after the war. From the Richmond Daily Dispatch on December 18, 1865:

Trial for treason.

--The first treason case consequent upon the late rebellion is now being tried in the United States District Court of Tennessee before Judge Trigg. The case is the United States vs. John S. Gamble, who was an enrolling officer under the Confederate Government in Blount county, East Tennessee. This is the first treason trial since the memorable Aaron Burr case.

Gamble was acquitted.

Especially, they would have learned that those "signing statements" by NY, VA and RI which did not make it into the Bill of Rights were REJECTED by our Founders.

They were basically covered by the 10th Amendment. As Thomas Jefferson said:

I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That " all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." [XIIth amendment.] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.

The 10th Amendment was originally the 12th Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Now back to estate work.

from 2,182 DM: "You have been shown documentation by Rustbucket and others, the "SS Nashville" was co-owned by a number of investors, fifteen men in Charleston, and two in New York. The "SS Nashville" was a civilian owned ship, contracted to conduct civilian business. She was nothing more than a civilian owned steamer running north/south routes in the carrying trade.
"You claim that she was a “Union” ship....??? She had mixed ownership, a home port in Charleston, and no mail contract when fired on by a Union warship."

As you well know, Nashville was not "fired on," in the same sense that Star of the West, another commercial vessel in Charleston Harbor was fired-on by South Carolina shore batteries on January 10. Instead, Harriet Lane fired a warning shot across Nashville's bow. As a result, Nashville raised a Union flag and then proceeded on to Charleston Harbor -- after firing on Fort Sumter stopped.

Your source, on page 445 clearly says the company's long-term mail contract expired in 1860. It does not indicate if Nashville was carrying US mail on some ad hoc basis in April 1861.

Again, my argument here is: for Harriet Lane's warning shot across Nashville's bow to amount to a "first naval shot" of the war, Nashville must at that time have been a Confederate ship -- which she soon after became, but clearly was not, during the period April 11 - 14, 1861.

from 2,183 WIJG: ""Errors?" That's historical revisionist bullsh!t. In reality, a "study of history and of the Constitution itself" provides no evidence of any explicit prohibition of the right of State secession. Quite the opposite, in fact (if you take the time to read the records of the debates in the federal convention, The Federalist Papers, the ratification documents of the several States, Amendment X, the public writings of Jefferson & Madison, Tucker's Blackstone's, etc., etc., etc.)."

Go back & read my argument in 2,173. In a nutshell, here's what it is:

In 1787 our Founders presented their new Constitution for ratification. It's basic principle was "enumerated powers" for the Federal government, all other powers retained by the states or people. A number of states were uncomfortable with this formula, and wanted a specific Bill of Rights adopted to protect American freedoms. This was done, with the result, all 13 original states ratified the new Constitution, AS AMMENDED.

However, there were a number of states' signing statements which were NOT adopted in the new Constitution, specifically, any reference to "powers reassumed by the people." These statements were REJECTED for inclusion in the Constitution, and they were the only statements which might even be interpreted as somehow authorizing unilateral secession, or unapproved withdrawal from the Union.

"You're a bullsh!t artist, plain & simple... "

You are a mindless insulter, and disgrace to the name "John Galt." Sign off. Drop it. Come back as who you really are, Stand Waitie Jr.

However, there were a number of states' signing statements which were NOT adopted in the new Constitution, specifically, any reference to "powers reassumed by the people." These statements were REJECTED for inclusion in the Constitution, and they were the only statements which might even be interpreted as somehow authorizing unilateral secession, or unapproved withdrawal from the Union.

Care to be more specific, regarding the supposed 'REJECTION' of the subject ratification documents? Care to provide any historical documentation regarding the supposed 'REJECTIONS?'

Of course not.

You are a mindless insulter, and disgrace to the name "John Galt." Sign off. Drop it. Come back as who you really are, Stand Waitie Jr.

Hey, sport, I can document my claims - you're more than a bit short on that end (to put things generously). And as I have noted repeatedly, the Freeper name "John Galt" belongs to a different person (a simple fact you refuse to recognize).

"Sign off. Drop it. Come back" when you get a clue, 'Squat-to-Post'...

;>)

from 2,184 rustbucket: "Here are Beauregard's orders dated March 1, 1861. He arrived in Charleston on March 3. Davis must have had a large megaphone to reach him on the 3rd.. "

There was no Internet or email in 1861, of course, but they did have telegraph, and even snail-mail could travel by rail in a just few days. ;-)

I don't know what document Fredriksen is referring to here, however, the eventual necessity of war was laid down in January, when South Carolina demanded Fort Sumter's surrender, declared any resupply tantamount to war, and President Buchanan told South Carolina's envoys Sumter would not be surrendered. So absent some negotiated deal then, war was simply a matter of when the Union decided it must resupply Major Anderson.

We can fully expect Beauregard was instructed to prepare for the inevitable.

rustbucket: "Defense of the harbor would have certainly involved defending against bombardment from Fort Sumter."

Now that is nonsense, and you know it. Fort Sumter was not attacking anyone, or demanding anyone's surrender. Only the South was demanding Sumter's surrender, and declaring attempts to resupply it tantamount to war.

quoting: "This is the first treason trial since the memorable Aaron Burr case.

rustbucket: "Gamble was acquitted."

As was Aaron Burr 60 years earlier. And Burr's trial for treason was also based on attempted secession, the charges brought by none other than President Jefferson. I'd say this tells us exactly what Jefferson REALLY believed about secession.

rustbucket: "Some have argued Bledsoe's book helped the Supreme Court realize that they couldn't prove that Davis was a traitor."

Here is the US Constitution's definition of treason:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

So, was Davis guilty of treason? Seems pretty clear he "levied War against" the United States, doesn't it?

"Care to be more specific, regarding the supposed 'REJECTION' of the subject ratification documents? Care to provide any historical documentation regarding the supposed 'REJECTIONS?'"

Read the US Constitution, as ammended by the Bill of Rights. No statement will be found in either place regarding a state's right of unilateral secession, unapproved withdrawal from the Union OR powers reassumed by the people.

Along with the Bill of Rights, these powers reassumed, or resumed, by the people were proposed by three states -- New York, Virginia and Rhode Island. The Bill of Rights were accepted, the "reassumed" powers rejected. Look it up, pal.

Read the US Constitution, as ammended by the Bill of Rights. No statement will be found in either place regarding a state's right of unilateral secession, unapproved withdrawal from the Union OR powers reassumed by the people.

Along with the Bill of Rights, these powers reassumed, or resumed, by the people were proposed by three states -- New York, Virginia and Rhode Island. The Bill of Rights were accepted, the "reassumed" powers rejected. Look it up, pal.

Let me repeat it for you, 'Squat-to-Post' (from my Post 2187):

"Care to be more specific, regarding the supposed 'REJECTION' of the subject ratification documents? Care to provide any historical documentation regarding the supposed 'REJECTIONS?'

"Of course not."

None of the States reserving their rights, in writing, at the time of ratification, were refused admission to the union. Not a single one of them, 'Squat-to-Post.'

You're a bull sh!t artist, pure & simple...

I don't know what document Fredriksen is referring to here, however, the eventual necessity of war was laid down in January, when South Carolina demanded Fort Sumter's surrender, declared any resupply tantamount to war, and President Buchanan told South Carolina's envoys Sumter would not be surrendered. So absent some negotiated deal then, war was simply a matter of when the Union decided it must resupply Major Anderson.

Fredriksen was your erroneous source for the Harriet Lane landing troops for Fort Pickens on April 8th wasn't it?

Governor Pickens offered to provide provisions for Fort Sumter back in January as I remember. Anderson refused to accept them.

[rustbucket]: Defense of the harbor would have certainly involved defending against bombardment from Fort Sumter.

[BroJoeK]: Now that is nonsense, and you know it. Fort Sumter was not attacking anyone, or demanding anyone's surrender. Only the South was demanding Sumter's surrender, and declaring attempts to resupply it tantamount to war.

Anderson threatened to fire on ships in the harbor from Fort Sumter. Seems to me defense of the harbor might require shooting at the pirates occupying Fort Sumter.

[rustbucket]: Gamble was acquitted.

[BroJoeK]: As was Aaron Burr 60 years earlier. And Burr's trial for treason was also based on attempted secession, the charges brought by none other than President Jefferson. I'd say this tells us exactly what Jefferson REALLY believed about secession.

As I remember, Burr told some people he was going to invade Washington although his main focus appeared to be carving off a western chunk of the US and/or perhaps taking Texas from Mexico. He was not the people of a state formally (and legally) seceding.

So, was Davis guilty of treason? Seems pretty clear he "levied War against" the United States, doesn't it?

Davis was no longer a citizen of the United States and was thus not guilty of treason.

Now look, rustbucket, South Carolina did not first secede on December 20/24, 1860, because all-of-a-sudden they suffered some drastic increase in the rate of tariffs they had been happily paying for many years.

Why did you bring South Carolina into the conversation? Virginia was the state I was talking about, not South Carolina. South Carolina seceded before the drastic increase in tariffs was passed and signed into law. Virginia, the state I was talking about, seceded after the Morrill Tariff became law.

Tariffs could easily have been solved by normal political processes, if that was South Carolina's major concern.

That is what happened in the 1830s. But in 1861, the new tariff was a major contributor to why Lincoln instigated the war, IMO. The Morrill Tariff was signed into law just before Lincoln was inaugurated and after the Confederacy had passed their own tariff. The Confederate tariff was lower but not too different from the 1857 US tariff in effect before the Morrill Tariff.

Had the two countries been allowed to peacefully separate and at the same time retain such large differences in their tariffs:

- Northern ports would suffer a large loss of business.

- Since Northern goods imported to the South would now be charged the Southern tariff, Northern manufacturers would now have to reduce the price of their goods to maintain their previous market share in the South. This would cut their profits and likely result in job losses. Northern manufacturers no longer had a more or less captive market in the South created by a tariff that protected them from lower price European goods.

- The tariff revenue of the United states would fall.

It is no wonder that Lincoln cried 'what about my revenue?' and decided to blockade Southern ports to deprive them of revenue to run the war.

Did you really just "forget" to quote for us the date of that article, and provide a link to it? Why am I guessing that you have taken their words pretty badly out of context?

Unlike you I have a collection of perhaps thousands of articles from newspapers of that time. I've been collecting them for the last seven or eight years. The date of the article was April 3, 1861. There is no link to it that I'm aware of except my own posts of it in the past.

The article was entitled, "The Northern Tariff." I think it was on the front page of an afternoon edition. The article was a full column and a half long. Go to a library and look up that edition of the newspaper. If they have decent libraries in Pennsylvania, you'll find it.

The first paragraph I posted was the first paragraph of the article. The paper put the meat of the article right up front. The second paragraph I posted was the first three sentences of the fourth paragraph. That fourth paragraph continued with ...

The breach between the sections must be widened. The Northern party, in its endeavor to promote Northern at the expense of Southern interests, made a shocking miscalculation. Instead of injuring the South, the Morrill Tariff spread terror throughout the North, and fearful visions of its ruinous effects now haunt those who but a few months ago insanely rejoiced in the promise of peaxce, plenty, and unbounded prosperity.

The article continued by quoting Northern denunciations of the Morrill tariff. Here is a link to one of my posts from 2002 that contained a couple of quotes from that article by Northern papers. Link

I would post the image of the entire article as it appeared in the paper, but I respect the rights of the people who prepared the microfilm of the newspaper. The words of the article are no longer under copyright, but I believe the image is the property of the microfilm preparer. At one library I had to prepare a signed list of the pages I copied from an original copy of a newspaper. Their conditions allowing me to photograph the paper prohibited me from publishing the images. I honor those restrictions.

from 2,190 WIJG: "None of the States reserving their rights, in writing, at the time of ratification, were refused admission to the union."

Read Virginia's lengthy signing statement. You will notice:

three paragraphs in their approval statement
20 items in their suggested Bill of Rights
20 more items in their suggested amendments to the Constitution.

These items, plus others, were selected, combined & accepted into the first ten amendments -- the Constitution's Bill of Rights.

But here's my point again: Not every item that Virginia or other states proposed in signing statements was accepted into the Constitution. Especially rejected was any language referring to powers "reassumed," or "resumed," by the people, or suggesting the possibility of states' unilateral secession.

That's a fact, not BS.

from 2,191 rustbucket: "Fredriksen was your erroneous source for the Harriet Lane landing troops for Fort Pickens on April 8th wasn't it? "

I'm not prepared to say that Fredriksen just wholesale makes cr*p up to stick in his book. Indeed, I'd be more inclined to suspect the opposite: your secession-friendly web sites are highly likely to "forget" to mention historical facts exculpatory to the Union.

"Governor Pickens offered to provide provisions for Fort Sumter back in January as I remember. Anderson refused to accept them."

General Beauregard and Major Anderson were old friends, and treated each other with respect.

April 7: "To increase pressure on Major Anderson, General Pierre GT Beauregard forbids any further communications between Fort Sumter, Charleston Harbor and the shore."

rustbucket: "Anderson threatened to fire on ships in the harbor from Fort Sumter. Seems to me defense of the harbor might require shooting at the pirates occupying Fort Sumter."

And your source and context for this claim is what?

rustbucket: "As I remember, Burr told some people he was going to invade Washington although his main focus appeared to be carving off a western chunk of the US and/or perhaps taking Texas from Mexico. He was not the people of a state formally (and legally) seceding."

There is no "formal" or "legal" secession provided for in the Constitution. However, it does provide ENUMERATED powers for dealing with insurrection, rebellion, "domestic violence," treason, and those invading or making war against the United States.

"Davis was no longer a citizen of the United States and was thus not guilty of treason."

The Constitution's definition of "treason" does not actually require US citizenship. Regardless, from the beginning of the war, President Lincoln was determined to be as lenient toward the South as possible. Grant's surrender terms to Lee were typical of Lincoln's spirit.

Oh, yes. By all means. I hope that you’ll include a link so that everyone can read the entire exchange. I assume that this will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, you being a noted historian and all.

from 2,192 rustbucket: "Why did you bring South Carolina into the conversation? Virginia was the state I was talking about, not South Carolina. South Carolina seceded before the drastic increase in tariffs was passed and signed into law. Virginia, the state I was talking about, seceded after the Morrill Tariff became law."

Because, without South Carolina's FIRST secession, followed by all other states of the Lower South, there would have been no secession debate in Virginia. Indeed, the Morrill Tariff could not have passed without the departure of many Southern members of Congress.

Note in this article that some historians claim the Morrill Tariff was important in the South's secession, while others say it was not. What's certain is tariffs were not mentioned by South Carolina in their Causes for Secession Statement.

It's also certain that Virginia REJECTED an ordnance for secession on APRIL 4, AFTER the Morrill Tariff was passed, but before President Davis fired on Fort Sumter. But just a few days AFTER Sumter, Virginia changed it's mind and voted FOR secession.

So I think we can reasonably conclude the Tariff had nothing to do with it.

rustbucket: "That is what happened in the 1830s. But in 1861, the new tariff was a major contributor to why Lincoln instigated the war, IMO. The Morrill Tariff was signed into law just before Lincoln was inaugurated and after the Confederacy had passed their own tariff. The Confederate tariff was lower but not too different from the 1857 US tariff in effect before the Morrill Tariff."

Sorry, pal, but that's about as crazy as anything I've heard. Lincoln did not "instigate the war." He sent ships to resupply Fort Sumter, just as Buchanan had in January. Davis "instigated the war" by firing on Sumter. And holding onto Fort Sumter had nothing to do with tariffs -- any more than holding the other forts did -- Jefferson, Taylor and Pickens.

And your suggestion that somehow the North "needed" Southern tariffs is belied by the fact that the North soon raised tariffs high enough to pay for the war, without any revenue from the South.