The Anaconda Plan: Scott's Great Snake indeed.
Posted on 07/22/2015 7:36:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
We call the war of 1861 the Civil War. But is that right? A civil war is a struggle between two or more entities trying to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more sought to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington sought to take over London in 1776. Both wars, those of 1776 and 1861, were wars of independence. Such a recognition does not require one to sanction the horrors of slavery. We might ask, How much of the war was about slavery?
Was President Abraham Lincoln really for outlawing slavery? Let's look at his words. In an 1858 letter, Lincoln said, "I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists." In a Springfield, Illinois, speech, he explained: "My declarations upon this subject of Negro slavery may be misrepresented but cannot be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration (of Independence) to mean that all men were created equal in all respects." Debating Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said, "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."
What about Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation? Here are his words: "I view the matter (of slaves' emancipation) as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion." He also wrote: "I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition." When Lincoln first drafted the proclamation, war was going badly for the Union.
London and Paris were considering recognizing the Confederacy and assisting it in its war against the Union.
The Emancipation Proclamation was not a universal declaration. It specifically detailed where slaves were to be freed: only in those states "in rebellion against the United States." Slaves remained slaves in states not in rebellion — such as Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri. The hypocrisy of the Emancipation Proclamation came in for heavy criticism. Lincoln's own secretary of state, William Seward, sarcastically said, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."
Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been heartily endorsed by the Confederacy: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. ... Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." Lincoln expressed that view in an 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives, supporting the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.
Why didn't Lincoln share the same feelings about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our nation's history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What "responsible" politician would let that much revenue go?
yw
As an opus goes, I’d give this about a 4.
Should’ve listened. I’ve seen this movie before. It always ends with lightning.
Someone should have told that to the confederates.
The Anaconda Plan: Scott's Great Snake indeed.
"Someone should have told that to the confederates."
I think Lincoln made that pretty clear to the confederates. Although it did take him four bloody years.
Some people here still haven't gotten word.
“What logic is there to paying for a good in 2015 and not selling it until 2018?”
Market economics! If the good is non-perishable, you might want to hold on to it until you can get a better price selling it (if you can afford to have your capital locked up in inventory for that long).
The feral government made war against the South.
“The fact that the federal government CHOSE not to prosecute doesn’t mean a crime wasn’t committed.”
It could mean they didn't think they could get a conviction. It certainly means they did not want to unpack their evidence for the record or for posterity.
You state that the “feral” government made war against the South. Not sure if you’re trying to be cute (you failed) or simply can’t spell. In either case you didn’t answer the question. Did the South meet the definition of Treason from the Constitution by levying war against the United States? It’s a simple question, with a simple answer.
I would also remind you that the South started this war, first by seceding, and second by staging an unprovoked attack against Federal forces at Fort Sumter.
As far as the comment that the federal government chose not to prosecute because they didn’t think they could get a conviction, this is a titanic reach. A first year law student could get a conviction on this.
When you say that the decision not to prosecute means they did not want to unpack their evidence for the record or for posterity, what evidence are you talking about? Was it one of the artillery shells Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter?
I really think you're reaching on this one.
Why would the consumers care what the most profitable route for the shipper was? Why would they willingly put up with the extra cost when they could just as easily found someone to bring the goods directly to them and cut out the additional time and expense?
Early and mid-19th century Atlantic trade was based on “packet lines” — which were groups of vessels under one company banner offering scheduled services. It was a coastal trade at first, but when the Black Ball Line started running between New York and Liverpool in 1817, it became a common way to do business across the Atlantic.
Again with the packet lines. What sense was there in establishing a packet line between England and New York except that there was enough cargo demand to justify regularly scheduled runs between the two destinations. So again, if all those goods were destined for Southern consumers then why did they not establish those packet lines between England and Charleston or England and New Orleans? The only logical reason is because there wasn't enough demand for cargo space to justify establishing the packet line. And why wasn't there enough demand for that cargo space? Because there wasn't enough demand for imports. That demand was up North so those lines ran into New York and Boston and Philadelphia. There was little or no demand down South so those lines did not run to Charleston, Mobile, or New Orleans.
So American vessels, usually owned in the Northeast, sailed off to a cotton port, carrying goods for the southern market. There they loaded cotton, or occasionally naval stores, food, or timber, for Europe. They steamed back from Europe loaded with manufactured goods, raw materials like hemp or coal, and occasionally immigrants.
I hate to sound like a broken record but if there wasn't any demand for imported goods in the North and little in the way of exports from the North then why did ships go there in the first place?
Since it was subsidized by the U.S. government, it was going to continue to be protectionist, and not subject to competition from any nascent Southern shippers.
Why not? What prevented Southern shippers from competing if they wanted to?
As for the cotton ports themselves, they did not crave enough imports to justify packet lines until 1851, when New Orleans hosted one sailing to Liverpool.
Which is what I have been saying all along!!!!!! There was little demand for imports in the South. Therefore they did not generate the majority of tariff revenue, they generated a small percentage of it. Your own source supports what I've been saying all along and blows your argument out of the water.
“Did the South meet the definition of Treason from the Constitution by levying war against the United States?”
No.
Would you, perchance, be willing to share your logic in saying that the South did not levy war against the United States?
The discussion was about treason and your original charge of treason.
Again, no.
So again we delve into the Constitution. The Constititution, in Article III, Section 3 defines treason as follows: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”. This is a direct quote. If you meet the provisions outlined here, you have committed treason, by definition. If you disagree with this logic, please tell my why.
So, the only question is, did the South levy war against the United States? If you say that they did not, please tell me what Robert E Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia was doing for 4 years? Were they really just a large Boy Scout Troop on an extended Camporee? Or were they perhaps, and I’m going to go out a limb here, engaged in armed conflict against the United States of America?
Buy low, sell high is reaching?
No, of course, in the Confederate world it all makes perfect sense. Buying stuff and storing it for three worlds. Importing your goods hundreds of miles away from the vast majority of your customers. It's Rebel-nomics
world = years.
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.