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?
It’s all part of the game - fitting pieces that “fit” even if they don’t make logical sense. Because - narrative.
Y’all.
Another facet of Rebel-nomics is taking 21st century supply chain strategies and projecting them back to the 19th century.
The basic principles of supply and demand have changed since the 19th century?!?
I think it’s safe to assume you are not a business owner or economics professor!
Some people confuse forgiveness with vindication.
They didn't. They were forced by the Federal Law.
Re-read the post.
"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."
Are you seriously asking why that business decision was based on profit? Have you not read the last post.
Re-read it!
"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?"
AGAIN...FEDERAL LAW AND PROFITABILITY!!
"What prevented Southern shippers from competing if they wanted to?"
Federal Law.......AGAIN
"Your own source supports what I've been saying all along and blows your argument out of the water."
You completely misread the information...and worse than that, you persist in preserving your ignorance.
Federal law said that goods moving from one U.S. port to another had to go in American ships. Nothing said that only Packet Lines were allowed for New York, Boston, and Philadelphia or that foreign ships could only call in Northern ports. And had there been any real demand for imports in the South then no doubt such regularly scheduled lines would have been established. But they weren't because, as your own source states, "they did not crave enough imports to justify packet lines until 1851, when New Orleans hosted one sailing to Liverpool."
Re-read the post.
I did, though I wonder if you have since it contradicts what you have been saying and supports my position.
Are you seriously asking why that business decision was based on profit? Have you not read the last post.
I would expect the lines to focus on profit, yes. Since there was very little demand for imports down south then it made no economic sense to schedule ships to run from Europe to Southern ports and drop all those goods off hundreds of miles away from where the demand for them was. So I totally understand why the westbound leg of your packet lines terminated in Northern ports. And since the eastbound leg was primarily exports grown in the South then I totally understand why those ships with cotton started their eastbound leg from Mobile and Charleston and New Orleans.
AGAIN...FEDERAL LAW AND PROFITABILITY!!
What federal law prohibited packet lines between Southern ports and Europe?
ederal Law.......AGAIN
What federal law prohibited Southerners from establishing packet lines and competing?
You completely misread the information...and worse than that, you persist in preserving your ignorance.
I quoted it accurately.
Part of your problem is the lack of context. The very next sentence in the Constitution reads: “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.” This has not happened. And I don't think it is likely to happen.
Earlier in this thread I asked you: “For the record, which Southerners were convicted of treason? Or were you just using it in a gratuitous, non-serious way?” The answer is too clear to deny: your allegations are gratuitous.
Your best reply to my inquiry would be: Verdict first, then the trial!
First, let me congratulate you on reading the Constitution.
Before I directly respond to your statement below, let me note that you still haven’t replied to my question from the last post. As you no doubt recall, it was “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 were 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?”? I’m still waiting with great interest for your response.
But, back to your most recent statement. You responded to my quotation of the first sentence of Article III, section 3 (Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort) with the second sentence (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). Again, I applaud you for actually going to the Constitution and reading it. We will now work on understanding it. The first sentence sets out what actually constitutes treason – that is, levying war, or giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The second clause is what Tokyo Rose did. The first clause is what the soldiers and government of the Confederacy did. The second sentence is how we CONVICT people for treason. The mere fact that the Federal government CHOSE, for whatever reason (Magnanimity?, Christian charity? Raw political calculation?) to not try and convict does not mean the treason didn’t exist. I mean that’s like saying that, since OJ wasn’t convicted there was no murder. Guess what? Nicole Simpson is still dead, and the soldiers and government of the Confederacy still committed treason.
I think the issue is that the Lost Causers are emotionally charged on the whole thing, and choose, either deliberately or unconsciously, to ignore or misread facts that don’t support what they feel is the truth. Facts are “inconvenient” to them, as they do not support their belief system.
Apparently not. There was a trial for treason after the war. [Richmond Dispatch, December 18, 1865. See Link]
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. [See: Source]
There were a few other trials for treason following the war as I remember. I don't think any of them were successful, or if they were, a Presidential pardon erased the verdict.
You have asked the same question several times: “Did the South meet the definition of Treason from the Constitution by levying war against the United States?”
I've told you twicest already: No!
Yes, you told me twicest (twicest?) that you do not believe that the South waged war against the Union. What you did not tell me was with what skewed logic you came up with this hilarious assertion. Are we to believe that the Army of Northern Virginia was a Boy Scout Troop on a 4 year Camporee? That the unfortunate event at Gettysburg was the mid 1800’s equivalent of a pillow fight?
So, dazzle us with the brilliance of your logic when you say that the South did not wage (the exact word used in the Consititution was “Levy”, but wage sounds better here in the 21st Century, and they both mean the same thing) war against the Union. You won’t believe how much I am looking forward to this brilliant piece of logic.
“The mere fact that the Federal government CHOSE, for whatever reason (Magnanimity?, Christian charity? Raw political calculation?) to not try and convict does not mean the treason didn’t exist.”
Let me explain it this way T.C.: You are a member of Free Republic. That in and of itself means you oppose much of what happens in Washington D.C. This is aid and comfort to our enemies. “Some people say” you are like Tokyo Rose. Yes, T.C., you have sassed Washington D. C. and you are a traitor. “Everyone” knows that.
The mere fact the Federal government has chosen, for whatever reason, to not try and convict you does not mean
your treason does not exist.
See how this works T.C.? Think man, think.
Alexander Hamilton was a founding father of the U. S., and a leader of the Federalist Party. He supported a strong central government and left a considerable written record on why he supported a strong central government - and the limitations that were placed on the strong central government.
Hamilton wrote: “If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies and the individuals of whom they are composed.... But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the larger society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.”
Lincoln's violation of amendments IX and X were usurpations. And the South treated them as such. And, the South defended itself.
Well, let's examine the facts from US Commerce Dept data. In 1860 the total value of imports into all of the United States was $336,000,000.
For the same year, the Southern states imported $346,000,000 in products, $10,000,000 more than the entire imports of all the states combined.
Some of the Southern states imports came directly from Europe. For 1860, the South brought in $106,000,000 in direct imports.
The balance, $240 million, came from from Northern Manufacturers and suppliers, or imports from Europe that were brought in by Northern or Southern brokers through New York, and reshipped South.
The South consumed more imported goods than all of the Northern and Western states combined.
Too funny (in a sad, pathetic sorta way) pea! Maybe I should start pinging famous dead FReepers too.
If you do, try not to be insulting.
Nah, you’re doing fine without 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.