Posted on 03/02/2020 3:07:25 AM PST by Bull Snipe
The Commandant of the Marine Corp, General David Berger, has ordered "the removal of fall Confederate-related paraphernalia from Marine Corp installations.
Story at Source URL
(Excerpt) Read more at military.com ...
The confederacy was suffering food shortages a lot earlier than that. As early as April, 1863, there were food riots in Richmond. And the whole reason for the Battle of Gettysburg was that Lee was trying to find shoes for his bedraggled army.
“the whole reason for the Battle of Gettysburg was that Lee was trying to find shoes for his bedraggled army.”
Not the case. Lee’s reason for the invasion of Pennsylvania was to inflict a major defeat on the Army of the Potomac in Northern territory.
The existence of shoes at Gettysburg was a rumor. It was thought to be true by A.P.Hill on July 1 1863.
Same difference. Lee had no intention of fighting at Gettysburg, but Heth sent some of his men there to see what they could find. “On the morning of June 30, I ordered Brigadier General [Johnston] Pettigrew to take his brigade to Gettysburg, search the town for army supplies (shoes especially), and return the same day.” They ran into opposition, and one thing led to another. In Richmond, meanwhile,a pair of shoes was selling for $125.
Nope. What they did was completely constitutional. It was what the tyrant Lincoln did that was unconstitutional.
Not a deflection. Its called reality. Deal with it.
Lee was serving his country - Virginia.
How did the CSA constitution protect slavery more than the US Constitution would have with the Corwin Amendment? The idea that they would opt for a bloody expensive war over an issue the other side was more than happy to concede right from the start is simply not rational.
Plenty of Southern leaders said their main concern was the tariff, the unequal federal government expenditures, and the use of the federal government as an engine of Northern aggrandizement. Southerners were of course paying 75% of the Tariff. They were the ones doing the exporting and importing.
I don’t recall the Virginia legislature consenting to the creation of West Virginia from several counties of Virginia.
In what section of the constitution is this secession mechanism explained? I see where the framers put in the procedures on how states are added or their boundaries changed. I’m sure with something this important, a state leaving the union, the framers would have explained the method of how this is done.
In early September 1863 General Longstreet rejected 5000 set of shoes, as substandard. The shoes were to be issued to his troops just before the left for Georgia. the $125 price a pair was on the civilian market.
Never said they did. Just pointed out that your statement was incorrect. The Constitution does allow a state to be divided if both parties and the Congress agree.
The states had to ratify the constitution.
In the Federalist Papers, Madison made it quite clear “the people” was the people of each sovereign state.
“...the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States.... Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act” (Federalist 39).’ James Madison
Only the legislatures of each state could exercise the state’s sovereignty. That is clear set out in each state constitution.
you have it backwards. If something is not set out clearly in the constitution then it is a power the states have - not the federal government. Read the 10th amendment.
He warred against his country - the United States.
The Corwin Amendment did not protect slavery in places where it did not already exist. The Confederate constitution guaranteed slavery in all parts of the Confederacy and all territory it would acquire in the future. The Confederate constitution basically prohibited non-slave states. The Corwin amendment did not. The Confederate constitution prohibited laws that might impair the right to own slaves, the Corwnin Amendment did not. The Confederate constitution protected slave imports from one country, the Corwnin Amendment did not. Like I said, the Corwin amendments protection of slavery paled in comparison.
Plenty of Southern leaders said their main concern was the tariff, the unequal federal government expenditures, and the use of the federal government as an engine of Northern aggrandizement.
So you keep saying.
Southerners were of course paying 75% of the Tariff.
The Southerners were, of course, paying nowhere near that amount. It was closer to 5% or 6%.
They were the ones doing the exporting and importing.
If they were then why were all those imports going to Northern ports and not Southern ones?
His country was Virginia.
False. The Confederate constitution did not prohibit non slave states. Also false to claim the Corwin Amendment did not prohibit laws that might impair the right to own slaves. “Congress shall make no law”. Sound familiar? The Confederate Constitution changed nothing from the status quo ante regarding the slave trade. ie it was still forbidden from Africa or the Caribbean or anywhere else where it had been prohibited since 1810. It was only allowed from US states where it had formerly been allowed under the US Constitution.
“. . . delegates from the Deep South met in Montgomery, Alabama, on February 4 [1861] to establish the Confederate States of America. The convention acted as a provisional government while at the same time drafting a permanent constitution. . . . Voted down were proposals to reopen the Atlantic slave trade . . . and to prohibit the admission of free states to the new Confederacy. . . . The resulting constitution was surprisingly similar to that of the United States. Most of the differences merely spelled out traditional southern interpretations of the federal charter. . . . . . . it was clear from the actions of the Montgomery convention that the goal of the new converts to secessionism was not to establish a slaveholders’ reactionary utopia. What they really wanted was to recreate the Union as it had been before the rise of the new Republican Party, and they opted for secession only when it seemed clear that separation was the only way to achieve their aim. The decision to allow free states to join the Confederacy reflected a hope that much of the old Union could be reconstituted under southern direction.” (Robert A. Divine, T. H. Bren, George Fredrickson, and R. Hal Williams, America Past and Present, Fifth Edition, New York: Longman, 1998, pp. 444-445, emphasis added)
I have cited numerous Southern political leaders who went on at length about the evils of the tariff, unequal federal expenditures and partisan sectional legislation against Southern economic interests. Its not that I say. Its that they said.
The South paid the overwhelming majority of the tariff.
“The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing. The transportation of cotton and its fabrics employs more than all other trade. It is very clear the South gains by this process and we lose. No, we must not let the South go.” The Manchester, New Hampshire Union Democrat Feb 19 1861
The predicament in which both the government and the commerce of the country are placed, through the non-enforcement of our revenue laws, is now thoroughly understood the world over....If the manufacturer at Manchester (England) can send his goods into the Western States through New Orleans at less cost than through New York, he is a fool for not availing himself of his advantage....if the importations of the country are made through Southern ports, its exports will go through the same channel. The produce of the West, instead of coming to our own port by millions of tons to be transported abroad by the same ships through which we received our importations, will seek other routes and other outlets. With the loss of our foreign trade, what is to become of our public works, conducted at the cost of many hundred millions of dollars, to turn into our harbor the products of the interior? They share in the common ruin. So do our manufacturers. Once at New Orleans, goods may be distributed over the whole country duty free. The process is perfectly simple. The commercial bearing of the question has acted upon the North. We now see whither our tending, and the policy we must adopt. With us it is no longer an abstract question of Constitutional construction, or of the reserved or delegated power of the State or Federal Government, but of material existence and moral position both at home and abroad. We were divided and confused till our pockets were touched.” New York Times March 30, 1861
That either revenue from these duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the ports must be closed to importations from abroad. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed, the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up. We shall have no money to carry on the government, the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe....allow railroad iron to be entered at Savannah with the low duty of ten percent which is all that the Southern Confederacy think of laying on imported goods, and not an ounce more would be imported at New York. The Railways would be supplied from the southern ports.” New York Evening Post March 12, 1861 article “What Shall be Done for a Revenue?”
December 1860, before any secession, the Chicago Daily Times foretold the disaster that Southern free ports would bring to Northern commerce: “In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwide trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow.”Chicago Daily Times Dec 1860
On 18 March 1861, the Boston Transcript noted that while the Southern states had claimed to secede over the slavery issue, now “the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade....”
“Let the South adopt the free-trade system and the North’s commerce must be reduced to less than half of what it now is.” Daily Chicago Times Dec 10 1860
In a pamphlet published in 1850, Muscoe Russell Garnett of Virginia wrote:
The whole amount of duties collected from the year 1791, to June 30, 1845, after deducting the drawbacks on foreign merchandise exported, was $927,050,097. Of this sum the slaveholding States paid $711,200,000, and the free States only $215,850,097. Had the same amount been paid by the two sections in the constitutional ratio of their federal population, the South would have paid only $394,707,917, and the North $532,342,180. Therefore, the slaveholding States paid $316,492,083 more than their just share, and the free States as much less.
“Before... the revolution [the South] was the seat of wealth, as well as hospitality....Wealth has fled from the South, and settled in regions north of the Potomac: and this in the face of the fact, that the South, in four staples alone, has exported produce, since the Revolution, to the value of eight hundred millions of dollars; and the North has exported comparatively nothing. Such an export would indicate unparalleled wealth, but what is the fact? ... Under Federal legislation, the exports of the South have been the basis of the Federal revenue.....Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia, may be said to defray three-fourths of the annual expense of supporting the Federal Government; and of this great sum, annually furnished by them, nothing or next to nothing is returned to them, in the shape of Government expenditures. That expenditure flows in an opposite direction - it flows northwardly, in one uniform, uninterrupted, and perennial stream. This is the reason why wealth disappears from the South and rises up in the North. Federal legislation does all this.” ——Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton
“The people of the Southern States, whose almost exclusive occupation was agriculture, early perceived a tendency in the Northern States to render the common government subservient to their own purposes by imposing burdens on commerce as a protection to their manufacturing and shipping interests. Long and angry controversies grew out of these attempts, often successful, to benefit one section of the country at the expense of the other. And the danger of disruption arising from this cause was enhanced by the fact that the Northern population was increasing, by immigration and other causes, in a greater ratio than the population of the South. By degrees, as the Northern States gained preponderance in the National Congress, self-interest taught their people to yield ready assent to any plausible advocacy of their right as a majority to govern the minority without control.” Jefferson Davis Address to the Confederate Congress April 29, 1861
“What were the causes of the Southern independence movement in 1860? . . . Northern commercial and manufacturing interests had forced through Congress taxes that oppressed Southern planters and made Northern manufacturers rich . . . the South paid about three-quarters of all federal taxes, most of which were spent in the North.” - Charles Adams, “For Good and Evil. The impact of taxes on the course of civilization,” 1993, Madison Books, Lanham, USA, pp. 325-327
As Adams notes, the South paid an undue proportion of federal revenues derived from tariffs, and these were expended by the federal government more in the North than the South: in 1840, the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. They paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports. The South, in effect, was paying tribute to the North. When in the Course of Human Events: Charles Adams
All these northern newspapers and Southern political leaders and even a tax expert vehemently disagree with your claims. The South was furnishing 3/4s of the exports and thus doing 3/4s of the importing and paying the tariffs on those imported goods.
You seem to make the same mistake the chief PC Revisionist James McPherson made. It was clear he didn’t understand economics. Where the ship lands makes no difference. Who owns the goods makes all the difference since it is the owner of the goods - not the port - who pays the tariffs. When a cargo ship loaded with Wal-Mart goods from China docks in Long Beach California, do you think the city of Long Beach pays the tariff? Do you think California pays the tariff.....or might Wal-Mart have to pay that tariff?
His country was Virginia and he warred against it.
It prohibited non slave territories (Article 4, Section 3, Clause 3) and prohibited states from banning slavery within their borders (Article 4, Section 2, clause 1).
Also false to claim the Corwin Amendment did not prohibit laws that might impair the right to own slaves. “Congress shall make no law”. Sound familiar?
"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State..." Sound familiar? Nothing in the amendment about territories. Or haven't you read the actual amendment itself?
The Confederate Constitution changed nothing from the status quo ante regarding the slave trade. ie it was still forbidden from Africa or the Caribbean or anywhere else where it had been prohibited since 1810. It was only allowed from US states where it had formerly been allowed under the US Constitution.
The difference being that prior to the rebellion the U.S. had not been a foreign country. So the Confederate constitution did specifically protect imports from at least one source.
I have cited numerous Southern political leaders who went on at length about the evils of the tariff, unequal federal expenditures and partisan sectional legislation against Southern economic interests. Its not that I say. Its that they said.
Would you like me to post all the quotes from Southern leaders saying it was about slavery?
The South paid the overwhelming majority of the tariff.
And yet 95% of it was collected in Northern ports and not Southern ones.
All these northern newspapers and Southern political leaders and even a tax expert vehemently disagree with your claims.
Newspaper editorials? I can point to dozens of newspaper editorials which said Trump was guilty and should have been removed by the impeachment. I assume you accept their word as gospel as well?
And I've read Adams' book. He give no source for his claims. Yet federal document show that about 95% of all tariffs were collected in Northern ports.
You seem to make the same mistake the chief PC Revisionist James McPherson made. It was clear he didn’t understand economics.
LOL! I'm not sure he's the one who doesn't understand economics.
Where the ship lands makes no difference. Who owns the goods makes all the difference since it is the owner of the goods - not the port - who pays the tariffs.
True. But it you are paying 75% of the tariff then wouldn't it make sense that those goods would be delivered to a port closest to you, the end consumer?
As Rear Admiral Samuel Philips Lee, cousin to Robert E. Lee, said when asked why he stayed loyal to America;
“When I find the word Virginia in my commission, I will join the Confederacy”
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.