Posted on 02/08/2021 6:08:29 AM PST by Homer_J_Simpson
WASHINGTON, Thursday, Feb. 7.
The following statement in relation to the surrender of the revenue cutter Robert McClelland, is derived from an official source:
The cutter is one of the largest and best in the revenue service, just rebuilt and refitted. Her commander was Capt. BRESHWOOD, of Virginia. On the 19th of January, four days after Secretary Dix took charge of the Treasury Department, he sent Mr. WM. HEMPHILL JONES, Chief Clerk in the First Comptroller's Office, to New-Orleans and Mobile, to save, if possible, the two cutters on service there. Capt. MORRISON, a Georgian, commanding the Lewis Cass at Mobile, must have surrendered her before Mr. JONES' arrival. On the 29th of January, the Secretary received the following telegraphic dispatch from Mr. JONES:
NEW-ORLEANS, Jan. 29, 1861.
Hon. J.A. DIX, Secretary Treasury: Capt. BRESHWOOD has refused positively in writing to obey any instructions of the Department. In this I am sure he is sustained by the Collector, and believe acts by his advice. What must I do?
W.H. JONES, Special Agent.
To this dispatch Secretary DIX immediately returned the following answer, before published:
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Jan. 29, 1861.
W. HEMPHILL JONES, New-Orleans: Tell Lieut. CALDWELL to arrest Capt. BRESHWOOD, assume command of the cutter, and obey the order through you. If Capt. BRESHWOOD, after arrest, undertakes to interfere with the command of the cutter, tell Lieut. CALDWELL to consider him as a mutineer, and treat him accordingly. If any one attempts to haul down the American flag, shoot him on the spot.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
First session: November 21, 2015. Last date to add: Sometime in the future.
Reading: Self-assigned. Recommendations made and welcomed.
Posting history, in reverse order
https://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:homerjsimpson/index?tab=articles
To add this class to or drop it from your schedule notify Admissions and Records (Attn: Homer_J_Simpson) by reply or freepmail.
Link to previous New York Times thread
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3932437/posts
One theme with which our Lost Causers regale us goes like this: "Northeastern Power Brokers" in early 1861 went mad with fear that their "money flows from Euorpe" would be interrupted by "Confederate free trade" intended to redirect international shipping from Northern ports like New York City to Confederate ports like Charleston, SC.
In support of this theory, we are told that after secession, many more ships began arriving at Charleston SC, instead of NYC.
This is said to be the "real reason" Lincoln "launched his war fleet" with orders to "attack Confederates" surrounding Fort Sumter.
The part of that Lost Cause myth dealing with "money flows from Europe" is addressed in this particular editorial, which compares shipping and material goods received in Charleston in early 1860 with those of 1861.
The numbers come from Charleston Confederates themselves and show a drastic reduction in shipping since secession.
Why, it's almost as if there was a blockade against Southern shipping in 1861...
W.T. Sherman’s observations to his brother (February 1861):
“The people in the South are evidently unanimous in the opinion that slavery is endangered by the current of events, and it is useless to attempt to alter that opinion. As our government is founded on the will of the people, when that will is fixed, our government is powerless, and the only question is whether to let things slide into general anarchy, or the formation of two or more confederacies, which will be hostile sooner or later. Still, I know that some of the best men of Louisiana think this change may be effected peacefully. But even if the Southern States be allowed to depart in peace, the first question will be revenue.
Now, if the South have free trade, how can you collect revenues in the eastern cities? Freight from New Orleans to St. Louis, Chicago, Louisville, Cincinnati, and even Pittsburgh, would be about the same as by rail from New York, and importers at New Orleans, having no duties to pay, would undersell the East if they had to pay duties. Therefore, if the South make good their confederation and their plan, the Northern confederacy must do likewise or blockade.”
Why did Lincoln order invasion?
What did he say in his first inaugural address?
"The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere."
The Republicans were willing to kill people to keep up their protectionist racket.
Good thing the year and date are put on the article or I wouldn’t know the difference.
Hi.
This is M Kehoe from February 1861:
Si Vis pacem, para bellum.
Wait, this is February 2021.
My bad.
5.56mm
There was no hint of a blockade under Democrat President Buchanan, nor of one under Republican President Lincoln until after Fort Sumter.
And since Homer is going day-by-day, I have to predict that Fort Sumter is still over two months in the future.
The numbers quoted in this editorial came from Charleston itself for the period from secession in December 1860 through the end of January 1861.
Gunslingr3: "W.T. Sherman’s observations to his brother (February 1861):"
Sherman here raises the specter of "free trade", saying:
The problem begins with the fact that Confederates must, must have revenues to pay for their government, law enforcement and military and therefore must, must have tariffs on imports if nothing else.
And in fact, they did immediately set tariffs at basically the same low levels as the US Tariff of 1857.
And as of February 1860 the new higher US Morrill Tariff had not yet been passed by Congress.
So, as of this report ("today" in 1861) there was no major difference in Union & Confederate tariffs.
The second point to remember is that even when, later, Union tariffs did rise higher than Confederates' it still would not pay merchants to ship goods to, for example, Charleston, for transport by rail to, say, Cincinnati, because then they would pay a tariff twice.
So Sherman's concerns about "free trade" might have been real to him, but in fact were pure nonsense, and everyone actually involved in commerce would understand that.
Gunslingr3: "Why did Lincoln order invasion?
What did he say in his first inaugural address?"
In his first Inaugural (still a month away), Lincoln will hold out an olive branch, saying, in effect: we'll do our best to accommodate Southerners, if we can just maintain the Constitutional functions of Federal government.
Confederate newspapers called that a Declaration of War.
But Lincoln's reason for resupplying Maj. Anderson in Fort Sumter was because otherwise Anderson would be forced to surrender and Lincoln was not willing to concede defeat there without some effort to prevent it.
And yes, after a f***ing blockade for most of 1861, the number of ships arriving in Charleston would have been greatly reduced.
For that matter, the threat of war would have also had a chilling effect on any efforts to ship to Charleston, but one thing I can count on with you is that you will interpret every piece of data in a manner that most suits your narrative.
And, just like Gunslingr3, you missed the key point here: this reported drastic decline in shipping to Charleston, SC, did not come at the end of 1861, after a year of war & blockade, but rather at the end of 1860, early 1861, after secession declared, but before any other threats of war appeared.
The only change to Charleston in late 1860, early 1861, was its declaration of secession and already there was a drastic reduction (not increase) in shipping reported.
Kind of blows a gaping hole in your pet "money flows from Europe" theory.
See what I mean?
You make my point for me. Who wants to trade with a city that will soon become a war zone?
You cannot take an unnatural circumstance and claim it represents normal conditions.
If you are going to claim that there would have been no increase in trade with Charleston in a non war condition, then you need to show why people would not have wanted to do so.
I personally think people will follow money, and with a normalization of relations between the USA and the CSA, that money for shippers would have been in Charleston, New Orleans, Mobile and other places in the South.
Do not forget that the bulk of all shipping between the US and Europe was for materials that came from the South.
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.