NEWS FROM WASHINGTON: How the President’s Message is Received; MAILS TO THE SOUTH PACIFIC (3/8/1862)

New York Times - Times Machine ^ | 3/8/1862

[Homer_J_Simpson]

WASHINGTON, Friday, March 7.

The more the President's Message is discussed the more difficult is it to define the position of parties in regard to it. One great point, however, is gained the subject is universally discussed with more calmness than has ever before characterized a question about Slavery.

DEPARTURE OF GOV. JOHNSON FOR TENNESEE.

Gov. ANDREW JOHNSON, accompanied by his son, Col. ROBERT JOHNSON, WILLIAM A. BROWNING, Secretary, &c., Hon. HORACE MAYNARD, and Hon. EMERSON ETHERIDGE, Clerk of the House, left Washington this afternoon for Nashville, via Harrisburgh, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati and Louisville.

THE MAILS TO THE SOUTH PACIFIC, VIA PANAMA.

The Senate Committee on Post-offices, at their meeting to-day, authorized Mr. COLLAMER to report Mr. SUMNER's bill to provide for the carrying the mails from the United States to foreign ports, with a recommendation that immediate action be had, so as to provide for carrying the mails to the South Pacific before the 21st inst., after which date Commodore VANDERBILT has notified the Postmaster-General he will refuse to take the mails. The bill, as reported, provider that any vessels clearing from a foreign port shall take and receive any mail matter placed on board said vessel by the United States Consul or by the port officers of such foreign port or place, for the United States, and shall deliver the same to the Post-office of the place aforesaid in the United States.

ALLOTMENTS OF THE NEW-YORK SOLDIERS.

The Allotment Commissioners from New-York to-day closed up the object of their mission, having visited upwards of 70 regiments, and handed over to the Paymaster-General all the certificates, so that that officer can complete what remains to be done. They have been eminently successful.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "The South did 500 million in trade with the North, and 200 million in trade with Europe."

Numbers I've seen say 1860 cotton exports totaled ~$200 million and Southern "imports" from the North also totaled ~$200 million.
Those are important numbers, but the US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 1860 came in around $4.4 billion, of which the South totaled around 15%, or >$700 million.

In 1861 the loss of Southern exports, imports & GDP did disrupt the Northern economy, temporarily, by about 15%.
But the Union economy & GDP soon adjusted and by war's end had more than doubled.

The Southern economy was noteworthy for its dependence on cotton exports, and its lack of manufacturing capacities.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Serious, serious reasons are required for open rebellion against government authorities; like taxing three pence for a pound of tea."

If you're interested in seeing a list of "serious, serious reasons", check out the Declaration of Independence.
It includes about two dozen such reasons, including:

"He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people."

Nothing remotely resembling such reasons existed in November 1860, when Democrat Fire Eaters began organizing for secession "at pleasure".

[BroJoeK]

Pelham: "I’m sure that the usual cult will denounce Adams as a Southern apologist.
He was an historian, a Union Army combat officer, and the grandson & g-grandson of the two Presidents from Massachusetts."

After the Civil War there was a huge effort by many, both North & South, to reconcile the sides and find common grounds.
Some were happy to bend the facts to fit their reconciliation objectives.

The truth is seven states seceded peacefully and might have lived in harmony with the Union, until they decided it would be better to start & wage war against the United States.
That didn't work out so well for them.

[BroJoeK]

Pelham: "If you compare King George III’s Speech to Parliament October 26, 1775 to Lincoln’s April 15, 1861 Proclamation raising an army to use against the states the difference is mainly George’s archaic and flowery verbiage.
The content is the same."

Not really.
In February 1775, even before any open warfare, Parliament had already declared Massachusetts in rebellion.

Then King George's "Proclamation of Rebellion", August 23, 1775, came in response to the recent Battles of Lexington, Concord & Bunker Hill.
Worth noting that this was still almost a year before the American Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation, and at the time there were still many Americans (including Benjamin Franklin) who looked for ways to make peace with the Brits.
Also noteworthy that these battles began with British troops assaulting American positions.

By contrast, Lincoln's April 15, 1861 Proclamation came after Deep South secession and Confederacy, in response to the Confederate assault on Fort Sumter and Lincoln' Proclamation declared neither "rebellion" nor "insurrection".
Instead, Lincoln called for troops to "suppress said combinations" (referring to the 1807 Insurrection Act) and enforce US laws.
The words "insurrection" and "rebellion" came into official use later.

[jeffersondem]

“If you're interested in seeing a list of “serious, serious reasons”, check out the Declaration of Independence.”

If that don't beat all; you are endorsing by way of recommending the Declaration of Independence.

You have repudiated Thomas Jefferson and you are certainly no observer of the Declaration's jots and tittles. You ignore long passages while adding at pleasure “at pleasure.”

If Thomas Jefferson were to claim “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us” you would either deny it or attempt to make it into something it was not.

[jeffersondem]

“The truth is seven states seceded peacefully and might have lived in harmony with the Union, until they decided it would be better to start & wage war against the United States.”

The truth is seven states seceded peacefully and might have lived in harmony with the Union, until they decided it would be better to resist Lincoln’s special military operation.”

Fixed it for you.

[DiogenesLamp]

But no Founder ever claimed that's what they intended.

Why would they need to claim that? The words speak for themselves.

Those who would believe otherwise must prove the founders did not intend for people to have independence if they wanted it.

Rather, Founders like Madison explained their Declaration idea as: when a legal contract is broken that relieves the parties from their legal obligations to honor it.

This principle is correct, but is not relevant to a right to independence which people have anyway.

But supposing this is a requirement in your mind, then I will point out that states' refusal to enforce Article 4, Section 2 constitutes such a "breach of contract."

Therefore even under your legal theory, the Confederates had a right to leave.

And "broken" refers to such major events as spelled out in their Declaration of Independence.

Fine. I'll go you one further. Here is one of the major events as spelled out in the Declaration of Independence.

"He has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us...

And here is what a conspiracy of prominent gentlemen in Massachusetts et al did.

So with Northern states having engaged in the exact same activity as listed as a "cause" in the Declaration of Independence, under BroJoeK's theory, they still had a right to leave.

Glad we could agree that they had a right to leave BroJoeK.

[Pelham]

Adams wrote that as an historian he had decided to look closely at the arguments in favor of and against secession. And that’s what he did, rather than just accept bloody shirt triumphalism.

Jefferson and Madison, authors of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves, and anti-Federalist founding fathers like George Mason and Patrick Henry all believed that States weren’t possessions of the central government. Lincoln, like Hamilton and George III felt otherwise.

[DiogenesLamp]

Those are important numbers, but the US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 1860 came in around $4.4 billion, of which the South totaled around 15%, or >$700 million.

That the South sent 500 million in goods to the North I found in Kettel's book, and whether 700 million is important in a 4.4 billion economy depends entirely on whether that 700 million is coming out of the pockets of the wealthy and powerful elite who have been controlling our DC government since before Lincoln.

The rest of the nation may have been okay with losing that money, but the power barons were absolutely not okay with losing that money.

And that's why they got their puppet to launch a war against the South to stop them.

[DiogenesLamp]

Nothing remotely resembling such reasons existed in November 1860...

"He has incited domestic insurrections against us..."

[jmacusa]

No state has the authority to unilaterally change or alter the Constitution. The damnable thing is the Constitution isn't clear on the subject but no state or states(?) has the power. Technically the South had no legal right to secede.

[Bull Snipe]

They were telling them that they had to funnel all their trade through New York. To do otherwise would have cost them enormous fines and penalties, up to and including the loss of the entire cargo and any ship carrying it.

Which law passed by Congress and signed by the President authorized those actions?

[Bull Snipe]

Nice summary. Though you would have included Article I Sec 2 para 3 “three fifths of all others”

[Bull Snipe]

“the original 13th amendment would have made slavery permanent.”

I disagree. “ No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”

Nothing in the Amendment prevents a state from outlawing the institution of slavery. As you have stated many times over, slavery would have died out eventually due to economic changes in our society. The Amendment does not prevent that from happening. So slavery was not made “permanent”.

[Bull Snipe]

Would have considered the Charleston batteries firing on the Star of the West as the first breach against peace.

[DiogenesLamp]

Which law passed by Congress and signed by the President authorized those actions?

Navigation act of 1817.

It created prohibitive penalties for using foreign ships or crew to carry this trade.

Once the South left, they could have hired foreign ships and crews to do the shipping and it would have been a great savings compared to what the Northeastern monopoly shipping cartel would have charged.

[DiogenesLamp]

Nice summary. Though you would have included Article I Sec 2 para 3 “three fifths of all others”

Yes, that could have been included to make the implication that slavery was legal on a national level.

Clearly it was their intent to mean "slaves" when you read the congressional debates on the topic.

[DiogenesLamp]

Nothing in the Amendment prevents a state from outlawing the institution of slavery. As you have stated many times over, slavery would have died out eventually due to economic changes in our society. The Amendment does not prevent that from happening. So slavery was not made “permanent”.

You are absolutely correct, but I often have a tendency to trade brevity for some accuracy. Trump does this a lot too.

Adding the "Until every state abolished it individually" takes up a lot more words than just saying "permanently."

Also, when you are trying to show how serious of a breach this is from their publicly stated positions of anti-slavery, "Permanently" implies a much more serious betrayal.

[DiogenesLamp]

Would have considered the Charleston batteries firing on the Star of the West as the first breach against peace.

The first breach of the peace was Anderson using force and sabotage to seize Fort Sumter while everyone was peacefully sleeping, and this after months of the Secretary of War assuring them all that the forts would be turned over to them.

As for the Star of the West, I think you and I had spoken about this before, but just in case I will remind you that was a covert mission to sneak additional forces into the fortress, and so was therefore another belligerent act on the part of the Union government.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "You have repudiated Thomas Jefferson and you are certainly no observer of the Declaration's jots and tittles.
You ignore long passages while adding at pleasure “at pleasure.”"

Typical jeffersondem nonsense... I've always said Jefferson was a, ah, "complicated" figure -- i.e., a slaveholder who opposed slavery wherever he could.
A revolutionary who arrested his former VP, Aaron Burr & charged him with treason for wanting to secede Louisiana.
A small-r republican who founded the corrupt Democrat party... I could go on.

As for the Declaration's "jots & tittles", you'd need lots more of those to corrupt it's basic meanings, such as its focus on necessity and it's enumeration of Britain's destructive behavior, as opposed to your ideas of secession at pleasure, just because you lose an election.

As for who "ignores long passages", I'd say you "liberal" Democrats ignore every word, every "jot & tittle" which doesn't support your own reinterpretations of our Founders' documents.

jeffersondem: "If Thomas Jefferson were to claim “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us” you would either deny it or attempt to make it into something it was not."

As you well know, but for some reason chose to deny, there were plenty of "domestic insurrections" amongst American Loyalists to Britain, insurrections against Patriots at the time Jefferson wrote those words.
But you chose to ignore the actual insurrections of Loyalists against Patriots while claiming the term refers to "other" insurrections which never actually happened.