Uncle Tom's Cabin

Lew Rockwell ^ | 12/16/03 | Gail Jarvis

[Non-Sequitur]

And those quotes came from where?

[Non-Sequitur]

Read the book and find out.

In other words you don't know?

[Non-Sequitur]

Read section 2. It comes after section 1 and before section 3.

[Non-Sequitur]

"With the cotton market now firmly in their control, some of the more savvy New Yorkers by the 1830s began to alter the triangular cotton trade by shipping the cotton first to New York by fast coastal vessels. And then transferring their cotton cargoes at New York to the Atlantic packets for the final leg of the journey to Liverpool.

Then how do you explain the fact that in 1860-61 there were 1,783,678 bales of cotton exported from New Orleans and only 248,049 exported from New York. In fact over 90% of all cotton exported left from southern ports. But all those ships arrived empty, it seems. Why was that if there was such a demand for European imports in the south?

[nolu chan]

[Nonseq 269] Finally never forget what Thomas Jefferson once said,

Never forget what The Lincoln said about the President, Kings, and War Powers.

LINK

Lincoln, Abraham, 1809-1865.: Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 1.

To William H. Herndon [1]

Dear William: Washington, Feb. 15. 1848

Your letter of the 29th. Jany. was received last night. Being exclusively a constitutional argument, I wish to submit some reflections upon it in the same spirit of kindness that I know actuates you. Let me first state what I understand to be your position. It is, that if it shall become necessary, to repel invasion, the President may, without violation of the Constitution, cross the line, and invade the teritory of another country; and that whether such necessity exists in any given case, the President is to be the sole judge.

Before going further, consider well whether this is, or is not your position. If it is, it is a position that neither the President himself, nor any friend of his, so far as I know, has ever taken. Their only positions are first, that the soil was ours where hostilities commenced, and second, that whether it was rightfully ours or not, Congress had annexed it, and the President, for that reason was bound to defend it, both of which are as clearly proved to be false in fact, as you can prove that your house is not mine. That soil was not ours; and Congress did not annex or attempt to annex it. But to return to your position: Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose---and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, ``I see no probability of the British invading us'' but he will say to you ``be silent; I see it, if you dont.''

The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.

Write soon again.
Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN

Annotation

[1] ALS, MH.

[nolu chan]

Read Section 1. It applies to insurrection. Section 2 does not. Read your own brain farts. You have explicitly said, over and over, insurrection.

In explicit, unmistakable language Section 1 of the Militia Act of 1795 states "in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the Executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened,) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection."

[Non-Sequitur]

Read section 2 again. Read it real slow, and use the dictionary to look up the words you don't understand. Take your time, don't worry, we'll wait for you to catch up with the rest of the world.

[nolu chan]

Section 1 of the Militia Act of 1795 states:

"in case of an insurrection
in any state, against the government thereof,
it shall be lawful for the President of the United States,
on application of the legislature,
of such state or of the Executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened,) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection."

Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution says,

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and
on Application of the Legislature,
or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

Daniel Farber wrote a 240-page book called "Lincoln's Constitution" and the Militia Act does not get a mention due to its irrelevance. Nor have I seen where any other legal scholar who has tried to defend Lincoln has ever invoked the Militia Act. Take a hint. This irrelevant Act has not been overlooked by everyone else for the past 140 years. It is irrelevant.

The requirement for application of the legislature or executive to call forth the militia against domestic violence is Constitutional. The Militia Act of 1795 uses the precise language of the Constitution within the Act in stating that requirement. Were you able to find an Act of Congress that conflicts with the Constitutional requirement, the Act would be a nullity.

According to your process of mental masturbation:

Section 1 of the Militia Act, which explicitly deals with "insurrection," repeats the Constitutional requirement for state application, but

Section 2 of the Militia Act dealing with the courts and the marshals and obstruction of justice does not mention such application requirement, therefore the explicit Constitutional requirement pertaining to Insurrection or any domestic violence, repeated in Section 1, is waived by the silence of Section 2 which does not deal with insurrection but with something else altogether.

Read Section 1 again. Read it real slow. It is Section 1 that deals with INSURRECTION.

Section 1 of the Militia Act of 1795 states "in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the Executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened,) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection."

[GOPcapitalist]

Those goods are shipped to a distribution center closest to where they will be ultimately sold.

...yet they are not shipped directly to the stores themselves. According to your irrational renderings, it is an inherently economical exercise to ship directly to the place where the goods are being bought, thus making the actions of Wal-Mart a poor business decision in your model.

But for your analogy to be true then that would mean that the majority of goods destined for sale in, say, South Carolina would first be sent to a warehouse in New York and then sent to Charleston. Now how much sense does that make?

Depends on how much warehousing costs in New York, how much shipping between New York and Charleston costs, and any other number of related factors. In the end all that really matters is that the economic benefits of warehousing then shipping outweigh the cost in opportunity of the next best option, meaning shipping direct to Charleston. So long as they do it is inherently economical to pursue that route and, based on the widespread use of the warehousing system in the mid 19th century, it is certain that they did.

[wimpycat]

I was just checking the latest posts, and saw this:

Uncle Tom's Cabin
			Posted by GOPcapitalist to Non-Sequitur On 12/25/2003 12:55:41 AM EST #309 of 309
And seeing your two names together, I thought to myself, before clicking on the thread "the Civil War continues at Free Republic", and of course I wasn't disappointed. LOL! Merry Christmas y'all!

[WhiskeyPapa]

[non-seq] section 2 of the Militia Acts provided that the President could call out the militia to supress insurrection and that he didn't need for the state to call for assistance

As always, to support your unconstitutional argument, you must depart from the Constitution and cite something else as being superior to the Constitution.

You have to ignore the fact that the laws made in pursuance of the Constitution are -also- the supreme law of the land.

Walt

[GOPcapitalist]

What about armed invasion and takeover of miltary posts and other government installations?

It depends entirely upon the claims of ownership, seizing entity, and the nature of the acquisition. The other forts in Charleston Harbor were not seized by force. Anderson, in violation of standing orders from the War Department, moved the entire Charleston garrison into the mothballed Fort Sumter and turned his guns on the city - an act that was considered hostile in itself. Upon doing so he also abandoned Forts Moultrie, Johnson, and Pinckney at which point the SC troops simply moved in and occupied the vacant positions. Considering that all three of these forts dated to revolutionary days and had been built by and with funds from either the colony or state of South Carolina itself and only conditionally ceded for defensive uses to the US army in the first place, it is difficult to dispute the legitimacy of the SC troops' action. And considering that the forts were abandoned by Anderson, it would be difficult to argue that simply occupying them without resistance of any form is an "armed invasion and takeover of a military post."

I'd like a reference on the Union blockade of VA before secession. It's contrary to some things I've read elsewhere.

Happily.

April 27, 1861

By the President of the United States of America,
A Proclamation.

Whereas, for the reasons assigned in my Proclamation of the 19th. instant, a blockade of the ports of the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, was ordered to be established:

And whereas, since that date, public property of the United States has been seized, the collection of the revenue obstructed, and duly commissioned officers of the United States while engaged in executing the orders of their superiors have been arrested and held in custody as prisoners or have been impeded in the discharge of their official duties without due legal process, by persons claiming to act under authorities of the States of Virginia and North Carolina, an efficient blockade of the ports of those States will also be established. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. Done at the City of Washington, this twenty-seventh day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty one, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-fifth. ABRAHAM LINCOLN

Virginia did not secede until almost a month later. Neither did North Carolina.

[WhiskeyPapa]

For one thing, it is totally out of character for the man.

Not so. Tariffs were the defining issue of Lincoln's political career.

Of course that is nonsense. Lincoln found being a congressman to be something of a letdown, and he had withdrawn from politics. It was agitation for the spread of slavery that got him to get back into politics in 1854.

You know that.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

Cite one legal scholar (other than Walt) who supports your position that your interpretation of the Militia Act trumps the Constitution.

No one says it -trumps- the Constitution. But the laws passed are also the supreme law of the land. This fact actually moots the 10th amendment. The Framers knew that.

Walt

[GOPcapitalist]

Want to compare pictures of maps? Cause I've got some too. Here's a Spanish one from 1562 showing the "new world" as it was known to Europe at the time. See New York on it? In case you don't it's approximate geographic location (the city did not exist yet) is just south of that large gulf-shaped feature on the northeastern extremity of North America.

Here's one of just North America published in 1650. See New York, or New Amsterdam as it was then called, on it? That's right. It's on the northeast end of the continent.

 

Here's a nice French one from 1657. New York doesn't even make it onto their picture.

 
 

Here's a map of New Orleans published by the French in 1764. It was a small city, no doubt but hardly the two block trading post you would have us believe.

Oh, and here's New York City, or New Amsterdam at the time, in 1639. Those little numbered dots are farms and individual houses. The city itself was little more than a nearby fort.

Now I know you yankees and yankee sympathizers like to believe that your little yankee mecca of New York City is the center of the universe. The cold harsh reality is that it isn't anywhere close. New York City is a cold, dreary urine soaked crime infested urban wasteland on the northeast extremity of the United States. Politically, morally, socially, and culturally it is about as far away from the true American heartland as one can physically get in this country short of leaving its borders entirely.

[WhiskeyPapa]

What about armed invasion and takeover of miltary posts and other government installations?

It depends entirely upon the claims of ownership, seizing entity, and the nature of the acquisition.

What the secessionists did had a lot in common with purse snatching.

Walt

[GOPcapitalist]

For some reason those last two maps didn't format correctly. You can access them from this link by clicking on "Discovery and Exploration"

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/gmdhtml/dsxphome.html

[GOPcapitalist]

What the secessionists did had a lot in common with purse snatching.

Yeah, they snatched purses of their own possession away from a thief named Lincoln after he tried to make off with them in the form of tariffs. Unfortunately Lincoln was an armed thief and responded by pulling a gun on his victims.

[GOPcapitalist]

What the secessionists did had a lot in common with purse snatching.

Yeah, they snatched purses of their own possession away from a thief named Lincoln after he tried to make off with them in the form of tariffs. Unfortunately Lincoln was an armed thief and responded by pulling a gun on his victims.

[GOPcapitalist]

Try to understand things from a more detached point of view, rather than that of a professional advocate.

I would prefer to openly admit my personal biases in an historical discussion rather than pretending to be free of them while simultaneously advancing their arguments under guise of vague platitudes and constant equivocation. Since it cannot be said among posters here that my feelings for the south are unknown, this is a perfectly fair position for me to take. I would advise that you consider the same in light of your own northern biases, be they admitted or not, but that choice is ultimately yours to make.

One would hope that even you would be hard pressed to deny that there was substantial unionist sentiment in many Confederate states.

There was some form of unionist sentiment - I readily admit that. I simply note that you are overstating what was in fact a small minority of the population.

The initial Virginia, North Carolina and Arkansas conventions voted against secession. Tennessee voted against having a convention. Clearly signs of not negligible unionist sentiments.

You use the word unionist with great liberty in this discussion. A more nuanced and historically accurate version would distinguish between pre-war and compromise period unionism in resistance to secession prior to April 1861 and the wartime unionism that existed in the confederate states from April 1861 to April 1865.

After Sumter sectional passions carried the day

It's certainly convenient to pass it all off as "sectional passions." A considerable volume of evidence however indicates that the decisions to secede among each state after Texas came about as the result of genuine political disputes between the seceding states and the Lincoln government's approach to the secession crisis. States such as Virginia and North Carolina reacted directly to requests that they provide troops for invading the other southern states. In Missouri the secessionists reacted to the fact that the state itself had been physically invaded by Lincoln's army and its government chased out of the capitol.

but even then, close to 1 in 3 Tennesseans voted against secession.

An electoral margin of less than one third to over two thirds is, in any political sense, a landslide.

North Carolina had no referendum, but before Sumter unionism was particularly strong in the western part of the state.

IIRC there actually was a referendum in NC having to do with initiating secession measures at the convention. I believe it was held sometime around February and failed but on an extremely narrow margin (something like 52% to 48%). Fort Sumter and Lincoln's decision to blockade NC appears to have initiated a significant swing in southern opinion towards secession there, causing the convention to vote in its favor the next month.

Virginia was a special case. It has been said that secession narrowly carried the day in the Western part of the state, but there have also been allegations of vote tampering, fraud, intimidation, and the destruction of records.

From what I've read of the matter, voting records are still known to exist for all but a few rural counties with very little population - Doddridge, Jackson, Marion, Randolph, Ritchie, Roane, and Taylor counties. It is difficult to believe that these counties would have provided enough votes to alter the region in any direction and their lack of a specific record is in at least some of the cases attributable to the fact that no newspapers existed in some of those counties to report them.

I do not know of any specific allegations on voter fraud, though it is of note that several of the counties claimed by the Wheeling convention voted in favor of secession.

Barbour, Braxton, Calhoun, Gilmer, Greenbrier, Hampshire, Hardy, Jefferson, Logan, McDowell, Mercer, Monroe, Pendleton, Raleigh, Tucker, and Webster Counties - all claimed by West Virginia and in that state today - had secessionist majorities that carried by comfortable margins typically in the 60% plus range and more. Monroe County, for example, voted 10 to 1 in favor of secession yet was claimed by West Virginia. Others such as Wyoming and Clay counties split almost 50-50.

The major anti-secession counties were located in basically one region of the state: the area from MD's western border to the Ohio River and north (Today's WV panhandle plus a few counties south of it along the PA border). Counties there voted in the 80 to 90% range against secession.

It may also be that some Unionists boycotted the election.

That is possible, but does not seem to be the case at least in the anti-secession population centers. The anti-secession hotbed of Wheeling (Ohio County) actually had a larger turnout than Richmond (Henrico County) and both of the counties bordering Washington DC (Fairfax and Loudon Counties). In fact, that the relatively isolated western city of Wheeling turned out more voters than the state capitol and several population bases closer to the coast may itself be an indicator that some ballot stuffing occurred in the other direction.

While there was much secessionist sentiment in the southern and eastern parts of what's now West Virginia, support for the union was overwhelming in the northwest near Ohio and Pennsylvania.

That it was. The main problem with interpreting this region as a hotbed of true southern unionism is the fact that it is geographically isolated from the rest of both Virginia and West Virginia - it is a panhandle of the state. This region was the only part of the old southeast located on the north of the Mason-Dixon line and had more in common with its neighbors, OH and PA, than any location elsewhere in VA+WV or any other southern state.

It's hard to believe that voters who sent anti-secession delegates to the convention would somehow have been converted wholesale to pro-secession views.

Not necessarily, and especially not in moderate regions of the state. Anti-secession delegates themselves switched their views after Fort Sumter and after the blockade. It is not at all unreasonable to believe that the same happened among many voters. It is know to have happened elsewhere in the south such as middle-tennessee. It also appears to be the strongest and best explanation of the referendum in Virginia.

If West Virginian leaders were rash and heavy-handed, they were acting in the spirit of their scessionist contemporaries, who likewise wanted to seize the day and drag the recalcitrant or reluctant along after them.

Not really. The Wheeling rump caucus had no elected legitimacy as a recognized or established state government. Richmond did. Wheeling did not even invite, elect, or include delegates from half of the counties they claimed as their own. Richmond included the anti-secession delegates from all the counties that elected them. Wheeling attempted to establish itself by holding a Saddam Hussein style 99% to 1% "referendum" on creating a new state. Richmond held a secession referendum that openly recieved the anti-secession votes from the WV panhandle region.

In assessing Virginia's secession it is reasonable to identify its root causes with a true shift in public opinion towards exiting the union. It was not a southern conspiracy that made them leave. It was not voter fraud. It was not an orchestration of the elites in Richmond. It was a simple product of the successive mechanisms of history as they happened to occur in 1861. The situation in Virginia ultimately comes down to a series of causal events on a timeline. A major event happened in between the April 4th convention vote, where unionism was evident, and the April 17th call for a referendum: Fort Sumter. Another major event that heavily impacted Virginia happened between April 17th and the referendum on May 23rd: the extension of the blockade to Virginia (IIRC this happened on April 27th). Prior to April 4th it is true that Virginia was not a hotbed of secession. Their congressional delegation consisted primarily of moderates rather than fire-eaters and most of its members retained their offices well beyond Lincoln's inauguration. Virginia also took a leading role among those favoring a compromise plan, most notably by organizing the Washington Peace Convention. But something happened that caused all of those Virginians who had initially opposed secession to change their minds. Something happened that pushed a border state interested in compromise into the confederate column. That something was the Lincoln administration's handling of the secession crisis. It is of little surprise that most Virginians, who only a few days earlier had been striving for a legislative compromise to the situation, were incensed that Lincoln would demand they provide troops to invade the seceded states. And even if they did not object to his raising of troops, the fact that Lincoln issued a blockade order against them - a virtual declaration of war against the state itself - was bound to shift public opinion into the secession column. That the northern panhandle of west virginia differed from the rest of the state was of little surprise for the time simply because it was geographically isolated from any other part of Virginia. Were they dragged into the confederacy against their political wishes? Probably, though they did have a vote in the matter unlike the counties they dragged out of Virginia a few months later. I for one consider it entirely plausible that had the panhandle alone attempted to leave Virginia after secession little substantial effort would have been made by Richmond to stop them. But instead of attempting to leave on their own, they left and took with them about two dozen counties to the south that had expressed virtually no desire to participate in their little scheme.