Lincoln holiday on its way out (West Virginia)

West Virginia Gazette Mail ^ | 9-8-2005 | Phil Kabler

[Non-Sequitur]

...and a surprising [to me anyway] amount of hard liquor

You've obviously never been to Charleston.

[mac_truck]

Mac, you are quoting a volume shipped, but offer no evidence on what it was shipped

Vessels cleared out at the custom-house Charleston, from November 1786, to November 1787, belonging to the following nations.

AMERICA.
40 ships, measuring..........7372 tons
3 snows..........252
95 brigs..........9824
285 sloops..........12650
312 schooners..........11433
735..........41531 tons

GREAT-BRITAIN.
35 ships..........7152 tons
4 snows..........535
46 brigs..........5052
35 sloops..........2160
28 schooners..........1288
148..........16787

SPAIN.
2 brigs..........723 tons
3 sloops..........150
39 schooners..........650
44..........1073

FRANCE.
1 snow..........180 tons
3 brigs..........235
2 sloops..........138
2 schooners..........162
8..........715

UNITED NETHERLANDS.
1 ship..........290 tons
4 brigs..........509
5..........799

IRELAND.
1 ship..........218 tons
1 brig..........101
2..........319
Altona 1 ship..........280
Bremen 1 brig..........193
Denmark 1 brig..........164
Hamburgh 1 brig..........130
Austria 1 brig..........127
Total, 947 vessels, 62118 Tons.

At least you and the professore have stopped pretending the South didn't have established shipping interests. Maybe now you can focus your meager capacities on making up reasons why those shipping interests and the newly diversified Southern economy [lol] were a threat to the North. We'll just pretend all your fulminations and broadsides about the Warehousing Act and Navigation Laws were never written...

[PeaRidge]

"And despite all that, South Carolina didn't think to mention it in their declaration, and instead just keeping talking on and on about slavery."

I don't see the word slavery:

...................South Carolina

December 20, 1860

AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of South Carolina and other States united with her under the compact entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America."

We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, That the ordinance adopted by us in convention on the twenty-third day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and also all acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying amendments of the said Constitution, are hereby repealed; and that the union now subsisting between South Carolina and other States, under the name of the "United States of America," is hereby dissolved.

Done at Charleston the twentieth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty.

Source: Official Records, Ser. IV, vol. 1, p. 1.

"Ultimately all of the south's objections to the tariff can be seen as merely another aspect of their defense of an economic system that hypocritically trumpeted the virtues of free trade while standing on the backs of slave labor."

You are inclined to attribute slave labor dependency only to the South. It would seem that the North was also standing on the backs of slave labor:

10/30/1860 George N. Sanders, On the Sequences of Southern Secession, "To the Republicans of New York who are for the Republic", New York,

"Our federal treasury is now empty, or will be, on the 4th of March, relying on daily supplies from imposts, which will be reduced fifty per cent by the loss of our southern exports. Our federal treasury could not count on more than twenty-five millions a year from imposts after the South had left us. We would therefore have at once to resort to income, poll, and every other sort of taxation, to keep up our present expensive machinery--not to speak of the conduct of an offensive war."

"It's interesting, for example, that the rising price of slaves ( at a time when it's claimed the institution was on its last legs) led the Southern Commercial Convention to adopt a resolution calling for renewing the slave trade, maybe on those new ships Charleston was building."

Interesting, perhaps, but of no consequence.

.....Constitution of the Confederate States.......

...................Section IX.

The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

[Heyworth]

That's because you're looking at the ordinance and not the Declaration, although I suspect you knew that.

Confederate States of America

Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

And now the State of South Carolina having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act.

(snip a bunch of historical material about independence from Britain, sovereignty, etc. with no mention of tariffs or slavery)

In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling (note: this is an interesting statement in light of the constant refrain that no one in the north cared about slavery) has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor. We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.

Adopted December 24, 1860 [Committee signatures]

There's not a single word in there about tariffs, warehouses, navigation acts, or, in fact anything else but slavery, fugitive slaves, northern hostility to slavery, Lincoln's belief that slavery was on the way out, and more slavery.

It would seem that the North was also standing on the backs of slave labor:

And yet it was the north, according to the above document, that was leading the opposition to slavery. They've apparently "incited servile insurrection", are filled with a "current of anti-slavery feeling," are nullifying (and isn't it funny to see South Carolina use that word) fugitive slave laws, and have now "united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery."

Interesting, perhaps, but of no consequence.

I believe that the Confederate constitution also had a mechanism for amendment, and given the sway that the major planters held in the government, it was possibly only a matter of time, once they'd achieved recognition from Britain and were faced with the huge runaway problem with no hope at all of recovery that secession would bring. I think it's pretty easy to say that the article you cite was a political sop to Britain rather than the result of any kind of humanitarian feeling against slavery.

[Heyworth]

If you reread the tables, the 1,918 number does include steam boats.

No it doesn't. It includes steam ships, but steam boats are in the next column after the totals column for ships, barks, brigs, schooners and steam ships. For the same period, the number of steam boats is tallied at 3566, so it's obvious that they can't be included in the 1,918 number.

[Heyworth]

otoh, for the rest of the country, it simply was NOT a major issue, no matter how much you may WISH it was.to quote a former professor at Grambling University, "less than 10,000 people, north or south, cared enough about slavery to fight even one skirmish, much less a major war, over "the plight of the slaves". they SHOULD have cared;they did NOT." (emphasis: MINE)

This is a quote Watie pulls out on regular basis, but he seems to have trouble with it.

For instance, a month ago, in a post to the Colonel, he says:
"the former Chair of History at Tuskegee University said that in 1860 there was no more than TEN THOUSAND people in the whole country, who cared enough about "the plight of the slaves to fight one skirmish over slavery, much less a WAR".

Note how the unnamed professor has changed colleges, and he's not just a professor, but the department chair. (The same chair, btw, as the oft-cited Prof. Blackerby)

A month before that, Watie tosses it out again, this time in an abbreviated form without any attribution as a quote, as if it's his own thought (nah, couldn't be):
" hardly anybody else cared about "the plight odf the slaves", either north OR south. they SHOULD have;they did NOT!"

Now let's set the Wayback Machine for 2002 and we find this:
"i had a former professor at Tulane, sadly now gone to glory, who stated that "you couldn't have found 10,000 people in the WHOLE COUNTRY, who cared a damn about the plight of the slaves; almost NOBODY was willing to fight either for or against slavery."

So now our unnamed professor is one of Watie's own professors, no longer at a historically black college like Grambling or Tuskegee, but at Tulane, and he's been demoted.

Back into the Wayback Machine just six days before the last, and there's this:
" a professor & friend of mine at Grambling University says that his calculation is that LESS than 10,000 people in the north cared anything about the slaves AND that the abolition movement was nothing more than an EXCUSE for the damnyankees to CONTINUE to dominate the south, politically,culturally & economiclly."

So our peripatetic professor is back at Grambling. Good for him. Maybe he'll get that chairmanship yet.

Watie usually tosses this one out once per Civil War thread. Stay tuned and see where the mystery scholar will pop up next.

[Non-Sequitur]

The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

So you admit that the confederate constitution specifically protected slave imports?

[stand watie]

well, well. for once we AGREE on something!

i'm surprised that both Charleston & Savannah have not fallen off the Atlantic coast & into the sea, simply based on liquor consumption alone.

BOTH places give new meaning to the term, PARTY TOWN!

free dixie,sw

[mac_truck]

Here is a list of booze imported into Charleston in a one year period starting Nov. 1787. At the time there were less than 10,000 white Southerners living there, not all of them eligible to drink. Some of the measurements used are a bit obscure, but overall I'd say that is a whole lot of spirits for a population that size.

Rum W. 1. & N. E...........354 hhds. & pun.
--..........121 casks and barrels
Wine..........31 pipes
--..........41 hhds.
--..........569 casks
--..........358 cases
Brandy..........91 pipes
--..........88 casks
Gin..........1561 cases
Porter..........324 hhds & casks

[Gianni]

So you could see that all your coaching was finally paying off.

[Non-Sequitur]

So you could see that all your coaching was finally paying off.

I assumed that it was because you wanted to display your latest nonsense. My mistake.

[x]

New Orleans was indeed a thriving port. One thing that held it back, though, was the unhealthy climate. In particular there were serious epidemics of yellow fever. Like New York, New Orleans was hit by cholera on occasions, but had fewer resources to combat the disease. We also know about the danger of tropical storms and flooding to the city. It was to be expected that the city would fail to fulfill the great commercial potential that it had in theory, at least until the problems of diseases and flooding could be solved.

But there's something unreal about the whole debate. Northerners who read DeBow's or heard Hammond's speech about "King Cotton," knew very well that the South of the 1850s and 1860s wasn't about to turn itself into an industrial powerhouse. The betting was on cotton, and industry and commerce were to be servants of agriculture, not rivals or masters.

Also, it's not just a question of what Charleston or New Orleans was preparing to do in the 1850s. Dredging and canal and railroad building where going on all across the country, and there's little reason to believe that one city's joining in would bring it all the goodies. There would always be competition. And planned "great leaps forward" often come to nothing.

Indeed, 21st century New Orleans may have some real problems with economic development and survival, even without the threat of yellow fever.

[Gianni]

My mistake.

Almost always is, but that's ok, we're used to it.

[PeaRidge]

You said "In 1786 Charleston alone shipped 1.5 million lbs. of cotton overseas."

Your next sentence began with "those who claim the South didn't have an established shipping business".

Again, you quoted a statement that alone sounds impressive, and would lead to all sorts of conclusions, including the wrong ones.

You are still quoting a volume shipped, but offer no evidence on what it was shipped. Therefore that quote only has relevance on some amount of cotton shipped, and not the shipping business, which not only was export/import, but also ownership of the vessels, which we have been duscussing.

Your original contention was that the South owned a large shipping industry, including ship ownership, and you offered this data to prove it.

Sorry, it offers no proof. It is merely data on port clearance.

Try again sometime.

[PeaRidge]

Reading from the left, the columns are marked "Ships, Barks, Brigs, Schrs (Schooners), St. Ships (steam ships)" parenthesis mine. The total shipping arrivals were 1918. The final column is marked S. Boats. The document does not define that item, but you can define it for yourself, if you like.

[PeaRidge]

Reading from the left, the columns are marked "Ships, Barks, Brigs, Schrs (Schooners), St. Ships (steam ships)" parenthesis mine. The total shipping arrivals were 1918. The final column is marked S. Boats. The document does not define that item, but you can define it for yourself, if you like.

[PeaRidge]

It is ok with me if you quote that document as long as you know it is not a legal document.

You are too quick to project your hostility into documents that are 150 years old as if you had written them yourself.

You loosely chose to focus on secession documents. That is ok so long as you take the time to know what they actually were and so long as you also read all the other secession declarations out there. It is evident that you have done neither.

With regards to the latter, there were a total of 12 state legislatures or conventions, 1 rump state convention (Kentucky), 1 territorial convention (Arizona), and 2 Indian tribes that published one or more secession documents of some sort during the civil war.

In total they published at least 21 documents declaring or otherwise affirming their secession. 12 were ordinances officiating the secession act itself adopted by the 12 state conventions, legislatures, or popular referendum. The conventions of 4 of those 12 states adopted an additional "Declaration of Causes" as a nonbinding legislative resolution.

The convention of South Carolina also adopted a letter of causes addressed to all the other southern states outlining why they were seceding and urging others to join them (interestingly enough half that document is a list of grievances against the north for tax hikes and tariffs).

Out of the 21 total declarations, ordinances, and other secession documents only 6 mention slavery in any context beyond a geographical reference (and only 5 of them mention it at substantial length - the sixth is in a single brief clause).

14 of those documents specify other causes, either in addition to slavery (as in the 6) or without mentioning it at all. The remaining 7 do not list any causes.

You still do not recognize how narrow minded you are.

[PeaRidge]

"I believe that... and given the sway... it was possibly only a matter of time,... I think it's pretty easy to say..."

Sorry, non of that is supported by fact.

[PeaRidge]

Read it again, and maybe your question will be answered.

[PeaRidge]

Read it again, and maybe your question will be answered.