Replies

"I appreciate the research but.."

No you don't. You always ignore facts running counter to your pantsload posts.

"It is quite possible the request was turned down because there was sufficient funds remaining in the original appropriation to complete the work."

ROTFLMAO. "It is quite possible....." Nope. We aren't buying that. You are still ignoring the facts.

"Actually your source simply confirms that these projects were undertaken by the Federal Army Corp of Engineers..."

It does nothing of the kind with regard to Charleston. It factually states that certain projects were completed. It does not name Charleston.

"not State and local governments."

Coker specifically stated the opposite to your contention. Since you quoted him in your postings, then we must assume that you agree with his credibility.

"Also, there is nothing in the History of Waterways that indicates the original Federal appropriation to complete the Charleston dredging ever ran out."

What that document states is that no additional Federal spending for improvements in Charleston Harbor were spent after the 1852 bill. Didn't you read the post?

"The fact that the work was completed prior to the war, and that ACOE was still involved in 1857 would indicate the opposite."

The work was completed in 1860, funded by the City of Charleston and some funds supplied by the state.

Again:

The act of 1852 failed to restore an ongoing program of navigation improvement. The Democrats won the election, and with the party opposed to internal improvements in power for the rest of the decade, Congress did not pass another general rivers and harbors bill until after the Civil War.

Through special acts it authorized four works in the interior and three in the East, and passed five of these bills over the vetoes of President Pierce.

The three eastern projects allowed the Corps to continue work on the Savannah and Cape Fear rivers and to deepen the Patapsco River to make Baltimore Harbor accessible to steam frigates and other vessels of the United States Navy.

When these appropriations and those of 1852 ran out, river and harbor improvement by the federal government again came to a halt, with many projects still uncompleted.

So, in summary, the Corps of Engineers report specifically does not include Charleston as being in any of its projects that it completed as a result of the 1852 bill.

Aiken's proposal for continuing funds, HR 585, was not included in any budget, and this has been shown to you from the Globe site.

So, from both the Corps of Engineers and the Globe reports, it is proved that funding for work on Charleston Harbor did not come from the federal government.

Coker confirms that there was state and city funding before and after 1854. He also points out that work was locally contracted. He also, among other sources, confirms that a dredging project was completed in 1860.

Now, if you have any factual information that runs counter to this, let's examine it. If not, refrain from playing the "its quite possible" game...that's for children.