Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial - 2009; the official work and preparation begins now

Why, I have already sourced it, sweetie. I have given you the author of the quote, and the year. It seems as if doing a search using the terms Lincoln, 1847, and some of the quote is beyond your limited resources.

Except that as near as I can tell Lincoln never said it. Either you made it up or your own 'scholarship' has shown itself to be sadly lacking. Nothing surprising there.

The United States government took the authority to define the beginning of the war, and they did not name Davis.

Although Jeff Davis had the call on beginning the "revolution", in the eyes of the Federal Government, under two administrations, he was not an official of anything and was not legally recognized by anyone.

Lincoln gave all proper notice to the ELECTED governor of the State of South Carolina (more than Buchanan did in January of that same year when he attempted to resupply the fort) that the mission to resupply Ft. Sumter was not a threat to his state and no hostile actions would be undertaken if the mission were not opposed.

Personally, I think Lincoln would have been better off doing what Andy Jackson did under similar circumstances with the insane asylum called South Carolina. That is tell them to stand down or he would personally lead the Army there and hang all the ring leaders from the nearest tree. That is what I would have done, and I would have been pleased to hang your G-G-G grand pappy if he were there.

But Abe tried to cut the middle course and the swamp fever Fire Eaters perceived that as weakness from the "pasty-faced Yankee mechanics" (an obvious inferior breed in their eyes) and way overplayed their hand.

Robert Toombs, the slave-loving fire eater that he was, saw the madness in firing on Sumter and understood the hell it would bring down on them, but Davis made a decision that allowed the insane passions of mad-men like Ruffin to overcome his own better judgment.

But Jefferson Davis alone ordered the first shots fired, against better advice. Those hundred or so Union troops could have sat on that half baked man-made rock till this day, and it would not have bothered the City of Charleston, South Carolina or that thing they called the Confederate states one bit.

That is, unless you saw what Davis knew damn well what was coming if some dramatic event did not occur soon. Davis was a lot of things, but he was not a fool. He understood this country and it's people, both North, South, and in the middle. He had already made his bed, and he understood it was losing proposition in the long run unless something dramatic happened. I you're interested I'll tell you why Davis did what he did and why from his standpoint, it was his only remaining option.

I think I missed both the "vehemently" and the "fraud" part. To what do you refer?

Go back a read your own post 400 and then tell me where I got that vocabulary from ok?

I see that you want to 'cut and run' in the face of the truth on the tariff issue.

Yeah, and the hardest part of being a neoconfederate is remembering all that fiction isn't it?

The United States government took the authority to define the beginning of the war, and they did not name Davis.

Really? Can you point to an order from the US Government to fire on the Confederates?

We have copies of the orders issued to Gen. Beauregard to initiate hostilities.

From yer post 400 "In the plainest of language and on the eve of his ascendancy to power, Lincoln told his audience that the tariff, which the South vehemently opposed , was a top priority:"

Go ahead and argue that it was the possibility of an incremental increase to existing [and historically low] tariffs that led the South to secede from the Union while I change the newspaper in the parrot's cage ok?

Yours is the hostility born of indignant self-righetousness, and that is the beginning of paranoia, sir.

No. Mine is an hostility to treason, be it today, or 146 years ago. I'd be perfectly content, and in fact satisfied, to hang any SOB who tried it.

Do you know that Lincoln did not say it, or do you just think you know?

I doubt very highly that Lincoln said it. Now how about you? Do you know that Lincoln said it? Or do you just wish he did?

You were given that very documentation many months ago by nolu chan. Do you need it again?

Doris, I have come to the conclusion that you are nothing but a BS artist.

I have never seen documentation containing orders from Lincoln, or anyone else in the Union chain of command, that ordered shots to be fired at Sumter.

Now it only took me a few minutes to find and post the orders issued by the Confederate Secretary of War (approved by Jeff Davis over the vehement objections of his Secretary of State,) that directed General Beauregard to open fire on Forth Sumter. I also posted the letter from President Lincoln to the Governor of South Carolina that assured him that only provisions necessary for the maintenance of the meager force at Sumter would be delivered.

Post something now that shows that the Union command issued some order to commence hostile military operations without provocation or be known from here on out as "All Talk, No Hat Doris."

Well, why don't you enjoy a little scholarship that is documented, not fictionalized.

I'd love to, but since I'm reading one of your posts there is damned little chance of that.

They feared great financial harm to Northern shipping through the use of foreign shipping sources...

Not necessarily. The southern exporters, assuming there were any, would ship their goods on whatever ship gave them the best rate. You don't think that the Northern shippers wouldn't do what they had to in order to retain the business?

...and harm to manufacturing from the lower import tariffs at Southern ports.

What difference would a lower confederate tariff make? To begin with there was no southern domestic manufacturing industry to protect so the southern consumer was screwed regardless. Since the tariff applied to all imports, the U.S. manufacturer and the European manufacturer were on a level playing field. Both had their goods marked up by the same amount so the market would go to those with the lower manufacturing and shipping costs. There is no reason at all why that couldn't be the Northern manufacturer. He still had tariffs to protect his domestic market and which could also subsidize his export market.

The lower southern tariff wouldn't harm the Northern import market at all. Any goods arriving in a Northern port destined for Northern consumers would pay the higher U.S. tariff. Any goods arriving in southern ports destined for Northern consumers would still pay the higher U.S. tariff the moment they crossed the border. So where was the harm?

The anticipated result of the low tariff was that practically all foreign trade would be diverted to Charleston and New Orleans. The Mississippi would divert trade from New York, Boston, the Erie Canal, and Chicago.

Again, completely ridiculous. The only foreign trade that would be diverted to Charleston, or New Orleans would be that small amount destined for southern consumers. Any goods destined for U.S. consumers would pay the U.S. tariff the moment it was landed in the U.S. The confederate tariff could be 0% and it wouldn't change that.

Northeastern fabric mills, that were totally dependent on cotton raw materials from the South, supplied the New York garment industry. The city’s garment industry employed 26,857 workers in 1860 and produced $22,320,769 worth of products. The garment trade was New York City’s dominant manufacturing industry, with almost 30 percent of the employment in New York City manufacturing being in the garment industry.

So what? Are you suggesting that the south would stop growing cotton? Or stop exporting cotton? Complete nonsense. The southern cotton grower would continue to sell his cotton to whoever paid the market price. Unless the south placed a tariff on exports (forbidden by their constitution but they never let that stop them from ignoring other infractions) the cost of getting cotton to the New York textile mills would be exactly the same as it was before secession. The only difference would be tariffs, and without a domestic cotton raising industry to worry about there is no reason why such a tariff would be continued.

It basically allowed merchants to unload their goods into a warehouse and store it there for up to three years without having to pay the tariff on it immediately. The tariff was then collected at a later date when the goods were removed from the warehouse and delivered to the buyer.

Why would they do that? Why would they buy something and hold on to it for up to three years before selling it? What was the logic behind that?

The merchant gained from this because he no longer had to provide payment for his cargo as he arrived in port. Before the warehousing act this was a problem because sometimes taxes on the cargo were paid by receipts from its sale after unloading it and merchants did not have excess reserves of cash to pay the tax.

Well, actually, yes he did. He still had to pay for the goods he was importing. There was that cost. And in your world it makes perfect sense to pay for those goods and stick them in a warehouse for up to 3 years before selling them and getting his money back. All to avoid a tariff, the cost of which he was just going to pass on to his customer anyway. Good plan.

You may think that belongs in the realm of your "graduate students", but it is common history and knowledge among historians.

Actually I think it belongs in the dumpster along with the rest of your stuff.

Doris, I have come to the conclusion that you are nothing but a BS artist.

What took you so long?

I guess you're right. I try not to make snap judgments, but frankly, this one is a no-brainer.

Doris, is great with the "Dearies" and "Honey's", and obscure citations, but she never posts a damn thing to support them.

Could it be that Doris is stand watie doing an Internet cross-dressing gig --- only with punctuation. ;~))