Posted on 03/10/2013 8:19:44 AM PDT by BroJoeK
The Free Market.
Before the end of the Civil War, the Confederate dollar was worth less than wallpaper --- basically worthless as a medium of exchange. Kind of like the Zimbabwe dollar today. People in the South didn't want to accept it either because they knew it was worthless.
That is why so little of it remains today. People used it as kindling by that point in time just as we would use a day old newspaper.
If you have some Confederate Currency today however, you could get some serious US Greenbacks for it from collectors just because it is so rare. And it's only rare because it was so worthless.
There was a time when we were kids that we would go to a little army surplus store just off the square in Huntsville and buy small packs of confederate bills for pennies. We used them as play-money.
I wonder how much they would be worth today (if we hadn’t worn them out)?
We can say Lincoln broke no laws because: Congress eventually approved everything he did.
But more to my point: unlike Jefferson Davis, Lincoln broke no laws for the purpose of destroying the US Constitution.
Instead, all of Lincoln's efforts were to save the Union and its Constitution.
BJK: “Union never formally declared war.”
JCBreckenridge: "What do we call invasions conducted without a formal declaration of war?"
In all of history, formal declarations of war have only been used between nation-states, never to defeat rebellions.
That's why the Confederacy declared war on the United States -- because it wanted to show that it too was a nation-state.
The Union did not declare war because it considered the Confederacy a rebellion.
Well said, great post!
But Confederate forces were only in the area of Harrisburg for a matter of days, if not hours, so there was little opportunity to "get to know" the locals.
If you're familiar with that terrain, there's a long mountain called "Blue Mountain" which comes up from Maryland, north of Chambersburg, Shippensburg, Carlisle and all the way to the Susquehanna river.
Well, I live a few miles on the north side of that mountain.
Local history here says that during Lee's invasion of Pennsylvania, scouts from Camp Hill, Carlisle and Chambersburg rode over that mountain and up the valleys to use the telegraph on the Pennsylvania railroad, to report military intelligence.
Needless to say, everyone around here was very excited, panic struck would be a better word for it.
That's why I can't see those poor shop-keepers near Harrisburg as anything other than quaking in their boots on the arrival of Lee's forces.
Please consider this:
In 1856, "Dough-Faced" Northern Democrat James Buchanan was elected president by winning Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois and California, plus every Southern state.
He immediately went to work to support the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision.
Just one more election like 1856, and one more Dred Scott type Supreme Court decision would have effectively made slavery legal in all states.
That's how close the slave-power came to victory.
But in 1860, many people who had voted for Democrats all their lives switched to other parties, because the majority Democrats had committed political suicide.
I'm saying a united, enthusiastic Democrat party in 1860 had a fighting chance to keep those "swing voters" in the Democrat fold, and win the election by carrying those same states it won in 1856.
And that was within the Confederacy itself. Outside of the South I doubt that the Confederate dollar had any value at all, much less one quarter of a U.S. dollar.
Not comparable whatsoever. 1856 - you had the Whig and Republican parties divided.
“Congress eventually approved everything he did”
That’s a bullshit definition. Doesn’t matter what congress approves or not - he suspended Habeaus Corpus - he declared war on a loyal state of the union. If Obama were to do what Lincoln did, you’d be crying tyranny. Which is what it was.
“The Union did not declare war because it considered the Confederacy a rebellion.”
Doesn’t matter what the Union ‘believes’. Lincoln invaded. Virginia defended their own sovereignty.
On April 17, the Virginia convention voted to secede, pending ratification of the decision by the voters. With the entry of Virginia into the Confederacy, a decision was made in May to move the Confederate capital from Montgomery, Alabama, to Richmond, in part because the defense of Virginia's capital was deemed strategically vital to the Confederacy's survival regardless of its political status. Virginians ratified the articles of secession on May 23. The following day, the Union army moved into northern Virginia and captured Alexandria without a fight.
Virginia's ordinance of secession was ratified in a referendum held on May 23, 1861, by a vote of 132,201 to 37,451.[32] The referendum was a perfunctory endorsement of the state government's decision to join the Confederacy and was not a free and fair election. The Confederate Congress proclaimed Richmond to be new capital of the Confederacy and Confederate troops moved in to northern Virginia before the referendum was held.Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_in_the_American_Civil_War
Looks to me like Virginia declared war on the United States before and Union troops set foot on Virginia soil.
Agree... to forget the history is to never learn from it when the same issues are “resold” by the same kinds of people, and politics.
After the war Hood was in insurance, and a broken man, in New Orleans and died there w/wife and one child, of yellow fever (mosquitoes in the vast swamps of the Miss. Delta).
In re: the history-— a Mr. Sam Hood of WV (paralell descent of Genl Hood) has a new book coming out in June- which i referred to prior in this big thread. Direct descendants (who want to remain anonymous) had boxes of original letters from Hood ( a treasure trove) including to/from Davis as regards Johnston, his CSA commission, his West Point commission— unbelievable find. Search Hood on diff history pages and you’ll find the story. Publisher has a page as well.
Quite the contrary. The Virginia delegation insisted that the Federal government withdraw from Ft. Sumpter. Lincoln did not. Lincoln then insisted that Virginia take up arms against South Carolina, and Virginia refused.
Virginia rejected the request as unconstitutional - that troops be levied in Virginia for attacks on another state.
Lincoln had already mobilized and with the attack on Ft. Sumpter, declared that he intended to attack South Carolina.
Bro, I think I thought of one you mythed.
11. Slavery was dying in the South anyway. Therefore the Union invasion and conquest of the Confederacy had nothing to do with slavery, as the institution would have faded away in just a couple of years anyway.
I’m sure you’re aware that slavery was more profitable and entrenched than ever in 1860, and that southerners had since about 1820 gradually shifted from a consensus that slavery was a necessary evil to an equal and opposite consensus that it was a positive good.
But this one has been brought up to me numerous times, and thought you might want to add it to your list.
Sorry FRiend, but now it's you throwing around some pretty heavy-duty BS.
In fact, Congress is totally authorized to suspend Habeas Corpus in times of rebellion or invasion, and in due time, after appropriate debate, authorized President Lincoln's use of it.
Lincoln's suspensions of Habeas Corpus all happened while Congress was not in session, and after the fact, no serious efforts were made in Congress to censure Lincoln, or revoke his actions.
In the Confederacy, Davis was also authorized to suspend Habeas Corpus, and did so on occasion.
So I can't see how our Pro-Confederates seem to think they've got an open-and-shut "gotcha" case against Lincoln.
JCBreckenridge, referring presumably to Lincoln and Virginia: "...he declared war on a loyal state of the union.
If Obama were to do what Lincoln did, you’d be crying tyranny.
Which is what it was."
First of all: in fact, Lincoln never "declared war" on anyone, as explained in previous posts.
Countries don't "declare war" on rebellions.
Second, during the period when Virginia was in fact a "loyal state of the union" Lincoln made no military moves -- zero, zip, nada, none -- to defeat rebellion there.
All of Lincoln's military operations in Virginia happened after the following:
The first Union troops crossed into Virginia on May 24, 1861.
The first Confederate soldier killed in battle at Big Bethel, Virginia, was on June 10, 1861.
JCBreckenridge: "Doesn’t matter what the Union ‘believes’.
Lincoln invaded.
Virginia defended their own sovereignty."
You can call it "war" and "sovereignty" if you wish, or call it "rebellion" and "insurrection" as I contend, but neither changes the fact that:
Excellent!
Now we're up to at least a dozen, maybe 13 with your previous suggestion...
I especially like the one I "mythed". ;-)
“Lincoln’s suspensions of Habeas Corpus all happened while Congress was not in session, and after the fact, no serious efforts were made in Congress to censure Lincoln, or revoke his actions.”
Read that back to me again and ask if you’d accept Lincoln unilaterally suspending civil rights of those whom he himself claimed were American citizens.
“First of all: in fact, Lincoln never “declared war” on anyone, as explained in previous posts.”
Which makes it even worse. What gave Lincoln the authority to fire on Fort Sumpter? What gave Lincoln the authority to mobilize troops to fire on American citizens? What gave him the authority to cross the Virginia border and invade?
Congress?
Or Lincolm himself?
You’re telling me that in one day - congress approved of the invasion of Virginia and authorized the use of Force against the commonwealth of Virginia?
Or did Lincoln simply mobilize prior and send the troops across the border without approval of congress?
OK, let's do this "by the numbers":
In 1856, a united Democrat party won the presidency with 1,835,000 popular and 174 electoral votes, 22 more than needed.
In 1860, a divided Democrat party lost the presidency -- even with 2,228,000 vs. Republicans' 1,866,000 popular votes -- but Dems got only 84 electoral votes, or 68 less than needed.
In other words, even though Democrats got more votes than Republicans, they still lost in 1860, because they were split in half.
But those 68 electoral votes were easily available in seven states (California, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Oregon, Tennessee and Virginia) with a combined switch of just 11,000 popular votes!
That's because: California (4), Kentucky (12), Oregon (3), Tennessee (12) and Virginia (15) needed zero extra votes for Democrats to win, only a united ticket.
Right there is 46 of the 68 needed to win, leaving just 22 to pick up.
And 24 electoral votes were available in Indiana (13) and Illinois (11) with a switch of only 11,000 votes combined, or 3.5% of the 311,000 cast for Republicans.
Surely a united and enthusiastic Democrat party could persuade 3.5% of "low information" Republicans to switch to the "party of national unity and peace."
But additionally: in Ohio with 23 electoral votes, only 11,000 voters (5%) switching would give Democrats the win.
And in Pennsylvania with 27 electoral votes, only 36,000 voters switching would give Democrats the win.
Yes, that's 13% of all Republicans, but remember in 1856 the now defunct Whigs got 82,000 votes, and at least half of those should have gone to Democrats in 1860.
But instead, the divided Democrats lost 35,000 votes compared to 1856.
That's why I say: victory was not only possible for united Democrats in 1860, they had the potential for a landslide.
But Southern Fire Eaters did not want victory or landslide, rather they wanted secession, and so they engineered it by splitting the majority Democrat party in half.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.