Posted on 03/20/2013 9:57:49 AM PDT by mnehring
Zo has strong words for neo-confederate libertarians, especially those who infiltrated the CPAC conference. He reminds viewers why some libertarians have no place in the conservative movement, and why Republicans should embrace the vision of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass.
(Video at link)
(Excerpt) Read more at pjtv.com ...
And while we're at it, what was that book "x" recommended to counter it?
I found his intro most interesting. The triumphalism, the total disdain for moral objections that anyone might have to slavery (he calls it fanatical sentimentalism), the utter conviction that slavery is not a necessary evil but a positive good, the belief that the Founders were in error when they proclaimed all men to be equal.
I also thought his notions that capital can only be accumulated by essentially stealing (not the way he would put it) the excess value of the production of the slaves (or serfs) was very interesting. This is, of course, exactly what Marxism is based on, except that Kettel thought this theft was a good thing.
He has the odd idea that the American colonies before the Revolution were economically crushed by the boot of British finances. When of course we now know that the colonies in the early 1770s were thriving and growing economically, in fact had probably the highest median income on the planet, though with problems mostly created by inadequate money. But I guess that goes along with his notions that those who provide financing, shipping, insurance, etc. are by definition economically parasitical on farmers and planters.
Also, I appear to have been wrong about the date of publication being 1958. He references 1958 statistics throughout, probably because those were the latest available, but he also refers to John Brown’s attack on Harper’s Ferry, and the title page says 1860. So this is a pretty good representation of the thought of at least some southerners right before the election.
Bro, I suspect PR is saying the South imported $346M in goods in 1860, with that including "imports" from the North and West as well as from overseas.
However, I sincerely doubt anybody at the time could have come up with accurate numbers in regard to domestic trade between regions. No government agencies to compile the data in such detail.
I provided a reference to that in a post I once made to you. I’d link you to that long post, but the thread was deleted by a flame war. In the interest of brevity I won’t repost the old long post now, but I may change my mind later and post the whole thing because there was useful information in it.
Here is a link to Lincoln and his March 5 verbal order I provided you back then: Link; (it's in the first paragraph)
Do you want me to repost Adams and Meigs statements too?
Stephen Colwell's The Five Cotton States and New York (1861). It's available at Google Books.
Kettell says that the Northern states are economically dependent on the Southern states. Colwell contents that the five Deep South states are very dependent on New York City economically.
Some have assumed that Colwell was also pro-slavery because his thesis pointed to the interdependence of the two regions, as Kettell's did, but I haven't found anything to support that.
You can find Kettell favorably reviewed in the secessionist DeBow's Review:
I have not seen that event reported elsewhere, but assuming it's accurate, it simply reflects the same thinking behind Lincoln's April missions to resupply both Forts Pickens and Sumter:
Lincoln was pledged to occupy, support and defend Federal properties, and did not respect "informal truces" that prevented the Union from doing so.
The fact is that any official Confederate threat against Union forces on Union property was itself unlawful, and carrying out such threats were acts of war.
By the way, your link does report and correct my quote from Lincoln regarding his willingness to trade Fort Sumter for Virginia:
Anxious to avoid war, Lincoln willingly joined in these efforts.
One possibility was an agreement to surrender Fort Sumter in return for a pledge of unconditional loyalty on the part of Virginia.
There was nothing inherently implausible about such a deal.
Though many Virginians sympathized with the states of the lower South, most were loyal to the Union, and Unionists had a clear majority in the state convention, which was still in session.
The president hoped to confer with George W. Summers, the leading Unionist in that convention, but Summers declined to come to Washington.
Instead, he sent John B. Baldwin, another Unionist, who had a long secret conference with Lincoln on April 5.
What the two men said became a matter of dispute, but according to the most reliable account the President promised:
"Whether intentionally or inadvertently, Baldwin misunderstood the President, and nothing came of this offer."
rustbucket: "Do you want me to repost Adams and Meigs statements too?"
Regarding?
It does not record a vote of the Confederate government for war.
The Act to which you refer is known as "An act recognizing the existence of war between the United States and the Confederate States, and concerning letters of marque, prizes, and prize goods."
Your date of May 6 is three weeks after President Lincoln started the war, as determined by the US Courts.
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/ordinances_secession.asp
Here is South Carolina's for your review.
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.
So why do you continue to deny obvious facts of history?
I suggest that you look at your post 439 and see what it quoted from my post 432. If that still doesn't ring a bell for you, then check my post 391 where I provided quotes from Adams and Meigs (and Anderson as well). I suspect you'll disagree with all three of them. But they were there and involved in the events first hand; you and I were not.
You and I have very different interpretations of the issues and history of the war. That's fine. However, I don't want to get bogged down in an FR version of Groundhog Day providing information that counters the same old arguments and claims with the same people again and again. (I wouldn't be surprised if you felt the same way.) That is one reason I've been off the threads for a while. That is also why I've ignored the bulk of your recent posts to me.
By the way, in my old post to you of long ago, I did provide a second link to Lincoln's March 5th verbal instruction to Scott concerning Fort Pickens.
Be well, BroJoeK. I'm off the threads for a while -- too busy.
x: "Stephen Colwell's The Five Cotton States and New York "
x: Link to Sherman DeBow's review
Thanks, I've added all three links to "favorites" for future reference.
In the mean time, reading the first few paragraphs of Kettell's book shows he's making a full-throated defense of slavery, something which I doubt if anyone here would accept.
And it confirms my suspicion that when referring to "the South", he means all fifteen slave-states, including the four border states, and therein lies one deep flaw in his analysis.
A more accurate analysis would divide "the South" into three general sections: Deep (near 50% slaves), Upper ( about 25% slaves) and Border (less than 10% slaves).
Then we would find that agricultural and other achievements he credits to "the South" come mostly from Border and Upper South states, while the Deep South focused almost entirely on producing cash crops for export.
I also note with concern that Kettell claims: at the time of the Revolutionary War the South wanted to abolish their slavery, but the North wouldn't permit it.
Surely, that is a fantasy worthy of its own "land" in Disney World! ;-)
"The Act to which you refer is known as 'An act recognizing the existence of war between the United States and the Confederate States, and concerning letters of marque, prizes, and prize goods.' "
Only in a fantasy world could that be something other than a vote for war.
In the real world, the Confederacy prepared, provoked, started and formally declared -- "recognized" -- war on the United States months before a single Confederate soldier was killed in battle with any Union force, or a single Confederate state was "invaded" by any Union army.
Go back and read my post #430, and then explain to us why you continue to live in an advanced state of De Nile, FRiend.
I think you may have misread that part. He claims that the South wanted an immediate end to the slave trade, not slavery, while "the North" insisted it continue because it was the majority of their shipping trade.
I have no idea if any of this is true. The general POV is that the North wanted immediate end to the Trade, and the South did not, particularly SC.
And while the slave trade was important, I just don't think it had anything like the volume necessary to dominate the shipping trade, which employed a LOT of Americans. There just weren't that many slaves imported.
If I have time, maybe I'll go dig back thru Madison's records and see what really happened. Or at least what JM says happened. :)
Except that you cannot produce a Declaration of War by the Confederate Congress.
You said: “So there was no war until the Confederacy made it happen.”
Wrong. The U.S. Supreme Court in 79 U.S. 12 Wall. 700 (1870) fixed the beginning on April 19th, 1861.
Here is the ruling: “The proclamation of intended blockade by the President may therefore be assumed as marking the first of these dates, and the proclamation that the war had closed as marking the second. But the war did not begin or close at the same time in all the states. There were two proclamations of intended blockade: the first of the 19th of April, 1861, [Footnote 7] embracing the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas; the second of the 27th of April, 1861,
That date was also accepted by Jefferson Davis, President, of the Confederacy, the states of Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee.
You may continue to argue this point, but the actual Supreme Court decision will be given back to you from now on.
You said: “Hardly, since you are restricting “the North” to Northeastern states, while expanding “the South” to include all of Deep South, Upper South and Border States.”
No restriction or expansion. The poster flatly stated that the North was importing only cotton. It was shown to him that not only was that incorrect, but that the Northeastern states imported more food than cotton.
Next you said: “At least 1/3 of those 54 million came from Border States which remained loyal to the Union, meaning we are looking at most at 36 million produced in Confederate states, versus 74 million in Union states.”
That cannot be found in the data tables I supplied to you. If you think it is important, then cite the source. It does remain irrelevant to the point I made, but most likely fundamental to the misrepresentation you posted.
You: “Again, break it down by state and you’ll find that Deep South states most devoted to export cash crops produced relatively few grains, while more northern Border States produced far more.”
Then I would gladly read your data if you can find it.
You: “And since Border States remained loyal to Union, your analysis is deeply flawed.”
What analysis? The data was given to support the point that large amounts of food were sent North just before the war.
Here is that actual case, from 1871.
Naturally, you leave out the context, which doesn't suit your argument, along with significant quotes which tell us what that case was all about.
In 1871 the Supreme Court was asked to rule -- for purposes of law suits determined by statutes of limitations -- what dates should be used for beginning and end of the war.
Their ruling was clear common sense:
In other words, Supremes said it would be "difficult, if not impossible" to say which hostile acts by Confederates were insurgency, which were "domestic violence", which insurrection, which rebellion and which outright war.
But that's not what the Supremes were asked to rule on.
Instead, they were asked, for purposes of legal suits, to rule: which action by the Federal Government could be classified as an act of war?
So they ruled that Lincoln's document of April 19, proclaiming blockade would serve that purpose.
In other words: for legal purposes they have to go by some legal document, and so they chose the blockade announcement.
But in actual fact, Lincoln's blockade proclamation was simply that: a document.
That document did not kill anyone on April 19, or for months afterward.
Indeed, it's purpose was to achieve victory with an absolute minimum loss of life.
Further, we should note for this discussion how poorly worded -- and likely poorly thought out -- the Supremes' decision is.
To see how poorly worded, I would challenge anyone to study the Supreme's sentence above, and tell us what those last three words, "must be taken" refer to.
As near as I can tell, they are simply words "left over" after some modification or rewrite of a previous version.
It tells me their thinking and decision were all very narrowly based.
They did not intend for April 19, 1861 to serve for any purpose other than statutes of limitations.
In actual historical fact, the indisputable first genuine "act of war" -- as opposed to lesser acts of rebellion, insurrection, "domestic violence", etc. -- was the Confederacy's military assault of Fort Sumter, beginning April 12, 1861.
The Confederacy's next major act of war, on April 17, was to solicit applications for letters of marque against Union shipping.
This, like Lincoln's blockade proclamation on April 19, was a mere document -- it killed nobody on that date.
But Jefferson Davis' document was every bit as much an "act of war" as was Lincoln's blockade proclamation two days later.
The bottom line remains: Secessionists committed many acts of rebellion, insurrection and "domestic violence" before escalating to their first major act of war against Fort Sumter, April 12.
After Fort Sumter Confederates' increased their pace to war, increases slowly matched by Union actions.
The Union's first major physical acts of war did not happen until after Virginia voters confirmed it's secession, on May 23, 1861.
We have to start somewhere - and that's as good a start as I've seen in a while. We reward the kids who are making an effort - NOT the gangbangers like liberals do... Good idea Cripplecreek.
Only a Prince of DeNile could refuse to accept that the Confederate act of May 6, 1861 is a declaration -- "recognition" -- of war, for all intents and purposes.
Sure, if "the South" included Border States nearest the Mid-Western, Middle Atlantic and New England states.
Border States are just the "Southern" states from which most northern "imports" must have come.
But remember this: when push came to shove, those Border States served the Union, and their "exports" continued to go to the Union, which consequently did just fine.
But the Confederacy lost its "imports" from Border States, and consequently was forced -- irrespective of embargoes and blockades -- to change over from planting cash crops like cotton to food crops & produce.
In short: the Confederacy was more dependent on Border State food than was the North, and suffered more in consequence.
BJK: "At least 1/3 of those 54 million came from Border States which remained loyal to the Union..."
PeaRidge: "That cannot be found in the data tables I supplied to you.
If you think it is important, then cite the source.
It does remain irrelevant to the point I made, but most likely fundamental to the misrepresentation you posted."
First, your entire argument is not just false, it's irrelevant, but I set all that aside for purposes of discussion.
Second, here's what we know for certain:
In economic terms, the old pre-war "South" can be divided into three well-known sections: Deep South, Upper South and Border States.
In terms of free-white populations, each section had about 2.8 million citizens in 1860.
But while all "Southern" were slave-states, there was a huge difference in the numbers and employment of slaves.
In the Deep South slaves were nearly 50% of their population, in the Upper South around 25% and in Border States less than 15%.
Slaves in the Deep South were used mostly on large plantations to grow cash crops like cotton for export.
But in Upper South and especially Border States, there were fewer large plantations, and more small family farms on which slaves worked beside their white "owners".
And Border States like Maryland included as many free-blacks as slaves.
So Border States did not grow as many cash crops as the Deep South, but did grow more food for "export" -- to both North and South.
And again, we know that because the loss of Border State "exports" forced Deep South planters to begin raising more food crops.
PeaRidge: "The data was given to support the point that large amounts of food were sent North just before the war."
Your point is both irrelevant and false.
Irrelevant, because the supposed loss of Southern food caused no serious hardships in the North.
False, because most or all of that food must have come from Border States with fewer than 15% slaves, which decided to remain in the Union.
Bottom line: in the Civil War, Border States were not "South", they were North.
Wrong. Before Morrill, the average rate was 18.84%. It jumped to 36.2% with Morrill, then creeped up to 47.56% after two years when even more protectionist adjustments were made to Morrill.
By comparison, the confederate tariff adopted in May 1861 had an average rate of just over 13%.
Whether or not you think that “..there was nothing unusually high about those levels” is not the point. It was critically important to Northern manufacturing and consumers that the Morrill tariff was 40% higher and would drive European trade through Southern ports.
You said: “The highest rates of 45% did not come until 1870...”.
Actually they came five years before then.
You said: “The Morrill Tariff could have been defeated in the House in 1860 if the South and/or Democrats had firmly opposed it.
Not true: The sectional breakdown was 96–15 in the north, 7–9 in the Border states, and 1–39 in the south. Had everyone in the South and border states voted against it, it would still carry.
“But there were more than enough Southerners and Democrats who voted for Morrill to allow its passage in the House, in 1860.”
Wrong again.
You said: “In the Senate, Southerners opposed to Morrill held positions of power until they began walking out after the November 1860 election. So Morrill passed first because House Southerners were only halfhearted in opposition, and second because Senate Southerners walked out of the Senate.”
Wrong again and again....this is boring.
On December 12, 1860 speaking before the Senate, before any state had seceded, Sen. Louis Wigfall revealed his opinion on future equal representation as provided by the US Constitution:
“Tell me not that we have got the legislative department of this Government, for I say we have not. As to this body, where do we stand?
“Why, sir, there are now eighteen non-slaveholding States. In a few weeks we shall have the nineteenth, for Kansas will be brought in. Then arithmetic which settles our position is simple and easy.
“Thirty-eight northern Senators you will have upon this floor. We shall have thirty to your thirty-eight. After the 4th of March, the Senator from California, the Senator from Indiana, the Senator from New Jersey, and the Senator from Minnesota will be here.
“That reduces the northern phalanx to thirty-four...There are four of the northern Senators upon whom we can rely, whom we know to be friends, whom we have trusted in our days of trial heretofore, and in whom, as Constitution-loving men, we will trust.
“Then we stand thirty-four to thirty-four, and your Black Republican Vice President to give the casting vote.
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.