Freep this poll Civil War monuments

Richond Times Dispatch ^

[DiogenesLamp]

Try citing it in a court of law. It has no legal standing. It is not law.

The courts say Homosexuals can marry and that babies can be killed. Am I talking with someone that believes in the law of man or the law of God?

The nation claims that it's authority to be independent of England is part of God's law. I take that statement to be accurate.

[DiogenesLamp]

The Southern States left the United States. The Constitution of the United States no longer applied to them.

So they were an independent Country? That is their position. Lincoln's position was that they never were an independent country.

Which position is it that you are trying to support on this point?

It was not his “body guard”, it was his office secretary that related the information about an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. You know him, he was the one that issued the Dred Scott Decision. Had the Confederacy not started a War with the United States he would not have done what he had to do.

So the Constitution gives Lincoln the power to arrest the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Come again?

Could he arrest all the rest of the members of the Court? Could he arrest the Congress?

And for what it's worth:

Statement by Ward Hill Lamon, Lincoln's friend, bodyguard, and United States Marshal for the District of Columbia during his administration.

After due consideration the administration determined upon the arrest of the Chief Justice. A warrant or order was issued for his arrest. Then arose the question of service. Who should make the arrest and where should the imprisonment be? This was done by the President with instructions to use his own discretion about making the arrest unless he should receive further orders from him.

[DiogenesLamp]

Not the case. Southern Ports were less developed than the harbors in Boston and New York.

That is true, but this is not the reason why goods entered the nation through New York. The reason they entered through New York and Boston was because there was no economic benefit to ships going anywhere else.

The Tariff would be the exact same in Charleston and it was 800 miles further south. It would require another week to get to Charleston, all to pay the exact same import tariff. So why would anyone go there?

Make Charleston's tarrif 13% while New York's tariff is 37-50% and suddenly a trader can make an extra 37% profit on his products.

Do you think the Europeans would have ignored that?

There was no law in place that discriminated against Southern Ports.

Navigation act of 1817, making it illegal to use Foreign Ships or Crew to carry cargo between US Ports. Making it prohibitively expensive to use Foreign Ships or Crew to carry goods into or away from a single US Port.

It pretty much funneled all the shipping, banking and insurance industries into New York and Boston.

Also there were federal subsidies for the fishing industry (in the North) and the shipping industry (also in the north) paid for out of the tariff's collected on goods imported to balance the monetary debts owed to the South.

But the infrastructure to move goods away from the port were much superior in the Northern States.

Yes, but the primary reasons ships go anywhere is for profit. Charleston had dredged it's harbor and it was making it's port facilities better. European companies trading in Charleston would have done better than just the difference in the Tariff between the South and New York. The Southerners would have found that their purchasing power would go farther now that the North wasn't taking a cut out of it, and the Europeans would have found far more dollars chasing their goods.

[rockrr]

I’ve never met anyone so willingly obtuse as you.

If you looked beyond the backside of your eyeballs you would see that no one else shares your peculiar views. No one. Why? Because it is a distortion of reality. A lie.

The civilized world had largely moved away from slavery, leaving the United States increasingly isolated. Northern states, individually and collectively, were making strides toward the inevitable elimination of slavery. If anything, they were stymied by the bull-headed attitudes of the southern slavocracy. Slavery was accepted - as a dying entity.

That quote has legitimacy only within a razor-thin context. A pinhole. A distortion of the truth. That context is that the north was willing to postpone efforts toward abolition for the sake of unity and security. They hadn’t suddenly adopted a preference for the Particular Institution - as the quote implies. It wasn’t “do it our way” it was, “OK, we’ll do it your way - as long as you don’t blow up the union”. I’m dismayed that the British author wasn’t bright enough to see that. I’m not at all surprised that you aren’t.

[DoodleDawg]

It makes perfect sense to me too. The South was paying for 3/4ths of the Government, because the South was producing 3/4ths of all the Import revenue.

Which was the opposite of what Alexander Stephens was saying but hey, what did he know anyway?

[DoodleDawg]

Lawyer hair splitting. It is a "difference" without a distinction. It is an amusing fiction.

Your contempt for the English language is duly noted.

In Calvin's Case, the Court did exactly what the King wanted them to do as well. This is just more Kabuki dance to create the perception of legitimacy, a court prior to Lincoln would not have ruled in such a way.

So you say. For what it's worth.

I've already posted the statement made by Lincoln's body guard, and another reference to it made by a former Mayor of Boston. It is better sourced than a lot of other things in history that are accepted.

And as I've pointed out in the past not a single Taney biographer has found any evidence at all of such an order. But you seem to prefer the 19th Century version of the National Enquirer for you sources.

You just don't care what is the truth.

I care very much. I just know better than to expect it from you.

[Bull Snipe]

They were in rebellion. At that point Lincoln could use any force necessary to put down rebellion. Did Lincoln arrest the Chief Justice? Did Lincoln arrest any member of the Supreme Court? No, he did not. While he may have contemplated that action at one time he did not do it.

[x]

You are so full of it. You lecture about not judging past figures by the standards of our own day. You apply that to slave owners and secessionists, but then proceed to judge and condemn the Northerners who opposed them by present-day standards -- or ideal moral standards higher than those of any era.

Pure material self-interest on the part of slave owners you turn into something moral or idealistic -- something you don't question or examine or challenge. The mixed motives of unionists you reduce to the purest materialistic pursuit of personal advantage without any moral component. There's no logic behind that. You've made up your mind what you want to think before and and don't let facts or logic get in the way.

If people in the free states simply accepted whatever was done in the slave states, you condemn them as not caring about morality. If they protested or fought back or challenged, you see them as hypocritical, hate-filled, and predatory -- things that you never say about your beloved slave owners. So you demand Northerners not interfere with slavery and vilify them for not interfering with slavery.

You are apparently one of those people who believe the only sin is hypocrisy and that believing oneself to be right puts one in the wrong. But you don't see that slave societies were as likely to be self-righteous and arrogantly moralistic as any other. "Northern hypocrisy" wasn't as big a theme at the time, because there was the much greater hypocrisy of those who lived off slavery and talked of freedom, justice, and Christianity.

You really are shameless.

[DiogenesLamp]

Which was the opposite of what Alexander Stephens was saying but hey, what did he know anyway?

:................................U. S. Department of Commerce
................................Agricultural Production of the South
........................................Yearly Detail 1859

Value of Total U.S. Exports ..........$278,902,000

Value of Raw Southern Products:

....................Cotton .....................$161,435,000
....................Tobacco .....................21,074,000
....................Rice ............................2,207,000
....................Naval stores .................3,696,000
....................Sugar ..........................197,000
....................Molasses ........................76,000
....................Hemp .............................9,000
....................Other ........................9,615,000
________
Total ( 71% ) $198,309,000

Value of Southern manufactured Cotton exports ............4,989,000
Value of cotton component of Northern Manufactured cotton exports (60%) ......3,669,000
___________
Total ( 74% ) $205,459,000

Value of Processed Foods:
.............Bread-stuffs/processed fish/meats/corn...........$36,640,000

Total Southern Products ( 87% ) $242,099,000

Export Specie for Purchase or debts: ........$57,502,000 assume 20% for overseas purchase.

Total Southern Contribution ....................$252,000,000

U.S. Department of Commerce, U. S. Treasury, Report of L. E. Chittenden, Howell Cobb, Treasurer, Annual State of the Union Address, James Buchanan, J. D. B. DeBow, Charles Adams, Thomas Kettel, W. F. Taussig, Thomas Huertas, Historical Statistics of the United States Department of Commerce, pg. 106,432.

The real evidence proves the man was incorrect. Take it up with the official record.

[DiogenesLamp]

Your contempt for the English language is duly noted.

I was expressing contempt for lying sophistry the sort of which you attempted in trying to make a distinction between the one word and the other.

So you say. For what it's worth.

So the actual history says, if you but took the time to read it.

And as I've pointed out in the past not a single Taney biographer has found any evidence at all of such an order.

Missed the statement by Ward Hill Lamon, did they? Missed the statement by the former mayor of Baltimore, did they? They don't sound like very good biographers.

I care very much. I just know better than to expect it from you.

Well you shouldn't expect it from me, because *I* wasn't there, but you should indeed *LOOK* at the F***ing evidence I find for you because it comes from people who *were* there.

You don't look at the evidence (provided by the participants and the records) because what I find, you don't want to believe.