Here we go again.
The navigation act of 1817. The Warehousing act.
This was the result. Vast bulk of all export cargo left southern ports. Virtually all the import cargo came into New York.
Posted on 01/11/2019 5:16:40 AM PST by TexasGunLover
AUSTIN, Texas — A historically inaccurate brass plaque honoring confederate veterans will come down after a vote this morning, WFAA has learned.
The State Preservation Board, which is in charge of the capitol building and grounds, meets this morning at 10:30 a.m. to officially decide the fate of the metal plate.
(Excerpt) Read more at wfaa.com ...
By the way, we should take a moment to notice this entire anti-American diatribe sounds like something we could expect from the Cold War's Soviet Pravda, or from our socialist besotted Democrats today.
And yet we see it posted here by a presumed conservative.
Astonishing!
Is this what Ron-Rand Paul talk looks like when reduced to a Free Republic post?
I have no problem with this particular argument, since it emphasizes the true root cause of secession -- Southern fears over what "Ape" Lincoln's Black Republicans might do against slavery.
But we should also note that many Lost Causers posting here -- including DiogenesLamp, FLT-bird and robowombat -- deny the centrality of slavery and instead focus our attention on whatever shiny objects they can conjure, be it tariffs, "Northeastern power brokers" or "money flows from Europe".
So, in the time honored tradition of jeffersondem responses, may I invite critic to answer critic?
;-)
In fact, DoodleDawg is a scholar, or at least "history buff" of considerable learning, more adept at arcane details of historiography than pretty much any of us here, certainly in a class with rustbucket.
So DoodleDawg's challenge for FLT-bird to support his claims with real data is not a "troll", but rather in the interest of simple historical accuracy.
Now it appears that FLT-bird doesn't really have the "goods" and so huffs & puffs to blow smoke in our faces.
But I've redefined nothing.
For as long as I can remember, and I'm not a young man, American Conservative has meant, at its core: the Constitution and Bible, as originally intended.
To the degree you support those, you are truly Conservative.
To the degree you oppose them you are "progressive" or "liberal" or "moderate" or "loose construction" or "reformist", etc., etc.
American Conservatives are not monarchists or supporters of state churches, as in Europe, and we are certainly not fascist authoritarians.
Instead, what we want to conserve is the Bible and Constitution, we think they're great treasures from our past and we'd like to pass them on as unsullied as possible.
You disagree?
Wrong about what? Benjamin Franklin was a slave owner. He published abolitionist literature late in life.
I'll grant his near deathbed repentance.
Here we go again.
The navigation act of 1817. The Warehousing act.
This was the result. Vast bulk of all export cargo left southern ports. Virtually all the import cargo came into New York.
So DoodleDawg's challenge for FLT-bird to support his claims with real data is not a "troll", but rather in the interest of simple historical accuracy.
I thank you for your kind words but I really think there are many others around here far more knowledgeable about the rebellion than I am. Yourself included.
Well... first, through the life of Jefferson himself I consider the following parties to be all one, all Democrats:
Until very recent decades Democrats were based in the Solid South, Republicans in the less-than-solid North.
Today Democrats still have a Solid South component, but flipped from whites to African Americans.
I say that it's vastly more helpful to think of Democrats as one long history from 1787 to today -- opposed to the Constitution, favoring more Federal power when they rule, berserk lunatics when out of power, and often favoring party over country.
Federalists-Whigs-Republicans have nearly always been the more Conservative constitutionalists, certainly when compared to radical Democrats.
You disagree?
Which was a given. You keep trying to ignore the fact that opposition was guaranteed, and therefore the orders required an attack.
You don't want to admit that Lincoln started the war when he sent those warships with their defacto orders to began an assault against the Confederates who were blocking them.
Mercer was to take command and lead the response in force. Unknown to the rest of the fleet, Mercer had been secretly relieved of command, and his warship had been placed under the command of Lieutenant Porter who's instructions, based on his efforts, appeared to have been "deliberately start a war" in Pensacola.
Two different plans to start the same war, and you just want to pretend this is all accidental, or a misunderstanding.
The reason behind it is partisan. They want to support the notion that the Union bears no blame for triggering the war, and it was all those hot head Confederates who attacked Sumter for no reason whatsoever.
Calling it "supply ships" supports this fiction. Calling it what it was, a belligerent War fleet with orders to attack them, calls into question the narrative that the South started it.
They don't want to confuse people with facts that cloud the narrative.
You have no quotes from Lincoln saying anything remotely like that.
You have only your own opinions to support your unwarranted speculations.
While you, on the other hand, want to promote the myth that it was all Lincoln's fault and the South was blameless. So where does that leave us?
‘American Conservative’ - Nice dodge, the word conservative and the word conservatism, look them up and get back to me.
It had 2 or 3 hundred riflemen on board, so it was hardly unarmed. I do not know if they had put ships cannons on it, but it definitely could have shot up a deck crew if a ship got close enough.
Tugs only armed in your imagination.
I deferred to your claim that the Thomas Freeborn might not have been armed on this particular date, but i've found proof that the "Yankee" was armed on April 26th of 1861. We know the Thomas Freeborn was armed at a later date because i've posted the pictures of it sporting a cannon.
As far as orders, you have read Powhatan’s orders. No force authorized unless the resupply mission was opposed.
Which was already baked into the cake. They would be opposed, and they knew it, as did everyone in Washington DC knew it at the time. Therefore their orders required them to use force against those who opposed them.
The fleet was going to attack if the Powhatan had shown up prior to the engagement with Fort Sumter. You may not believe me, but can you not believe what Admiral Porter said about it in that memoir of which a page I recently showed to you says this?
Escorts is what they were.
Four warships escorting a passenger ship loaded with troops? It was the troop transport ship that was doing the "escorting." The warships were the bulk of the expedition.
He would hardly say so now would he?
We know he gave secret orders to Lieutenant Porter, because Porter seized the flagship of the Sumter expedition and took it to Pensacola where he tried his best to provoke the Confederates into fighting with him, up to and including firing on their ships.
He received no court marshal for this behavior, no disciplinary action of any kind, and was indeed promoted to Admiral within the span of the war. He says Lincoln gave him secret orders, and his behavior along with the fact that he got away with it pretty much confirms that Lincoln did in fact give him secret orders.
And those orders have never seen the light of day among the greater public, and one can only wonder why?
"Incriminating" is the only answer that comes to my mind.
Ignoring the fact that Lincoln was not yet "the new President", such "influence" totally unspecified.
Judging by his actions elsewhere, I'd suppose that "influence" consisted of Senator Seward telling his fellow Senators & Congressmen that Lincoln supported "X" or "Y" and so they should too.
In fact, direct evidence of Lincoln's support for Corwin is lacking.
A man in his own house has certain privileges that someone coming into his house does not. It is his prerogative to demand that "guests" leave his house.
The entire crux of the matter is whether States have a right to be independent of a government they see as no longer serving their interests, and the foundation document of this nation answers that question in the affirmative.
If they do have the right to be independent, then what they did was reasonable and proper. Lincoln had no right to force them to continue abiding by his rule.
And you never did answer my question as to why anyone would want those D@mn slave states in their union anyway?
Why would anyone want those D@mn slave states in their Union?
And you answer by promoting additional myths. This is going nowhere fast.
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.