Indeed, the flag of the Army of Northern Virginia and the later adopted Confederate flag, looks suspiciously like an Americanized Cross of St. Andrew.
:)
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 ...
Navigation act of 1817 only required cargos between American ports to be carried by an American flagged ship.
A ship load of shoes, out of Boston bound for New Orleans had to carried by an American ship. A load of cotton out o New Orleans bound for Boston had to be carried by an American ship. The law affected everyone equally.
It in no way limited international commerce between the Southern States and their customers in Europe.
How did the Warehousing act adversely affect Southern Commerce
Porter didn’t “seize” the ship. He had orders from the President of the United States to assume command, Mercer recognized the legality of those orders and turned the command over to Porter. The afternoon, Powhatan sailed, Porter received new orders to join the Sumter expedition vice sailing for Pensacola. He refused to follow those orders because they were signed by Seward.
“He received no court marshal for this behavior, no disciplinary action of any kind,”
why should he have be court martialed?
So they were deferring to the wishes of the slave states on this particular matter?
Mr. SHERMAN said it was better to let the S. States import slaves than to part with them, if they made that a sine qua non. He was opposed to a tax on slaves imported as making the matter worse, because it implied they were property. He acknowledged that if the power of prohibiting the importation should be given to the Genl. Government that it would be exercised. He thought it would be its duty to exercise the power.
Odd how the slave states had the power to enforce their demands in 1787, but by the time of the Northwest Ordinance, no one was afraid of offending them by placing restrictions on the travel and residency of their citizens and their slaves in the territories.
I doubt the slave states would have agreed to this restriction in 1787. This was a bait and switch.
But i've argued with you before, so I am accustomed to it turning into a pointless argument.
As far as Ron Paul is concerned he seems to be an idiot other than about some matters of finance and taxation. I suspect if a nuclear bomb were detonated on some American city he would denounce Americans and claim it was the fault of those attacked. That is a long way from working up a dithyram of fury over the torpedoing of the RMS Lusitania in British waters.
It "only" did a whole lot of things that resulted in the NorthEast controlling all the traffic.
The law affected everyone equally.
The Northeast owned virtually all of the ships, so no, it did not affect everyone equally. It created a defacto subsidy for Northeastern shipping.
It in no way limited international commerce between the Southern States and their customers in Europe.
It most certainly did. Almost all the ships were in the hands of Northeaster shippers, and they set their prices just below what would have to be paid if all the fines and penalties for using non-American ships would have cost.
If it had no effect on costs, then why did they do it? It seems to me quite clear that they did it precisely because it forced importers/exporters to use American shipping, and the vast bulk of which was controlled from New York.
It also created a packet shipping industry between ports that was wholly controlled by the same group of shippers in the New York area.
How did the Warehousing act adversely affect Southern Commerce
I no longer recall. This aspect was thrashed out in a discussion a year or so ago, and I would have to go find that discussion again to jog my memory. It was a lesser effect than the Navigation act of 1817, so I didn't focus on it.
The point is, the lack of a majority in Congress made the wealth producing South the plaything of those powerful interests that had acquired control of congress. The South became the piggy bank for Northern "Mercantilist" policy, and they had insufficient votes to stop it.
It did not pass without notice. This is the trap they find themselves in when attempting to defend the indefensible.
Wouldn’t wanna be ‘em.
Unfortunately true. Today with slavery long gone and Jim Crow equally defunct yankees still make it clear they detest Southerners. a society organized around capital expansion and consumerism really cannot understand one in which place and family are more important. (Not all Southerners to be sure. My father's family had many examples of those for whom consumerism and mammon worship came first. He was not that way but could not understand why I disliked his sister's family as I did. To him they were kin first. He had no idea how that thought he was a stupid rube. One cousin would let it slip in mocking my father behind his back. ) The basic problem in debating the issue is agrarianism cannot be reduced to clever written documents. It has to be lived to feel it and understand it in a way that can not be articulated but felt in ones being. Pragmatic materialist will never understand this or even just agree that there are differences that can't be compromised away.
One of the things - there are many - that I like about Sister DoodleDawg is that she always includes something in her posts to me that makes me look good.
Because if they waited until the warships got there, they would be facing simultaneous cannon fire from the warships and fort Sumter at the same time.
What Military officer would be so stupid as to put himself in the position of being attacked on two fronts simultaneously?
Considering the size of the Confederate artillery at Charleston the likelihood is that the Union task force would have been mauled at the least and possibly destroyed or captured
That is exactly correct. Admiral Porter, in his memoirs, said that every ship would have been sunk. Other military people at the time believed it would end in disaster.
I think any objective person can look at the arrays of forces on both sides and realize the mission as was written in it's orders, a suicidal mission.
Had those ships done as their orders indicated they would do, they would have been destroyed. Those ships did not do as they were expected because mysteriously, their command ship the "Powhatan", never arrived to take charge of their forces. By this "miracle" of "miscommunication", those ships that would have been destroyed, were prevented from being destroyed.
Abraham Lincoln was just astonishingly lucky that there was a "miscommunication", and somehow the command ship had been detached from the mission and sent to Pensacola by his secret orders, and this "lucky" event prevented the destruction of those ships in Charleston harbor.
Boy, that Lincoln sure was "lucky" in making that mistake. Had he not accidentally sent those countermanding orders for the Powhatan, those warships would have attacked the confederates and their massed cannon emplacements, and they would have been destroyed.
Did Lincoln realize the likelihood of all those ships being destroyed prior to sending them? Anderson had sent diagrams of the confederate gun emplacements and staffing in his dispatches to Washington, and so the military officials there could have advised the President how very likely was the destruction of those ships if they followed the orders they had been given.
Lincoln must have been exceptionally cruel to have sent those men to their certain deaths, and it was only by the wildest stroke of luck in sending those secret orders to detach the command ship was the expedition prevented from being destroyed.
They should call him "lucky Abe."
How is it such a brilliant man made such a lucky mistake on so serious of an issue as the resupply/reinforcement of Fort Sumter?
This would have been a clear demonstration of the CSA acting only to defend its sovereignty. So why attack Sumter and its puny garrison those losing the PR advantage?
Their spies had informed them those ships were coming, but when Lincoln called for ships to be sent, he was sent a much bigger list than what was actually sent. The confederates had no actual idea of what war assets were really coming, and they could only conclude that whatever was being sent, it would be deemed sufficient to accomplish the task for which it had been sent.
The thought that Lincoln would send a force that they might have easily destroyed had likely not occurred to any of them. They believed the force to be formidable, or why else would it be sent?
Confederate communications illustrate the preparations they made to deal with this coming force, and according to their message traffic, they really believed they were about to be invaded by many thousands of troops intending to overrun their positions.
The Military staff back in Washington DC had asserted that it would take 20,000 men to take and hold Sumter against further encroachment, and it is quite likely spies and sympathizers conveyed this information to the Confederate authorities so that they could prepare.
So Lincoln sent a force sufficient to frighten them into acting, but in actuality, completely insufficient for the purpose of completing it's asserted mission.
And somehow he luckily prevented those forces from actually engaging in a battle in which they would have been destroyed.
Again, that Lincoln sure was lucky that those orders got mixed up.
You see no difference between antebellum Virginia and Mississippi, nor between Bourbons and Bryanites, nor between Kennedy and McGovern.
Nor do you see a difference between Abolition and Emancipation, T.R. and Wm. Howard Taft, Harding and Hoover, Rockefeller and Goldwater, Romney and Trump.
Clearly parties have their wings. One could say Romney and Trump are to one side of the median voter and Kennedy and McGovern to the other side. But, this begs the question as to what set of issues defines the political spectrum.
Through Bryan, Democrats tended to hard money. Then they flipped to the other side of the Republicans, and advocated silver and/or paper money.
Through the 1920s, Democrats advocated segregation in the south. Following WWII, they flipped to the other side of the Republicans, and favored racial preferences favoring minorities.
Also through the 1920s, Democrats favored states’ rights. Following WWII, they flipped to the other side of the Republicans and favored national legislation.
Look at the evolution of politics in terms of class and region.
The Jeffersonian Republicans were famously in favor of freeholders, and the Hamiltonian Federalists in favor of commerce. The Jeffersonians were agrarian and the Hamiltonians urban.
Today’s Republicans are the middle class, and are strongest in the rural areas and exburbs of the country. The Democrats depend on the votes of government workers, those who are dependent on government welfare programs, and those seeking preferences in hiring, etc., based on skin color, gender, and other demographic characteristics. Their strength is specifically in the urban and inner suburbs of the country.
In the Wizard of Oz the revolution within the Democratic Party was characterized by a cyclone. The cyclone killed the wicked witch of the east (Grover Cleveland of New York), but the American people (represented by Dorothy), including factory workers (the tin man), farmers (the scarecrow), and Wm. Jennings Bryan (the cowardly lion), along with the tiny Prohibitionist Party (Toto), still had to kill the wicked witch of the west (Wm. McKinley of Ohio).
The true path would be to walk along the yellow brick road (gold) with the silver slippers (sorry, MGM changed them to ruby slippers because ruby showed better in technicolor), to go to the Emerald City (Washington, where money - green - rules). There they would meet the wizard, who was only a figurehead, since Mark Hanna called the shots within the Republican Party.
Who are the Republicans in this story? Why, we are the Munchkins. The hard-working decent members of the middle class, who aren’t very smart and who are duped by the rich.
Today, the Democrats have us surrounded. They are the elite and the rich, who tax us in order to bribe those they induce into dependency to vote for them. The Democrats are no longer the party of private-sector workers and farmers. Those people have dwindled into insignificance or have come over to our side.
Wake up, Dorothy, and discover that there’s no place like home.
A quibble over my choice of words. Yes, he legally seized the ship through secret orders from the President.
The afternoon, Powhatan sailed, Porter received new orders to join the Sumter expedition sailing for Pensacola. He refused to follow those orders because they were signed by Seward.
Odd that, isn't it?
why should he have be court martialed?
So long as he was following Lincoln's orders, he should not have been. My point here is that he was exactly following Lincoln's orders, and when he intended to fire on the Confederate batteries along the bar around Ft. Pickens, and was only prevented from doing so as a consequence of Captain Meigs deliberately placing his ship in Porter's path, the intent or authority to fire on those confederate batteries must also have been stipulated in his orders.
Porter did indeed fire on Confederate ships, with no prior knowledge of the events in Charleston. He believed at the time that his cannon shots were the first shots of the Civil War.
Now why would Porter make such an effort to fire his cannons at the confederates, unless this was clearly authorized if not encouraged by the man who's secret orders he was following?
I have told you that Porter was Lincoln's backup plan to start the war, and Porter's actions make this explanation the most probable.
I believe we have never seen those secret orders for Porter, precisely because they are inflammatory and likely prove that Lincoln tried to intentionally start the war.
For whatever reason, Porter never made them public. They were likely destroyed.
But i've argued with you before, so I am accustomed to it turning into a pointless argument.
Indeed. Your imagination knows no bounds as well. So I'll agree that further interactions are pointless.
For example?
This is almost a masterpiece. It exactly corresponds with what I have realized after three years of researching the social and financial dynamics involved prior to the civil war.
I have been telling BroJoeK, BullSnipe and others, that "crony capitalism" was the force behind the destruction of the civil war. I have been trying to point out that the same enemy the Confederates were facing in the 1860s, is the same enemy we too are facing today.
What they call the "Acela corridor" is the ruling class of our nation. They thrive on government spending, and they have the power to influence the government to enact policies that benefit them financially. They own the broadcast media system in this nation, they own banking and finance, and they own the levers of power that decide the fate of us all.
And they hate us in the manner that the Northern Puritans hated the evil Southerners back in the 1860s. We are the "Deplorables" in "flyover" country.
And I am coming to see things this way as well. Money controls Washington DC. They use their power and influence to make certain that the "right" people are being enriched by Washington DC.
I think one of the reasons there is a "war on oil" meaning the "global warming" bullsh*t among other things, is because the Washington-Boston area doesn't control oil.
If they did, nobody in the national propaganda system would be waring with oil. What economic powers they cannot control, they seek to destroy.
Indeed, the flag of the Army of Northern Virginia and the later adopted Confederate flag, looks suspiciously like an Americanized Cross of St. Andrew.
:)
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.