You're the one making the claim about them. So why don't you try substantiating your rants for once by citing and sourcing a legitimate statistic?
Also for the record, the 1794 law I previously linked to pertained to and had provisions for forts all the way up the coast.
In one debate, a representative from Detroit put in a motion for 10 cents to build a fort in Detroit so that he could get on the floor to discuss the general matter.
That's an unsourced anecdote, not a conclusive statement of fact about where the forts were built. Detroit was and is an inland city, making it a peculiar place to build a coastal defense.
Southern largesse took a great many forms. There was one mint in the North that made most of the coins, yet the south had three Federal mints.
New Orleans was a common sense place for a mint in what was then the west's largest city. The mints at Charlotte, NC and Dahlonega, GA were BRANCH mints built to process returns from a gold rush in the former Cherokee lands. At the time they were built, it was often too difficult and dangerous to transport large quantities of gold up to Philadelphia so a small branch mint was established to fulfill that role.
The customs house alone in Charleston cost over five million dollars to build
Well gee! A luxurious tax collection office for the federal revenue service bureaucrats! Now there's a real pork barrel if I ever heard one! And based on their views around 1861 when ole Abe was trying to collect his Morrill Tariff, I have no doubt that the Charlestonians were thanking God daily in their prayers for giving them that building.
The post office in the south regularly ran a 2 million dollar debt, while in the north it ran a two million dollar surplus.
The post offices finances in the first half of the 19th century were screwed up as a product of their statutory monopoly. As for running a loss in the south, which at the time included the country's western frontiers, it is of little surprise that it would cost more to deliver mail in, say, western Texas than in New York City.
The list goes on and on,
List? So far you have "listed" vague anecdotes about the tax office and a surplus/loss claim about the post office. That hardly goes "on and on" to anything, nor does it even approach proving your point.
The south was totally lame financially
IIRC, the southern states had among the highest per capita incomes in the nation around 1860. They were also, for all practical purposes, the nation's only significant exporters to the world. That is hardly "financially lame" by any standard.
but the North put up with it to keep the Europeans out.
Question: If the north simply "put up with" the south out of necessity, which implies that they would have been happier without it if they could, why did they fight tooth and nail to keep it the second the possibility of ridding themselves of it became a reality? It's called a vested financial interest, son. Northern prosperity under the Morrill Tariff depended upon their ability to operate without the risk of having their market undercut by a free trading neighbor.
Since you can't count, I will count them for you. Two. In New York City on the Narrows.
Also for the record, the 1794 law I previously linked to pertained to and had provisions for forts all the way up the coast.
Yes, but the North never was so afraid that they felt compelled to such millions of dollars out of the Feds for out of date brick forts. Wasn't one of them that could stand up to artillery fire by 1860. Waste of money, unless, of course, you were really just making a living off federal largesse controlled by a southern dominated Senate. The only cash crop besides cotton in the south that could produce a larger income for the south than federal largesse was sugar, and then only sometimes. THe North had seven cash crops that out produced cotton.
In one debate, a representative from Detroit put in a motion for 10 cents to build a fort in Detroit so that he could get on the floor to discuss the general matter.
That's an unsourced anecdote, not a conclusive statement of fact about where the forts were built. Detroit was and is an inland city, making it a peculiar place to build a coastal defense.
It's in the Globe, along with a plethora of similar debates over the money the south sucked out of the Feds without paying a proportionate share of taxes. You're just afraid to look it up. It would ruin you fantasies.
Southern largesse took a great many forms. There was one mint in the North that made most of the coins, yet the south had three Federal mints.
New Orleans was a common sense place for a mint in what was then the west's largest city. The mints at Charlotte, NC and Dahlonega, GA were BRANCH mints built to process returns from a gold rush in the former Cherokee lands. At the time they were built, it was often too difficult and dangerous to transport large quantities of gold up to Philadelphia so a small branch mint was established to fulfill that role.
Too dangerous? For Federal troops? LOL. It was strictly a matter of largesse, and that dangerous part was just the lame excuse to suck the fed again.
The customs house alone in Charleston cost over five million dollars to build
Well gee! A luxurious tax collection office for the federal revenue service bureaucrats! Now there's a real pork barrel if I ever heard one! And based on their views around 1861 when ole Abe was trying to collect his Morrill Tariff, I have no doubt that the Charlestonians were thanking God daily in their prayers for giving them that building.
It was a southern boondoggle, controlled and managed by the state of Carolina. It is your modern delusions that make you think a Federal government that ran on 4% of GNP or less was what the last 100 years of southern dominated Federalista programs have made it. Fess up. The traditions of the old south are alive and well in Washington today.
The only real debate in Lincoln's day about South Carolina tariff incomes was that they were not enough to pay for the cost of sending one naval ship to Charleston to collect them, let alone to recover the 5 million blown on the Custom's house by South Carolinians.
The post office in the south regularly ran a 2 million dollar debt, while in the north it ran a two million dollar surplus.
The post offices finances in the first half of the 19th century were screwed up as a product of their statutory monopoly. As for running a loss in the south, which at the time included the country's western frontiers, it is of little surprise that it would cost more to deliver mail in, say, western Texas than in New York City.
The Post office did a fine job, but the south always hired too many delivery boys. It was, after all, just about the only job a white man could have that wasn't looked down upon. The odd thing about your claim is that the only branch of the Confederate government that never showed a loss was the Post Office. Why was it that it ran 2 million in debt when the North could be sucked dry for phony expenses, but ran at a profit when the North couldn't be sucked dry for phony expenses?
I Know, that question is too hard for you to figure out. I only put it up so others would see it for what it was.
The list goes on and on,
List? So far you have "listed" vague anecdotes about the tax office and a surplus/loss claim about the post office. That hardly goes "on and on" to anything, nor does it even approach proving your point.
Only from you point of view, which is that history is made from around the crackle barrel by a bunch of lazy gits sucking down moonshine while collecting fees from the Federal government for delivering mail to people who couldn't read or write.
The south was totally lame financially IIRC, the southern states had among the highest per capita incomes in the nation around 1860.Yeah, among the cotton producers provided you didn't include the slaves and poor white majority. Now you're over the top for sure, and in complete denial of all census materials collected and artificially bloated by the south itself. LOL....
They were also, for all practical purposes, the nation's only significant exporters to the world. That is hardly "financially lame" by any standard.
They only exported cotton because it was the only crop that an inept labor system and could produce at a profit in that day and age. More goods were exported by the North, but much more importantly, cotton as a whole only represented a small part of the overall GNP. To deny this is to only testify to either an inability to read or to be honest.
Exporting is generally considered to be an achievement, but that notion comes from exporting finished goods, not raw materials. Exporting raw materials instead of finished product is to give away the vast majority of wealth in the resource, and this the south did completely. Even John C. Calhoun's innovation of industry and product specific tariffs failed to create industry in the south, where no free man with the abilities and skills to build such industry ever wanted to have to compete for his meals with slave labor. That, above all, was the key to the economic collapse of the south. A collapse that simply could not be cured until the mid 1950's when the south finally got over the notion of hobbling half it's population into failure and lack of productivity.
but the North put up with it to keep the Europeans out.
Question: If the north simply "put up with" the south out of necessity, which implies that they would have been happier without it if they could, why did they fight tooth and nail to keep it the second the possibility of ridding themselves of it became a reality? It's called a vested financial interest, son.
Certainly child, it was a vested interest. An interest vested to the tune of many millions over generations into the south to keep the idea of a free nation on the North american continent alive. Get on your knees and thank God you ancestors didn't screw it up like they wanted to.
Northern prosperity under the Morrill Tariff depended upon their ability to operate without the risk of having their market undercut by a free trading neighbor
The North traded in manufactured goods, and the south had no industry to speak of. That's why the Confederate post office had to steal all it's stamps from the Union, and why the Confederacy had to order it's bonds printed in New York City, and it's government seal made in England. Pitiful for sure, wasn't it? Three mints and they could neither print bonds nor manufacture a quality state seal. Sad, so sad. Hear me laughing? I can't imagine that you can't>
"Olmstead was in fact deeply depressed by the squalor, ignorance, and social degredation which he found in large parts of the South. The great mass of Southern whites he described as ill-clothed, ill-fed, and uneducated. Talking to everyone as he jogged along the roads and put up at night at farmhouses, he found that most common people did not know the elementary facts of geography: they thought Virginia south of Carolina, and Indiana somewhere between Georgia and Texas; they believed New York, then a city of seven hundred thousand, a town in which Olmsted must know everybody and see southern visitor; they talked in 1856 of the recent annexation of Nebrasky, which they thought as large as the original thirteen states. Many of them read nothing and knew nothing outside outside the affairs of their locality. He found their tables spread withg coarse, ill-cooked food. He traveled almost the length of the South without finding a farmhouse which boasted of two sheets on a bed...
The scattered homes of the large planters bespoke prosperity, and sometimes elegance; but the great majority of Southerners dwelt upon a level of poverty. Indeed, he declares in "A Journey in the Back Country" that he honestly believes that the average free negro in New York or New England lived in greater comfort than the average white man of the lower South...[Olmsted] was distressed by their ignorance, indigence, and helplesness. Intelligent representatives of the underpriviledged whites voluntarily told him that slavery laid a heavy incubus upon their folk. The sand-hillers of South Carolina, gaunt, cadaverous and listless, living in shanties on rice and milk, their women sometimes working on hand looms for sixteen cents a day; small subsistance-farmers on the Congaree superstititous and idle, their dress the coarsest cloth, their sustenance a porridge of cow-peas; the illiterate folk of the frontier regions of Louisiana and Arkansas, the wretched starvelings and wild men of the pine woods in Georgia, the backward hillbillies of north Alabama -- these were all victims of slavery. He noted that white artisans were constantly made to feel to feel themselves engaged in a degrading competition with slave labor. He commented upon the lack of educational facilities for the poor in most slave areas--holding communities."
-- from "The Emergence of Lincoln Vol. 1" p. 207-210 by Allan Nevins
Walt
[Held_to_Ransom 668] In one debate, a representative from Detroit put in a motion for 10 cents to build a fort in Detroit so that he could get on the floor to discuss the general matter. When asked what Detroit would do without a fort to protect themselves from an invading British army, he pointed out they would simply do what they did the last time and beat the British in the field again.
[GOPcap 671] That's an unsourced anecdote, not a conclusive statement of fact about where the forts were built. Detroit was and is an inland city, making it a peculiar place to build a coastal defense.
General Hull, the American invader, crossed into Canada. He soon retreated and then surrendered, August 16, 1812.
For Detroit to defeat the British again infers they did it a first time. In the war of 1812, General Hull surrendered Fort Detroit without a shot. To what Detroit victory over the British is reference being made?
WAR OF 1812
Soon after the outbreak of the war, the British forces on St. Joseph’s Island moved toward the American held Mackinac Island and the next morning were in position on the hill above the fort with cannons and muskets aimed down into it. The American commander, Lieutenant Porter Hanks, immediately surrendered. Lieutenant Hanks wasn’t even warned by his own government that they declared war.
Americans began to worry about the exposed fort of Detroit. The U.S. quickly dispatched Brigadier General William Hull with reinforcements to the fort. In July, General Hull decided to cross the Detroit River into Upper Canada. His militia was poorly equipped, so when Hull learned of an approaching force made up of British troops, Canadian militia, and native Americans, he quickly retreated back to Detroit. General Isaac Brock led the British units. Brock took his army on the offensive and followed Hull back to Detroit. Brock’s intentions were to secure the western frontier for the British. In the battle of Detroit he was able to take control over Detroit without firing a single shot. Now the entire northern and western frontiers were controlled by the British.
In October, the Americans made second attempt to invade Canada, this time on the Niagra frontier at the eastern end of Upper Canada. They sent a force across the Niagra river and stormed the heights above the city of Queenston. This was known as the battle of Queenston Heights. The British sent in more troops to counterattack. The Americans were supposed to receive support from a New York militia officer named Stephen Van Rensselaer, but Rensselaer refused to cross into Canada assist them. The British again defeated the Americans, but they faced a great loss, General Isaac Brock, who was considered a huge asset to the British. At the end of year one , there were no Americans on British soil, but there were British on American soil.
A new American army led by William Henry Harrison made their way up from Kentucky to try and retake Detroit for the U.S. . One wing was so badly beat up by a force of British, Canadians, and Indians at Frenchtown that further attempts to invade Detroit were abandoned.
==========
Capitulation Of Fort Detroit And Dependencies
Camp at Detroit, 16 August 1812
Capitulation for the surrender of Fort Detroit, entered into between Major-General Brock, commanding His Britannic Majesty's forces, on the one part, and Brigadier General Hull commanding the North Western army of the United States, on the other part.
1st. Fort Detroit as well as with all the troops, regulars and militia, will be immediately surrendered to the British forces under the command of Major-General Brock, and will be considered prisoners of war, with the exception of such of the militia of the Michigan territory, who have not joined the army.
2d. All public stores, arms, and all public documents, including every thing else of a public nature, will be immediately given up.
3d. Private persons, and property of every description will be respected.
4th. His Excellency, Brigadier-General Hull, having expressed a desire that a detachment from the State of Ohio, on its way to join his army as well as one sent from Fort Detroit, under the command of Colonel M'Arthur, should be included in the above capitulation, it is accordingly agreed to. It is, however, to be understood, that such part of the Ohio Militia as have not joined the army, will be permitted to return to their homes, on condition that they will not serve during the war; their arms will be delivered up if belonging to the public.
5th. The Garrison will march out at the hour of 12 o'clock this day, and the British forces will take immediate possession of the Fort.
An article supplemental to the Articles of Capitulation
It is agreed that the Officers and soldiers of the Ohio Militia and Volunteers shall be permitted to proceed to their respective homes, on this condition, that they are not to serve during the present war, unless they are exchanged.
An article in addition to the supplemental article of the capitulation
It is further agreed that the officers and soldiers of the Michigan Militia and Volunteers, under the command of Major Wetherell, shall be placed on the same principles as the Ohio militia and volunteers are placed on the same principles as the Ohio militia and volunteers are placed by the supplemental article of the 16th instant.
E.A. Cruikshank, ed. Documents Relating to the Invasion of Canada and the Surrender of Detroit, 1812. (Ottawa: 1912), pp. 146-147.
============
Proclamation Following The Surrender Of Fort Detroit
General Brock
16 August 1812
Whereas the Territory of Michigan was this day by Capitulation ceded to the Arms of His Britannic Majesty without any other condition than the protection of private property; And wishing to give an early proof of the moderation and justice of the Government, I do hereby announce to all the Inhabitants of the said Territory, that the Laws heretofore in existence shall continue in force until His Majesty's pleasure be known, or so long as the peace and safety of the said Territory will admit thereof. And I do hereby also declare and make known to the said Inhabitants, that they shall be protected in the full exercise and enjoyment of their Religion, Of which all persons both Civil and Military will take notice, and govern themselves accordingly.
All persons having in their possession, or having any knowledge of any Public Property, shall forthwith deliver in the same or give notice thereof to the Officer Commanding, or Lieutenant Colonel Nichol, who are hereby duly Authorized to receive and give proper Receipts for the same.
Officers of Militia will be held responsible that all Arms in possession of Militia Men, be immediately delivered up, and all Individuals whatever, who have in their possession, Arms of any kind, will deliver them up without delay.
E.A. Cruikshank, ed. Documents Relating to the Invasion of Canada and the Surrender of Detroit, 1812. (Ottawa: 1912), pp. 155-156.
==========
The Surrender of Detroit
General Hull
Fort George, 26 August 1812
Inclosed are the articles of capitulation, by which the Fort of Detroit has been surrendered to Major-General Brock, commanding his Britannic Majesty's forces in Upper Canada, and by which the troops have become prisoners of war. My situation at present forbids me from detailing the particular causes which have led to this unfortunate event. I will, however, generally observe, that after the surrender of Michilimackinac, almost every tribe and nation of Indians, excepting a part of the Miamis and Delawares, north from beyond Lake Superior, west from beyond the Mississippi, south from the Ohio and Wabash, and east from every port of Upper Canada, and from all the intermediate country, joined in open hostility under the British standard, against the army I commanded, contrary to the most solemn assurances of a large portion of them to remain neutral; even the Ottawa Chiefs from Arbecrotch, who formed the delegation to Washington the last summer, in whose friendship I know you had great confidence, are among the hostile tribes, and several of them distinguished leaders. Among the vast numer of chiefs who led the hostile bands, Tecumseh, Marpot, Logan, Walk-in-the-water, Split-Log, &c. are considered the principals. This numerous assemblage of savages, under the entire influence and direction of the British commander, enabled him totally to obstruct the only communication which I had with my country.
* * *
E.A. Cruikshank, ed. Documents Relating to the Invasion of Canada and the Surrender of Detroit, 1812. (Ottawa: 1912), pp. 184-190.
==========
16 August 1812
American Surrender of Detroit
In one of the worst moments of the war for the United States, Brigadier General William Hull surrendered the fort at Detroit without firing a shot. He had recently failed in his foray into Canada and found himself surrounded by British regulars and militia under Major General Isaac Brock and Indians under Tecumseh. The British would retain control of the fort for thirteen months, abandoning it after their defeat in the Battle of Lake Erie in September 1813.
==========
Battle of Lake Erie
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The Battle of Lake Erie was fought on September 10, 1813, during the War of 1812.
The British had been blockading the port of Erie, Pennsylvania during the summer of 1813, but on August 1 they unexpectedly withdrew. The American ships in the harbour were finally able to leave, and throughout August Captain Oliver Perry prepared for the inevitable battle while keeping a close eye on the British ships at Detroit.
On September 10, British Commodore Robert Heriot Barclay, in his flagship the HMS Detroit, met Perry near Put-in-Bay, Ohio. Barclay's six ships outweighed and outgunned Perry's nine, including Perry's flagship the USS Lawrence; the Lawrence faced an unfavourable wind and was destroyed in the course of the battle. However, Perry was able to transfer command to the USS Niagara, a ship equal in size and strength to the Lawrence, but which had not yet been engaged in the battle. As the HMS Detroit had suffered some damage, the Niagara was able to capture it, along with the other five British ships.
Each side suffered about 100 casualties. After the battle, Perry sent his famous message to General William Henry Harrison, "We have met the enemy and they are ours." Due to the outcome of the battle, Britain retreated from Detroit and lost control of Lake Erie for the remainder of the war.
==========
To prove that representative government could work, of course.
Walt