Replies

Forgive the length in the response. I didn't have the time to frame a researched response due to duties and dsl outages. I had to do a little digging to respond to some of your points (for that I thank you, no sarcasm intended). Along with that I wish you and yours a safe and happy Halloween especially since you live in what was thought to be a terrorist target.

You are wrong about the role of the Central Bank causing: A) some conjectured inflation; b) the Whiskey rebellion; C) and its other functions.

It shouldn't be expected that you would understand this since I am sure you never read any economic history. But those are the facts.

I never intended for my point to be taken that the Central Bank caused the Whiskey Rebellion, only that Hamilton was a root cause. Here is another that has the same observation and maybe you can refute them. Since Hamilton was the sponsor of this excise tax, he is a root cause. In any event, you are 110% correct that I have not read economic history in any depth, at least not the same as you have, but I have read a little. Since you know more than I do, maybe you can reconcile a few "facts" for me:

1. Hamilton, in a 1781 letter to Robert Morris, suggested that "a national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing."

2. Hamilton expressed an opinion that "no society could succeed which did not unite the interest and credit of rich individuals with those of the state."

3. The original Bank of the United States charter required that the monopoly it had on the issuance of notes be redeemable in gold or silver (specie) but it was not required to back 100% of it's notes with specie. Does printing worthless money not cause inflation since it is required to have more of the paper to get back the value of the product purchased? Would this not cause the the price of products to go up?

4. The bank charter also provided that 80% of its capital would be held by private investors with the government contributing only 20%, the latter investment could be immediately loaned back to the government at 6%. Think that could not sufficiently make a large national debt in no time? Not only that, is it a good thing that the Rothschilds held most of that private investment and were the real power in the old Bank of the United States? I was under the impression that foreign influence should not have been sought in our government. Please correct me if I am wrong.

5. In his book, The Mysteries of Banking, Murray Rothbard states "Starting in July 1818, the government and the BUS began to see what dire straits they were in; the enormous inflation (there is that pesky word again) of money and credit, aggravated by the massive fraud, had put the BUS in danger of going under and illegally failing to maintain specie payments." Do you have information that Mr. Rothbard did not have when he wrote his book?

Thanks in advance.

There was a rebellion thus no problem with suspending habeas corpus. Why would you think the SecTreas should be an authority on this question?

The ex Secretary of the Treasury that I refer to was Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase who ruled against Lincoln in ex Parte Milligan. Did you not know that or did I not make it clear enough in my original post?

Nor do I see that the Article says that suspension of h.c. is limited to the legislature though it could well be the case.

Lincoln's own Attorney General said differntly and was subsequently fired for his opinion; whether or not you see it.

I don't mock you for any supposed lack of education. I merely state that some of the things you think you know are not true.

Naw, you would never do that, would you? Not in this thread and especially not in the post I am quoting.

It is not I who would argue there is no separation of powers leave that to Jefferson who wished to get rid of the Supreme Court if his writings are to be believed.

Yet you attempt to argue that there are no separation of powers and the executive has the right to suspend HC any time he deems it necessary even though it is in the article reserved to the Legislature. Also, am I to infer that you did not come up with anything stating that the Founding Fathers did not intend for there to be a separation of power between the three branches of government?

When Lee and most of the officer corp decided not to be Americans the United States Army was essentially destroyed.

So Lee took most of the officer corp with him? That is funny since the original 7 States seceded before Virginia and Robert E. Lee told Lincoln that he was not interested in marching on his own statesmen.

Had the North had a real army the war would have been over earlier.

This allowed it to hold out almost four years since the north had to build an army almost from scratch.

Are you kidding? Then what, pray tell, was the "Grand Army of the Republic" and exactly what were they carrying on their backs if not new weapons, uniforms, and equipment? From sratch? That is almost too surreal to be believed. Are you also telling me that General Winfield Scott, Lee's mentor, resigned also? How about Admiral Farragut? To suggest there was no talent left is an insult to the veterans of the Federal Army as well as Generals Chamberlain and Custer (just to name two). All of the talent did not go to the South but I will agree that most of the talent came from the South.

Your point about Calvary verifies my contention farmers don't do calvary since plow horses are not chargers.

My point about calvary verifies nothing. Did these farmers walk everywhere they went? All my point verifies is that Southerners were much better horsemen.

Civilian atrocities were generally not the result of Union army "frustrations" and were not different than collateral damage associated with all war.

Sir, please do not tell me you are this intellectually, nor historically, dishonest.

Douglas's comment probably referred more to his paranoia and fears than to reality.Where are the casualty figures for Black confederates? Where are the units of Black soldiers?

Didn't bother to look it up? Type black confederates in the search engine of your choice and see for yourself. I must warn you that it may cause you to actually change your mind and no longer use the "n" word.

I am not familiar with the Lousiana volunteers and would like to read more.

Here you go.

At present, I believe this to be a mere exaggeration designed to put a patina of respectableness on a racist endeavor.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, let me present you with three thousand:

Like I said before, I will not allow their memory to be slandered.

States were not given the choice of ratification or ratification with conditions merely ratification or rejection. They ratified. Any other verbiage was and is irrelevent. Not that your quotes show conditional ratification in any case.

Oh, I guess they were just kidding when they said they would ratify on the condition that when they deemed it necessary the power of government would go back to the people. I guess they were ready to go ahead and give up their right to self rule and surrender all of their freedom and local governments to - what did Hamilton call it? - a vigorous government; especially after they had just seceded from one. Please, try that on someone else. Just because it is your opinion that they didn't mean what they said and any other verbiage is irrelevant does not make it so. If you choose not to believe the words of those that wrote them, it is not my fault.

There was no secession from the Articles of confederation. This is an example of incorrect use of words.

Really? So I guess going from a compact that was stated to be perpetual to one that was not is not secession. Does that about sum it up? Incidentally, the several states had to secede from the Articles to ratify the Constitution; in other words they had to break from one compact to join another. If that is not secession, please inform me exactly what it is.

The confederation changed its government it couldn't secede from itself.

Well, for goodness sake, don't tell that to the people of North Carolina or Rhode Island. They refused to ratify the Constitution for months, thereby operating as independent sovereigns. Guess that whole theory of the Union existing before the States is not quite what it is cracked up to be.

If your conception of the constitution is as you have illustrated and stated then I can't see how it could have any value to you except as an instrument of oppression.

I am afraid I am at a loss on this one. If by instrument of oppression you mean binding the government to what it was intended to do instead of the bloated animal it is today, I am guilty as charged, sir.

Rawles was never Attorney General, an Office which at the time was part time and essentially irrelevant anyway. You are wrong about that too.

Gee, am I? Was the office irrelevant because it was part time or because you said so? If his words were so irrelevant, maybe you can tell me why his book was the authority and taught, of all places, at Wespoint? I mean since I am wrong. I have full confidence you can do this with something other than your opinion to show that he was wrong; especially since he was closest to the founding of this Union.

You may be able to read the Constitution but have clearly demonstrated that you do not understand it.

Again, coming from someone that cannot show separation of power, that means nothing.

There was no backpedal on treason merely another statement of fact obvious to all not desparate to glorify the Slaveocracy who have deeply studied history.

You were the one tossing around treason and sedition like it was candy. Either you can find a Confederate that was convicted of treason or you cannot; simple as that.

The Slaveocrats were the ones who said their insurrection was over slavery argue with Jeff Davis not me. I believe him.

Again, Lincoln himself admitted that secession started in the 1830's (remember the tariffs issue?). You can argue with him. Also, again, you seem to convienently forget the practice of African Servitude in the United States until December 1865. Slaveocracy? Look North.

CSA was an attempted nation it wasn't a "race." What I said was that the social theory underlying slavery (the sole reason for the CSA's existence) was similiar to the super race theory of the Nazis.

A theory that was easily shot full of holes. Can you name some Jewish persons that served in Lincolns admin; like I did? Thanks in advance.

Oh, you mean while British armies were occuping the north there was "trading with the enemy" while southerns were fighting. Not hardly, most of the Battles were in the north and initially militia from the northern states bore the brunt of the bloodshed. So that is another fantastic falsehood you are laboring under.

I was speaking of the war of 1812 in case you weren't paying attention, and it looks as if you weren't. So apparently, according to you, the NE states were not openly trading with the British and threatening to secede if we didn't end the war. I guess written history is "another fantastic falsehood" I am "laboring under", huh?

Meanings of words have changed; the statements must be placed within their historical context before their correct meaning is evident.

Oh, you mean like "is"? The only time the meanings of words change is when someone else looks to change them in order to bolster their argument. I will take the originals, and their meanings, if you don't mind.

By the way every allegation you posted has been refuted since you think you understand what your quotations mean but you don't.

By who, you? I remember you telling me that you could argue me into the ground and beyond. Let us take a look at your main arguments, shall we?

Secession was treason and sedition. You say this even though you cannot provide the name of one Confederate that was convicted of treason.

0-1

The CSA practiced the same actions and theories of the Nazis in an attempt to maintain the "Super Race". A point easily refuted by the fact that Blacks, Hispanics, and Jews (to name a few) served side by side with their White counterparts and in the highest levels of government.

0-2

The Chief Executive of this country can suspend HC any time he feels the need even though it is an act reserved, in the Consitution, to the Legislature. This point repeated without proof of separation of powers of the three branches of government.

0-3

Blacks did not serve the Confedrate forces and saying otherwise is BS. I have given you links and references.

0-4

The Union is perpetual and was intended to be so in the Constitution. Unless you can provide me with a copy of the Constitution that contains the perpetuality statement (since it is not in any copy I have read) carried over from the Articles of Confederation, I would have to conclude that would make you:

0-5

The best book for understanding Hamilton's economic and financial policies is Forrest MacDonald's biography. MacDonald is a professor of history at Alabama and is probably the greatest living expert on that era of our history. Hamilton's comment regarding the national debt being a blessing was based upon his understanding of the British system which allowed that government to easily prosecute the war against us. He had initially believed that such a war would bankrupt Britain and was amazed to discover that it could easily raise the resources to continue the war. It is particularly remarkable that H. was able to do such research while serving as Washington's most valued aide during the war. He wrote almost all of W. official correspondence and delved deeply into such abstruse subjects as public finance. Much of his success came from his repeatedly demonstrated indefatiguibility which led Jefferson to call him "a host within himself."

His comment about the rich was merely an understanding that Class warfare would destroy the new nation and that the majority (the poor) could not be allowed to attack and pillage the minority (the rich) by cementing them to the new government through self-interest it would be strengthened and made more secure.

One thing to understand about money is that it is a form of lubricant to the economic system and just as a motor will stop without oil so will the economy stop without sufficient money. The problem of the American economy was that it had far too little capital including money. Gold and silver were drained away to Europe by trade deficits and interest payments on loans (especially to the Virginia planter class). This put our economy in a deflationary spiral. The genius of H. program was that it instanteously created millions in new capital merely throught the method of funding the debt he devised. Even his enemies had to admit its effectiveness. Thus, by allowing the creation of new businesses and more production inflation does not necessarily occur. Money is only worthless when it cannot buy things. Thus, paper money is never worthless when it can be exchanged for commodities. This is why the U.S. $ though not backed by metals is not worthless but, in fact, in great demand across the world.

The tax on Whiskey was not rammed by H. down Congress's throat. It was universally recognized as the only practical method of raising the revenue required to fund the government. It had broad Federalist and Republican support (to the extent each "party" recognized itself as a party at that time.)

The rebellion took place primarily as a result of the nature of the Scotch-Irish inhabitants of W. Pennsylvania and was limited to that region.

The Rothschild's were not the power in the original U.S. bank and, in fact, were still only a Frankfurt banking house. However, since the National Bank did not restrict foreigners from holding stock there would have been no reason for them not to buy stock had they wished. That would not have meant undue influence in the government.

The Second Bank of the United States was created in 1816. Most of the U.S. money supply came from State banks not the BUS so inflation would be placed at their doors not BUS. By 1819 the real money supply was 90 million and that from the BUS was limited to its capital or $35 million. It was only at $16 by 1830 and much less than that earlier. In only one state in the South, Tenn., did BUS circulation exceed that of the State Banks. Thus, I would say that Rothbard is not telling the whole truth. I have no idea about the fraud he mentions. Looks like banking is still a mystery to Ole Murray.

Chase had his own ideas and though Lincoln did not see eye to eye with him about many issues and Chase had floated trial balloons about running against Lincoln. This did not stop Abe from putting him own the court. Chase was a Republican during the War but became a Democrat after he repudiated policies of which he was an architect. Call that what you will. You will also note that the Court made no attempt to take this case or issue a ruling until the War was safely won. And I find it hilarious that many of those ready to demand all manner of extra-judicial actions today against people living in this country get all hot and bothered when Abe did essentially what they wish in dealing with the traitors of his day who were actually giving aid and comfort to the nation's enemies.

Lincoln decided he needed better legal advice and got it.

I never argued that the executive could suspend HC on a whim. However, someone once said " the Constitution is not a suicide pact." He was correct. Your other "inference" has no bearing upon anything I have stated.

Lee and most of the upper reaches of the officer corp were Southern and went with their states. This is why McClellan spent almost two years training an army and why it was ineffectual during that time. Winfield Scott was an old man barely able to ride a horse much less run an army he had been totally dependent on Lee. You know this I am sure so don't be deceptive. New uniforms, new equipment do not make an army. There is no doubt that the South was equipped, supplied and dressed much more poorly. This is a further indictment of the fools which led it into disaster. The lack of a Southern navy is even more of an indictment since the South could not have survived without a navy.

Of course, the South were better prepared for creating a calvary. Raising and racing horses were some of the passions of the upper classes there. More than likely the proportion of southern officers in the cavalry was even higher than in the rest of the pre-war army.

In war sh!t happens and innocent people get hurt and killed. I guess you are ready to stop bombing Afganistan because unintended targets get hit on occassion.

Search engines popping up every claim verified or not is not historical research and would do little to support any claim of large scale involvement of black soldiers fighting for the South. Ditch diggers and orderlies don't count.

The post about the Louisiana blacks is quite vague as to numbers and not well documented. Some guy's opinion and served "in some capacity" are not strong supports for this contention.

Once they ratified that was that. All the excess verbiage was irrelevent and outside the choice ratify or not.

The perpetual union was merely made more perfect just as the constitution said. Simple really.

That argument about Rhode Island is simply sophistry particularly when not only was it not treated as a seperate country but was desperately begging Congress and Washington NOT to treat it as such. Of course, even a rudimentary knowledge of history shows that the majority of the States of the Confederacy did not even exist at the time of the Constitution's creation and were entirely creations of the federal government. The others were colonies of England until the War and all thought of themselves as one people.

As I said Rawles was never Attorney General and if I am not mistaken did not even arrive in this country from England until the 1780s. Does the fact that phlebotomy was taught in colleges in the 1800s make it relevent to you?

"Someone who cannot show separation of power?" The need for separation of power is repeatedly discussed in the Federalist. Thus, I do not know what you are insinuating.

The fact that none were tried for treason did not mean none committed it. Non-prosecution was a political decision meant to reconcile the traitors not a sign of innocence. Why do you think the former leaders of the South were not allowed to hold federal office?

Lincoln did not say that the rebellion started in 1830 other than that the idiotic hotheads of S.Carolina were agitating for one until Andy Jackson told them he would kick their asses into the Atlantic Ocean. Andy understood that there was no right to secede and issued a statement utterly destroying the position that it was. Read it sometime.

No one can be a racist who doesn't also hate Jews? Interesting theory. Nonsense but interesting.

So I wasn't paying attention when you were not clear in your statement but the comment deriving from me not paying attention is relevent. LoL. Talk about having it both ways. I never said there weren't secessionist ideas in NE during "Mr. Madison's War." As far as trading with the enemy that is not likely.

Any student of philology will tell you that the meanings of words change not because a lying, treasonous scumbag wishes to deceive but because the conventional useage changes. At the time of the founders pretension meant the assertion of a claim now it means a specious allegation.

Treason is not defined by a trial but by the actions of a traitor. By your argument Benedict Arnold was not a traitor since he was never convicted in a trial. 1-0.

Blacks, Hispanics never served in the highest levels of the CSA government. One Jew did. This does not refute the racist nature of the CSA unless you close both eyes, click your heels together and say "they are all lyin' about us." 2-0

Lying about what I said about HC does not refute my real statements 3-0.

Ibid. and in addition, those links to newspaper articles are worthless as research. 4-0

The constitution was understood by its framers to form a more perfect union improving upon the formerly state perpetual union. This is why the subject was never discussed at all during the convention. 5-0.

Game over. And the winner is jsuati as usual.