Posted on 11/19/2007 10:09:26 AM PST by BnBlFlag
Death of Jefferson Davis Remembered - The Christmas of 1889 was a sad time in the South. By Calvin Johnson Jr. Staff Email Contact Editor Print
Jefferson Davis - AuthenticHistory.com December 6th, is the 118th anniversary of the death of a great American Hero---Jefferson Davis.
The "Politically Correct" would have you forget the past...But do not forget the history of the men and women who made the USA great.
Caution, this is a family friendly story to be shared.
The Sons of Confederate Veterans have declared 2008, the "Year of Jefferson Davis." Remembrance events will include the re-opening of "Beauvoir" on Jefferson Davis' 200th birthday---June 3, 2008. This was Davis' last home that was damaged by Hurricane Katrina. The Jefferson Davis Presidential Library and Museum will be rebuilt and re-open about two years after the house. Beauvoir is located on the beautiful Mississippi Gulf Coast. See more at: www.beauvoir.org
The New York Times reported the death of Jefferson Davis;
New Orleans, December 8, 1889---Quote "A careful tally of the visitors shows that about 40,000 persons, mostly women and children, viewed the remains today. This crowd included, in solemn and respectful attendance, all conditions of Whites, Blacks, ex-Confederates, ex-Federals, and even Indians and Chinamen." ---Unquote
Davis' Death was also the page 1 story in Dixie;
Excerpt: http://www.accessnorthga.com/detail.php?n=204067&c=11
(Excerpt) Read more at accessnorthga.com ...
You know what’s ironic? I’m sort of arguing all this out with NS just for the practice. What’s also ironic is that, even though he keeps arguing, we essentially won the debate a couple of rounds back. He asked what else besides slavery was a cause for secession, I told him the tariff, he said it wasn’t, I showed it was - end of story. He wants to argue about “who imported what” and “what percent of revenues were paid by whom”, but this is just sideline - he still missed the essential point, which is that the tariff was an issue in secession. Same with the argument about Fort Sumter - he casts it as being solely an aggressive act by evil secessionist Southerners who wanted to start a war, and I showed that the South actually had jolly good reasons to think that the fort would be turned over, or in the very least that it wouldn’t be aggressively resupplied. Seward and Lamon’s words, Fox’s plan, Lincoln’s indecision and tepidness for his first month in office, are there for all to see, end of story. NS quibles, but it’s like he’s trying to swat at flies on an elephant, while doing nothing about the pachyderm.
Non-seq is the Energizer Bunny of these threads. Takes a licking and keeps on ticking. It is useful to have a sparring partner like him though. I've learned history by refuting his posts.
I agree with your thoughts on the tariff, Fort Sumter, and the perfidy of the Lincoln administration over evacuation of the fort.
Let's use Taussig, Rustbucket's source of choice. He giver the value of imports in FY1861 as $274.6 million, which represented a drop over the year prior. But then the totals rose in 1863 and 1864. And let's not forget your claim - the North accounted for only about 13% of tariff revenue. Shouldn't that mean that the imports should have dropped to about $40 million from $362 million? Shouldn't they have remained low? And shouldn't the duties collected have dropped as well? Yet they did not. Why not?
This drop was offset somewhat by increased importation to meet wartime production needs, which eventually contributed to a positive trend in total imports by the end of the war.
You keep saying that. Yet duties also rose every year between 1861 and 1864, according to Taussig's table 4. How was that possible if the North only accounted for 13% of duties before the war? Are you suggesting that the North imposed tariffs on the stuff needed for wartime production? Enough to generate 20 times the duty income you claim that they were responsible for in 1860? Is that what you're saying?
British anger at the Morrill Tariff is well-known. Editorials railed against it.
Let's look at what you said. Your claim was "...a drastic increase such as was seen with the Morrill Tariff, can invite reciprocal protection on the part of other nations - something which in fact was seriously considered by ideologically free-trader Great Britain in response to the Morrill." I'm still waiting for a quote indicating that was true. Palmeston may not have liked the tariff, and I couldn't blame him for that, but the quote you provided shows no evidence that he was contemplating retaliation or a trade war. So what do you have showing your claim is correct?
I still think you’re reading your own presuppositions into the “requirement” for a Supreme Court, rather than the provision for one.
What part of "...shall be vested in one Supreme Court..." is unclear? That is exactly the same wording that the real Constitution uses, and I suggest that there is not a single Constitutional scholar out there who would suggest that the U.S. Supreme Court is optional. The Constitution says that there shall be one. The confederate constitution said the same. One was not established and the failure to do so was deliberate on the part of Jefferson Davis and the confederate congress.
To what deliberate end do you think Davis and his government had for not establishing a SCOTCS?
That should be obvious to anyone, even you. What purpose does the three branches of government fill? They provide a system of checks and balances on each other. Take out one of the three legs, especially an independent judiciary, and you remove any controls over the actions of the otehr two.
Again, since you have no idea how Davis planned to do this, you have no idea whether his plan to do so was constitutional or not. You’re just grasping at straws here.
And again, a simple reading of the confederate constitution makes it clear that Jefferson Davis was in no position to promise anything like that, unless he was assuming powers his constitution did not give to him. Sorry, but I'm not the one grasping at straws.
Calling a convention of the States wouldn’t constitute “Congress passing a law”.
Again, read the document. Article 5 says 'congress shall summon'. So how is congress supposed to do that without legislation calling the convention? And how can they do that if they are forbidden from passing any legislation impairing the ownership of slaves? It's a legitimate legal dilemma and one which, on the face of it, would prevent slavery from every being legislated out of existence. It would almost certainly been a question for the supreme court. But there wasn't one, was there?
Um, it’s actually pretty well established that Northern newspapermen who wrote in support of secession or against the war were arrested, and it’s well-known that Lincoln had most of Maryland’s legislature arrested because they were suspected of secessionist tendencies.
In your world perhaps. The real world knows that you are exaggerating badly.
The short and simple answer is that this cited volume of cotton didn’t leave Southern ports.
Try again. In his book "Lifeline of the Confederacy: Blockade Running During the Civil War" Stephen Wise quotes "Hunt's Merchant Magazine and Commercial Review", July-December 1861 issue. The figures reported by Hunts shows that of the 3.13 million bales of cotton exported in the year prior to the rebellion 1.8 million left from New Orleans, 456,000 left from Mobile, 302,000 left from Savannah, etc. Only 248,000 bales left from New York and less that 275,000 left from all Northern ports combined. That's less than 9% of the total, all the rest left from Southern ports. So that still begs the question, if all that stuff was leaving from Southern ports then why wasn't any arriving?
Your numbers simply don’t add up.
Sorry but regardless of whether we're talking about tariff revenue, imports arriving into specific ports, or exports leaving ports it's apparent that it is your figures that don't add up.
LOL, yeah. It's a trip, I have to admit, and it does make one have to dig into the primary sources, which is always useful. Hopefully, he'll continue the fun, though for right now, I'm going to have to retire (for at least a couple of days). The wife is getting a bit irritated at me for paying more attention to the computer and the books than to her!
I agree with your thoughts on the tariff, Fort Sumter, and the perfidy of the Lincoln administration over evacuation of the fort.
What are you, some kind of Southron supporter who thinks slavery had nothing to do with secession, and who thinks the South never fired on Fort Sumter?!?!?! J/K
Why would that be? Wouldn't goods imported via the confederacy be subject to the same tariff as goods imported from Europe?
LOL, you’re a trip dude! I’ll get back to this in a few days.
Still a legend in your own mind, huh? Making claims and expecting us to take them on face value isn't winning. But I'll tell you what, I'll distill all your wild claims down to three. Answer the questions concerning them and you can claim victory.
1. Your claim in reply 250 that the North was mobilizing troops prior to Sumter. Competent historians recognize that the North did not begin to mobilize until April 15, 1861 when Lincoln issued his first call for 75,000 militia. Prior to that the federal army had actually been shrinking in the face of Southern desertions. So please show what evidence you have that indicates these historians are wrong and you are right.
2. Your claim in reply 299 that the South paid 87% of the tariffs. Now if you look at Tassigs figures then the amount of duties collected in 1864 were 20 times higher than the amount you say the North was responsible for in 1861. Twenty times higher. Please explain how such an increase was possible, and I suggest that in order to do so help to show what it was that the North was importing in such massive quantities. Goods which you claim they could not be importing before the rebellion. And while you're at it, can you detail exactly what it was that the South was importing in such massive quantities prior to the rebellion that caused them to pay 87% of all tariffs?
3. Your claim in reply 367 that even though Southern demand accounted for an overwhelming percentage of all imports, as indicated by the percentage of tariffs you claim that they paid, these goods still were landed in New York because Southern "...port facilities were underdeveloped due to the Southerners’ dislike for using public monies to fund infrastructure..." Forget that the contemporary statistics I provided showing that upwards of 92% of all cotton exports left from Southern ports would indicate your claim to be nonsense, answer one simple question. If the South didn't have much in the way of port facilities, how did all those goods get to them in the first place. Forget where they landed, that isn't relevant right now. You claim that the South consumed the overwhelming majority of all imports, how did the get them? Regardless of whether it's a ship from London or a coastal packet from New York, the goods had to be landed somehow once they got to the South. If the South lacked developed ports then how did the cotton get out, and how did all those imports get in.
Answer those three completely, with documentation, and you win. If you want to do the same to me then so be it. Pick any three or four of the claims I made and I'll provide the source I used for the claim. Let's have at it.
You should pay attention to the central issue to begin with. Article 1, section 8 says of duties: "...nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry..." Now the fact that the confederate government under-taxed its imports to an extent that it constrained its fiscal authorities is not the issue. The issue is, does a 25% tax on tobacco products or a 15% tax on salt or turpentine constitute a protectionist tariff for local industries. Considering how these were local industries, and that the tariff did allow them to inflate their prices, then these particular duties were protectionist in nature and were forbidden by the confederate constitution.
You will readily see how irrelevant your posting is.
Not so much, no.
Considering that close to 95% of all tariffs were collected at Northern ports I would say not high at all.
Dorie, Dorie, Dorie, you cross-dressing scamp you. Newspaper editorials? Give me a break! Are you suggesting the New York Times or any other periodical has a burning bush in it's courtyard, giving it material for its editorials? Please! You or I could probably find a newspaper editorial that could support any crazy claim you would care to make. Dear Dorie, I am asking you to use that 9 volt mind of your's and find the logic behind your scenario. Let's recap your claim. "The anticipated result of the low tariff was that practically all foreign trade would be diverted to Charleston and New Orleans. The Mississippi would divert trade from New York, Boston, the Erie Canal, and Chicago." I'm simply asking for you to tell us why. That's all. If the South did secede, and if they dropped their tariffs to zero, then what difference would that make to Northern imports? It's a simple question. Why would goods go to Southern ports when they were destined for customers in Northern states? What advantage was there to sending them South? At some point they would have to wind up in the U.S. and when they did, they would pay a tariff, right? So where is the advantage to the longer trip? How much simpler can I make it? Surely even you can answer that, can't you?
I'm still waiting for some people to come up with data supporting the claim that 87% of all tariffs were paid by Southern consumers, but I digress.
I base my statement on common sense and good business practices. If goods were destined for Southern customers then why wouldn't they go to Southern ports? It wasn't because of lack of port facilities as some have claimed. New Orleans was one of the busiest ports in the country in terms of exports, with 1.8 million bales of cotton being exported from there in the year prior to the rebellion. But you look at imports and there is comparatively little, only a fraction of the value of exports. Look at the other Southern ports and the story is the same, large amounts of goods being exported and comparatively little being imported. What other explanation is there if not for the fact that there was little demand for imports? Why else would so few imports be landed there? What sense does it make to unload a ship in New York that is filled with goods destined for Southern consumers, only to reload those goods on another ship and send them on their way? What sense does it make to send empty ships to New Orleans or Charleston or Mobile to pick up cotton if there was a demand for imports in any of those ports? Do you have an explanation? Or better yet, do you have any figures on Southern imports that I'm not aware of? Something that would indicate just what the South was importing in such massive amounts that they paid 87% of all tariffs?
Do I have figures? No. But the alternative scenario, that almost 9 out of every 10 dollars of imported goods landed in Northern ports were destined for Southern consumers, makes absolutely no sense regardless of what way you look at it.
Irrelevant, Dorie? How could it be irrelevant when you posted this quote, "There will be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our navy afloat; nothing to pay the salaries of public officers; the present order of things must come to a dead stop?" It turns out that there were, indeed, means to provide subsistence to the army, maintain a navy, and pay salaries. There were means, and more to do that. All without the South, or its exports, or its consumers. I thought your position was that tariffs would dry up? After all, the South is supposed to have provided almost all the tariff income, wasn't it? But lo and behold, mirable dictu, all that money kept pourting in. Wow. How was that possible?
Facts would be nice, but to begin with, please have the courtesy not to twist my words. I never said "If imported goods were paid almost exclusively with exports then by rights imports should have dried up to almost nothing." Never even implied it. What I have questioned was the claim that the South accounted for 87% of all tariff revenue. I have said that if such a claim were true then the tariff revenue should have dried up to almost nothing, and if the North actually paid only 13% of the tariff then that statement would certainly be accurate.
For example, the Northern states were net importers of food from the South and West.
I do not believe that was true, even if we expand your terminology to "Union" states. The South did not provide food to the North, in fact it was just the opposite. The South was geared towards its export industry and obtained the majority of its manufactured goods, and much of its food, from the North and West. Source for that is "The Great Tax Wars: Lincoln to Wilson – The Fierce Battles Over Money and Power That Transformed the Nation" by Steven R. Weisman. And since noted Lincoln Loather Tommy DiLorenzo has quoted from it on several occasions, it can hardly be considered a biased Yankee source.
They also began to import finished textiles from Europe, since the Northern mills could no longer make these. They also imported large amounts of war materials. They also paid all the tariffs.
I would dispute your claim that the Northern mills shut down completely, and also suggest that your claim that the Union applied a tariff to war materials is completely ridiculous. I've read the Morrill Tariff and can find no such tax.
Trade using Southern products that produced tariff revenue did dry up. Northern and Western demand did not. The Union began to import their needs and paid using specie and credit. Eventually the government began to print money to cover the debt, and later, to tax the citizenry.
Southern products produced no tariff revenue since tariffs were not applied to exports. And as for Northern and Western demand, we're told that there was no Northern or Western demand for imported goods. Remember? Some 87% of all tariffs were paid by Southerners so that must mean that the overwhelming majority of imported goods went to Southerners. Leaving no demand, apparently, from the rest of the country. Why did that suddenly change?
Those were imports partly to wage war, and some to replace Southern raw materials that were now being shipped in from Europe. There is nothing in that that is remarkable.
Actually, yes there is. Tariffs on goods needed to wage war is remarkable. And I'm at a loss to understand just what it was that the North had to import to make up for the loss of Southern supplies. Cotton? The overwhelming majority of that was exported to Europe to begin with. Also, what alternate source for cotton or tobacco or any other Southern product was there?
With regard to another one of your claims, another nonsequitur by the way, your answer lies in the Customs Data. I believe that Rustbucket has access to these charts.
As do I. Taussig's book is available on line.
If my memory serves me, if the exports were truly "closely tied" to imports, then value of trade would be somewhat balanced before the secession with little need for "cash" to pay for the differences.
I believe your memory is paying tricks with you. I'm not familiar with any chart in Taussig's book showing that. But the issue isn't how imports were paid for, it's the fact that there were imports at all. The claim has been made that the South consumed the overwhelming majority of imports because it paid upwards of 87% of the tariff. Once the rebellion broke out, imports should have fallen to nothing because there should have been no demand for them. And I'm sorry, but your attempts at explaining why imports didn't fall to a fraction of their pre-rebellion levels either make no sense or are contradicted by the facts. What did the North need to replace since they couldn't get it from the South? What was the alternate source? Why did imports remain high when there wasn't any demand before the rebellion broke out? Those are the questions that need answering.
The customs data shows that in the five years before secession, that US imports were about 5% greater than the value of exports, and had been in this balance for a decade.
Your source for this please?
So, the secession did trample on the interests of other states. Those interests were financial and required the perpetuation of the control of the Southern engine of production. Invasion and blockade of Southern ports was the answer to the problem.
Hogwash.
I do take the Southern side in these debates. I think the South had the correct interpretation of the Constitution and the right of states to secede. I have always stated on these threads that IMO slavery was the main thing that brought about the war, but it was not the only contentious issue between the two sides. The potential loss of tariff revenue was a leading, though often ignored, reason for Lincoln to provoke war -- which I believe he did on purpose.
The South certainly fired first at Sumter. I'll admit to a bit of armchair Monday morning quarterbacking. I've argued that the South would have been better off to let Lincoln interdict foreign ships coming to Southern ports to collect revenue from them. This would have been a clear act of war and would have gained the South needed sympathy and perhaps greater recognition from foreign powers than they got.
Long before the firing on Fort Sumter, the South Carolinians were the recepient of minor agressions on the part of the Union forces. Anderson's forces overpowered a schooner captain and hijacked the ship to take them to Sumter and rushed the laborers in the fort with fixed bayonets.
My main interest in these debates is in learning history, whatever it is. I have access through local libraries to many wartime newspapers on microfilm. The old papers make reference to various things or issues I didn't know. I've quoted many articles from the papers over the years and started one thread based on them [Link]. It's amazing how far apart the two sides were.
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.