Posted on 06/23/2016 2:04:08 PM PDT by ColdOne
I see the resident bigot is posting nasty about half the country again. You really should get an education and seek professional mental health help.
PeaBrain: "He sent the Navy down to do just that two months later."
Wrong again.
In January, 1861, President Buchanan sent a civilian ship (Star of the West) to resupply Fort Sumter, which was fired on by secessionists, and withdrew without accomplishing its mission.
In April 1861, President Lincoln again sent a civilian ship (SS Baltic) this time escorted by warships, to resupply Fort Sumter.
This time Confederates used Lincoln's resupply mission as their excuse to launch Civil War.
PeaBrain quoting Lincoln: 'But what about my tariff.' "
You pro-Confederates insist "Lincoln's tariff" was the only reason for the resupply mission to Fort Sumter.
In fact, tariffs did play a role in Lincoln's thinking, as he explained publically in his declaration of blockade of Confederate ports (April 19, 1861):
And whereas a combination of persons engaged in such insurrection, have threatened to grant pretended letters of marque to authorize the bearers thereof to commit assaults on the lives, vessels, and property of good citizens of the country lawfully engaged in commerce on the high seas, and in waters of the United States:
And whereas an Executive Proclamation has been already issued, requiring the persons engaged in these disorderly proceedings to desist therefrom..."
So Lincoln's blockade was certainly and publically connected to collecting tariffs in Confederate ports.
But none of this happened before Confederates started war at Fort Sumter.
But both myself and our Founders supported secession under certain conditions, which they spelled out: 1) mutual consent or 2) material breach of compact.
What no Founder ever supported was an unlimited "right" of unilateral, unapproved declarations of secession "at pleasure" or in the Declaration's words, "for light and transient causes".
Really, that's all nothing more than common sense, of which Deep South Fire Eater secessionists were sadly unusually short.
See my post #760 above.
Rationalizing Fort Sumter = Pearl Harbor in your mind, STILL??
That the Southern defenders of THEIR soil = Japs who bombed AMERICAN soil? REALLY??
(2) Northern casualties vs. 2,000? Have you SEEN film of the damage at Pearl?? Read THE history?
Your analytic analogous "logic" remains a stunning curiosity -- in faaaar off in a distant Universe.
First of all, the 15 percent you quote above is the same number I've reported for pre-Morrill overall average rates.
So it appears we agree on that.
The question then is: how much did Morrill raise tariffs from the low of 15%.
The answer is: which Morrill rate are we talking about?
And that is important, because so long as secession state representatives remained in Congress, the original proposed Morrill bill rates were relatively modest, raising the average from 15% to around 22%, which was still well within past historical ranges.
Remember, worst case was the 1830s "tariff of abominations", around 35% overall average.
The original Morrill proposal came nowhere near that average.
But after secession state representatives walked out of Congress, the final Morrill law of March 1861 was somewhat higher and soon followed, in September 1861, by a Second Morrill law which was much higher yet.
Regardless, neither the First Morrill law of March 1861 nor the Second higher Morrill tariff of September 1861 were subjects of debate or reasons for South Carolina's secession in December 1860.
It's curious that the same Wiki-piece you quote from also reports the following:
"...At 4:30 a.m. on April 12, 1861, Lt. Henry S. Farley, acting upon the command of Capt. George S. James,[26][27] fired a single 10-inch mortar round from Fort Johnson.
"(James had offered the first shot to Roger Pryor, a noted Virginia secessionist, who declined, saying, "I could not fire the first gun of the war.")
"The shell exploded over Fort Sumter as a signal to open the general bombardment from 4003 guns and mortars at Fort Moultrie, Fort Johnson, the floating battery, and Cummings Point.
Under orders from Beauregard, the guns fired in a counterclockwise sequence around the harbor, with 2 minutes between each shot..."
This source says: "The next morning, at 4:30 a.m., Confederate batteries opened fire on Fort Sumter and continued for 34 hours.
The Civil War had begun!"
And that may, finally suggest an explanation here.
Where Wiki says, "4003 guns and mortars", this source says "43 guns in a ring".
If 43 is correct (and it does seem more realistic), then perhaps that figure of 4003 is just a typo, somehow adding zeros where they don't really belong.
It would not be the first mistake uncovered by these Civil War threads.
;-)
Thanks for a great post, you hit that nail on its head.
Of course! However, that economic system was already deeply established; If it was to be abolished, it could only be done incrementally for obvious reasons, otherwise much of the South's economy would crash (and the North's textile factory profiteers also affected.) BUT THE MOVEMENT WAS IMMINENT.
Under no circumstances would they "go gentle into that good night" , period.
Why *should* the South have rolled over for an occupying military army who disrespected and dismissed their sovereignty?
It may be true in certain cases that a small number of Slave-Owners were adamant about maintaining and defending the slavery status quo tooth and nail, but NOT the vast majority. Again as a reminder, the end of Slavery as an institution WAS imminent; Even Southerners knew that and accepted it.
Another reminder: -- poor whites were *also* indentured "slaves," working to repay their own debts. Despite continued historical mythology, the South DID NOT nor would NOT fight the CW simply over MAINTAINING slavery; FACT: As has been proven, just a minuscule number of southerners actually owned slaves.
Anyway, my feelings about those old-time slave-holders is akin to that towards those Gilded Age "robber barons" you condemn so quickly. Both categories lived under the laws of their time and really should not be so condemned for not obeying laws which had not yet been written.
Here I agree with your assessment of "living under the laws of the time"; EXCEPT that the "Yankee" elites, aka Robber Barons OWNED the Banks AND created and owned The Game. Slave-Holder cotton producers were merely participating and profiteers themselves who shipped their product TO Robber Baron factories, within THEIR system.
Funny how "Slavery" didn't become an issue for a suddenly social justice warrior Lincoln and morally outraged North. UNTIL t was clear the Confederacy was willing to aggressively defend their soil.
My analogy is Pearl Harbor, about which you might argue the "proximate cause of war" was economics, since FDR had embargoed shipments of oil and other raw materials to Japan.Japan was busy expanding its sphere and empire to China and throughout surrounding Pacific Asia. The US Embargo was in reaction TO Japan's obvious plans. It was facilitated by design to slow down Japan's obvious wartime expansion and need for the natural resources like rubber and oil.
While you're busy insisting on creating the Pearl = Fort Sumter strawman meme, can you please point to the Confederacy's own Jap-like sphere of influence, and their expansionism of their empire by the sword? (no, THAT coercive sword would be wielded by LINCOLN and the NORTH.)
[Since] Pearl Harbor is the proximate cause of US entry into WWII. The same logic applies to Fort Sumter.
You can repeat that il-logical un-true meme a thousand more times --NOT on this planet, not in this Universe did it/does it apply in reality.
Neither slavery nor economics, nor any other reason sometimes mentioned, was the "proximate cause" of war. Confederate assault on and seizure of Fort Sumter was...economics was never the cause of war, proximate or otherwise.
Lol -- who are you trying to convince of that, "Confederate assault on and seizure of Fort Sumter" as essentially THE declaration of war?? You haven't read or understood a SINGLE solitary word, sentence or paragraph by DiogenesLamp in addressing the dynamics and "cause" of Lincoln's War against the South (as well as the Fort Sumter subterfuge) IN CLEAR AND CONCISE DETAIL, have you?
Your cognitive dissonance and wall of ignorance (will all due respect) is absolutely stunning.
Wait -- I see you just tripled down on your delusion:
Regardless, my key point here still stands: Confederates could have stopped the war on any day of their own choosing...Who is to blame for that?
REALLY?? Again here's THE MEMO: The tyrannically insane Lincoln and his Robber Baron overlords who plotted the incident at Fort Sumter via subterfuge; An Abe Lincoln (who by his writings appeared to regret his decision in the FIRST PLACE) and his Robber Baron/Banker elite overlords insisted the South be subjugated, coerced, cratered, plundered, and razed for daring to defend THE RIGHT to their own liberty, economic preservation, and personal and State sovereignty.
Who is to blame for the fact it took A-bombs to convince Japan to surrender, "unconditionally"? President Roosevelt, or Truman?
*SMH* so now you're justifying Sherman's and the North's brutality, plunder, and scorched earth policy AND making it as necessary or peace as dropping an A-Bomb on say Richmond and Charleston? Wow.
Post WWII Japan was treated with faaar more respect and dignity than the Post-CW Confederacy. Can you explain WHY that was. Joey?
These memes of yours -- that Japan = The Confederacy; Lincoln's North = WWII America; Fort Sumter = Pearl Harbor and its fictional analogy; the fictional similarities between a Confederacy DEFENDING itself vs. a Fascist-Expansionist Japan...and finally the terms of "surrender."
You aren't even dealing with Apples vs. Oranges; You are offering analogies, events and "facts" that are so utterly bizarre, that they can't be remotely be considered from any intellectual degree of honesty and reality.
You see two round spheres and base you analogies on THAT, Ex: An Orange vs. the Planet Mars.
Great bullseye on the reinforcing the menage a simpleton. Was it difficult jackhammering that one-inch finishing nail into that block of oak's knot?
The three of you are just circle-jerking yourselves into one pathetic delusion after another. No wonder the vast majority of citizens in this country are oblivious of its own history and heritage.
DiogenesLamp -- like many of us -- is indeed saying that HE and WE have evolved and researched beyond public grade school's select, preferred "history" of the Civil War that had been summed up within a couple of short paragraphs. Or even just one word: "SLAVERY!"
The internet is a wonderful tool and source for cutting through past indoctrination and propaganda. It by far transcends the limitations of our old history books and expands our intellectual horizons....but only as far as our determination in pursuing that knowledge, history, and truth.
ROFL.
This entire Civil War thread has been an exercise in advancing blatant historical revisionism and one monumentally insane "mistake" after another.
Btw -- "Pea Brain"?
*smh*
I'll refrain from the obvious: "BroJOKE." Because anyone who makes analogous, #Fort Sumter = Pearl Harbor; #The Confederacy = WWII Japan needs to contact the Mother Ship. Bones McCoy needs to examine you :-) ;-)
Well, just under half -- endorsed by 68 of 142 Republican senators & Congressmen in the 1860 election.
And at least you here give Republicans credit for abolitionism.
So many pro-Confederates -- DiogenesLamp comes to mind -- try to convince us that it was Confederates who wanted to abolish slavery while Northerners hated blacks too much want them freed.
It's nice to see credit here given where it's due.
Second, Helper's book was written by a North Carolinian for other Southerners.
So any references to "we" or "our purpose" or "we believe" etc., etc., was not to Republicans specifically, but rather to Helper's fellow anti-slavery Southerners!
Of course, Republicans generally liked what Helper wrote and many were happy to endorse his ideas.
Regardless, US political campaigns were always pretty rough & tumble affairs.
Jefferson vs. Adams in 1800 comes to mind, where supporters of each accused the other of amazing crimes.
So Republicans using slavery as a political "wedge-issue" against Democrats seems pretty normal politics to me.
Certainly nothing creating a new condition of constitutional "unhappiness" necessary to justify declarations of secession "for cause".
rustbucket: "And then there was Lincoln saying the 'government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.' "
It was a simple prediction based on the Supreme Court's 1857 Dred-Scott ruling which could easily be interpreted to imply that slavery could not be outlawed in the North!
It meant the US was on the path to becoming a 100% slave-nation under Democrats, so the the old "half-slave, half-free" would not long endure.
Philosophical / political musings by a relatively unknown Illinois lawyer can hardly be considered a "material breach" of the Constitution's compact justifying secession "for cause".
rustbucket: "An economic threat against slavery, the main pillar of Southern economy, by the party coming into power in Washington..."
But of course, the Republican party represented no economic threat against slavery, since their platform merely called for Western territories to vote on whether to admit slavery or not.
As many pro-Confederates like to point out, most Northerners were only too happy to benefit from the massive economic profits of Deep Cotton South slavery.
rustbucket: "As I have pointed out on this thread, future Northern tariff revenue was thought by many, including Lincoln, to be in serious trouble because of the two different tariffs."
But tariffs were totally "politics as usual", since they repeatedly rose and fell based on economic and political factors without ever becoming a casus belli.
But more to the point, neither the proposed Morrill tariff nor Confederates 15% rate were even on the radar screen when South Carolina first began to organize for secession in November 1860.
So tariffs are irrelevant to this discussion.
rustbucket: "In 1788-90 states had peaceably, unilaterally and with the approval of their own state conventions withdrawn from Union under the Articles of Confederation.
Where in the Constitution was the right of states to use the power that they had just exercised taken away from them? "
In fact, our Founders twice demonstrated the categories of justified disunion.
The second category, "mutual consent" you mention here, while calling it "unilateral", when in fact it was the exact opposite of "unilateral".
Eventually the old Articles of Confederation were withdrawn by 100% mutual consent, and act of Congress, to be replaced by the newly ratified Constitution.
It was peaceful, lawful, orderly mutual consent of which our Founders totally approved.
But no such mutual consent existed in December 1860.
The other justification for disunion, of which our Founders approved and demonstrated themselves, was independence driven by the absolute necessity of major, material breaches of compact, such as those itemized in their Declaration of Independence.
But no such breaches existed, and therefore no such necessity, in December 1860.
That only leaves the type of disunion our Founders consistently opposed: declarations of secession "at pleasure", meaning unilateral and unapproved secessions without material cause.
rustbucket: "Under the Constitution, secession wasn’t prohibited to the states, and other states and the federal government were not given the power to stop it.
It was therefore a power retained by the states under the Tenth Amendment.
They had it and exercised it while under the Articles; it wasn’t taken away by the Constitution; they still had it after the Constitution was ratified.
It was a peaceful, legal way out of the Union for a state, should the Union not work out well for them. "
Sure, as posted here previously, that was approximately the argument Jefferson Davis made to the US Senate in January 1861.
But no US Founder ever made that argument, and Founders fully understood the differences among "mutual consent", "material breach of compact" and secession "at pleasure".
Founders would consider Deep South declarations of secession as "at pleasure" and not approved.
But most Northerners, including Presidents Buchanan and Lincoln did not believe the Federal Government could or should do anything to stop secessionists, so long as they didn't start a war against the United States.
But once the Confederacy did launch and formally declared war then Northerners felt a necessity for defeating the military power which threatened the United States.
rustbucket quoting New York's ratification statement: "That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness."
Once again, the key word here is not "happiness", but rather "necessary" and refers to the categories of "necessary" listed in the Declaration of Independence.
But no condition even remotely similar to July 1776 existed in December 1860.
rustbucket: "...that agrees with the interpretation of the book above, IMO.
And it does not require any outside approval for of a state individually to reassume their powers of government."
But it certainly does require necessity which in no way existed in December 1860.
rustbucket quoting Madison Federalist 45: "Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan.
Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union."
Certainly using exactly the reasons & methods Founders used to separate first from Britain then from the old Articles.
Founders intimately knowledgeable on such matters were not in the least confused about legitimate versus "at pleasure" secessions.
rustbucket: "How does one judge "public happiness?"
Many Southern states asked their voters directly whether to secede and were given approval to go ahead.
Their publics were not happy remaining in the Union."
It's simple to tell the difference between secession "for cause" and "at pleasure".
First, ask this question: politically & constitutionally speaking, was the nation "happy" on November 5, 1860?
Answer: absolutely, since under then existing conditions of "politics as usual" there were no significant secession movements.
Next ask: politically & constitutionally speaking, what changed regarding "happiness" after November 5, 1860?
Answer: nothing changed, no new laws, no military violence, no material breach of constitutional compact, only a vote happened on November 6.
But the Government itself on November 6 was exactly the same as it had been on November 5.
Since there was no constitutional cause, and no mutual consent, that means Deep South declarations were, by default, "at pleasure" and so not according to Founders Original Intent.
rustbucket a quote alleged from Madison: "If we be dissatisfied with the national government, if we should choose to renounce it, this is an additional safeguard to our defence."
Even that word "dissatisfied" in a constitutional context does not mean somebody woke up one morning on the wrong side of his bed and so decided to declare secession, "at pleasure".
Rather, Madison certainly meant the types of dissatisfaction enumerated in their own Declaration of Independence.
But no such condition even remotely existed in December 1860.
rustbucket referencing his links: "Madison spoke those words on June 16, 1788"
Curiously, it turns out on close reading, that Madison was there quoting someone else, unnamed.
So the words are not necessarily Madison's own opinion when more precisely expressed, such as here.
Bottom line: Madison did not here, or anywhere else, express approval for unilateral declarations of secession, "at pleasure".
rustbucket: "I see that I must speak or post very slowly when posting to you."
Virtually every poster I've read on this subject gets confused and ends up quoting only numbers that support their own opinions, regardless of how appropriate, comparing apples to oranges, etc.
But I'm patient, and you can type as s..l..o..w..l..y as you might wish. ;-)
Of course I have, repeatedly, and you yourself can find it with a few simple google strokes.
But hey, I fully understand the silly game you people like to play on this, pretending that the Confederate declaration of war was not really a "declaration of war", since it said something slightly different.
But what it does say matches closely President Roosevelt's declaration language on December 8, 1861.
But more to the point: the Confederate declaration of war on May 6, 1861 provided all the legalities necessary for war that any other similar declaration provides.
Indeed, your argument here is identical to saying that when these days, Congress issues an "authorization for use of force", that amounts to something different than a full-throated declaration of war.
It doesn't. War is war, regardless of the bureaucratic paperwork used to authorize it.
Finally, if my words here don't convince you, then you can easily convince yourself by asking this question: what additional authorization to fight Civil War did Jefferson Davis need beyond the declaration of war passed on May 6, 1861?
The answer is "none", of course.
It was a declaration of war against the United States, and sealed the Confederacy's fate: unconditional secession.
You are correct that historiography of this report is disputed, and some historians argue it never happened.
But some things are not disputed, for example:
But, Virginia's vote against secession (88-45) was not March 4, it was April 4, after Lincoln's inauguration, as explained here.
Those words above, "by some accounts" mean the story is not totally verified, but there was also an earlier report of Lincoln's offering up a fort for a state, which suggests such an idea was in the air.
IMO taney's blatant indulgence in judicial activism did more to precipitate hostilities between the north and south than any other government act. There existed hot-heads on both sides maintaining a "shouting war" but the Dreaded Scott case set us inescapably on the path to war.
Knowing your love of quoting things out of context, I'd want to see those words in their full setting.
But if it indeed turns out that the New York Times, then as now, was utterly insane... well what can I say?
My best guess would be that the alleged words you quote here were preceded by other words along the lines of, "If the Confederacy insists on war, and starts war, then..."
Bullseye.
But Congress should go further. It must adopt some measures which will enable it to act in regard to secession. At present, the action of our Government contrasts most unfavorably with the energy and freedom of action displayed at Montgomery. The Government installed there acts with a view to its own interests and convictions alone. Let us show it that while we desire peace, this is a game that two can play at. We can at once shut up every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin upon the Confederate States. We should injure our trade somewhat, but not more, perhaps, than by our present inaction, which every one sees may have to terminate in some decisive step, of the character indicated. Let us begin to have some kind of a policy. The country cannot wait till the end of next December. There is no knowing where we may drift before that time. We may not have to exert force, but a nation that cannot do so, whenever its vital interests are assailed, inspires only contempt. We cannot place ourselves in such a category. Source
The Times was talking in that hypothetical "if ... then ..." vein. Cutting out the "We can" and the rest of the context gives a very erroneous impression. Actually, the quote illustrates something we've been talking about for a while: it wasn't so much that people were presenting complete and detailed plans with clear results. Rather, the demand was for some action -- any kind of activity -- to prevent or slow down the country's collapse. The Times wasn't entirely sure what should be done, but they wanted some kind of activity from Washington to counter what was going on in the rebel zone.
Nonsense.
I merely pointed out the Marxist and Alinskyite elements of your supposedly conservative arguments.
And I seem to have hit a nerve, didn't I?
HangUpNow: "Frankly, droning on over your insane obsession that advances politically select memes and historical narratives of a false truths and myths that have been dismissed and dismantled have become quite boring."
And yet you continue to drone on & on, endlessly repeating your Lost Causer lies. Why?
HangUpNow: "Lincoln's North did everything they could to connive, bait, and antagonize the South. He finally got his False Flag event at Fort Sumter and got his war."
Complete rubbish.
The Union did nothing except respond to ever-increasing Confederate violence against it, culminating in its assault on Fort Sumter, and three weeks later a formal declaration of war against the United States.
Those actions sealed the Confederacy's fate: unconditional surrender.
HangUpNow: "As documented, even many in the North conceded the South's right to independence and secession.
No, but NOT Lincoln and his totalitarian cohorts. "
No, most Northerners agreed with both President Buchanan & Lincoln that declarations of secession "at pleasure" were not lawful, but that the Union could nothing to stop them, so long as Confederates did not start a war.
HangUpNow: "Predictably, once again --you indeed have ignored the Big Truth: Coercion of Lincoln and his fellow fascists overlords and dismissal of the simple principles of a Confederacy's God-given RIGHT OF FREEDOM to maintain their rightful, legal, personal and State sovereignty.
A Confederacy of southern States roundly REJECTED Lincoln's totalitarian overreach and economic manipulation on behalf of northern interests."
All rubbish, total word-salad meaning nothing valid.
In fact, the Confederacy threw away all claims of "rights" or "law" or "constitution" or "state sovereignty" all that they threw away when they started and declared war on the United States.
HangUpNow: "It's been said: You are entitled to your own opinion, but NOT your own facts..."
But y'all don't even bother with facts, y'all don't need no stinkin' facts, what the h*ll good did facts ever do you?
All y'all really need are silly accusations, and anger, rage, and more ridiculous accusations, y'know, just like that fellow Alinksy taught, right?
Hardly, see my post #776 above.
To summarize, I can't defend the New York Times except on that rare occasions when they stumble on the truth.
In this particular case, the quote seems out of context, and I would imagine it preceded by words like: "if the Confederacy starts war, then...".
Which is exactly how normal governments respond to such matters in normal times of peace.
This Cincinnati newspaper edition did not call for war and neither did President Lincoln.
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.