Posted on 09/06/2003 9:14:08 AM PDT by quidnunc
Abraham Lincoln is thought of by many as not only the greatest American statesman but as a great conservative. He was neither. Understanding this is a necessary condition for any genuinely American conservatism. When Lincoln took office, the American polity was regarded as a compact between sovereign states which had created a central government as their agent, hedging it in by a doctrine of enumerated powers. Since the compact between the states was voluntary, secession was considered an option by public leaders in every section of the Union during the antebellum period. Given this tradition — deeply rooted in the Declaration of Independence — a great statesman in 1860 would have negotiated a settlement with the disaffected states, even if it meant the withdrawal of some from the Union. But Lincoln refused even to accept Confederate commissioners, much less negotiate with them. Most of the Union could have been kept together. Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas voted to remain in the Union even after the Confederacy was formed; they reversed themselves only when Lincoln decided on a war of coercion. A great statesman does not seduce his people into a needless war; he keeps them out of it.
When the Soviet Union dissolved by peaceful secession, it was only 70 years old — the same age as the United States when it dissolved in 1860. Did Gorbachev fail as a statesman because he negotiated a peaceful dissolution of the U.S.S.R.? Likewise, if all states west of the Mississippi were to secede tomorrow, would we praise, as a great statesman, a president who refused to negotiate and launched total war against the civilian population merely to preserve the Union? The number of Southerners who died as a result of Lincoln’s invasion was greater than the total of all Americans killed by Hitler and Tojo. By the end of the war, nearly one half of the white male population of military age was either dead or mutilated. No country in World War II suffered casualties of that magnitude.
Not only would Lincoln not receive Confederate commissioners, he refused, for three crucial months, to call Congress. Alone, he illegally raised money, illegally raised troops, and started the war. To crush Northern opposition, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus for the duration of the war and rounded up some 20,000 political prisoners. (Mussolini arrested some 12,000 but convicted only 1,624.) When the chief justice of the Supreme Court declared the suspension blatantly unconstitutional and ordered the prisoners released, Lincoln ordered his arrest. This American Caesar shut down over 300 newspapers, arrested editors, and smashed presses. He broke up state legislatures; arrested Democratic candidates who urged an armistice; and used the military to elect Republicans (including himself, in 1864, by a margin of around 38,000 popular votes). He illegally created a “state” in West Virginia and imported a large army of foreign mercenaries. B.H. Liddell Hart traces the origin of modern total war to Lincoln’s decision to direct war against the civilian population. Sherman acknowledged that, by the rules of war taught at West Point, he was guilty of war crimes punishable by death. But who was to enforce those rules?
These actions are justified by nationalist historians as the energetic and extraordinary efforts of a great helmsman rising to the painful duty of preserving an indivisible Union. But Lincoln had inherited no such Union from the Framers. Rather, like Bismarck, he created one with a policy of blood and iron. What we call the “Civil War” was in fact America’s French Revolution, and Lincoln was the first Jacobin president. He claimed legitimacy for his actions with a “conservative” rhetoric, rooted in an historically false theory of the Constitution which held that the states had never been sovereign. The Union created the states, he said, not the states the Union. In time, this corrupt and corrupting doctrine would suck nearly every reserved power of the states into the central government. Lincoln seared into the American mind an ideological style of politics which, through a sort of alchemy, transmuted a federative “union” of states into a French revolutionary “nation” launched on an unending global mission of achieving equality. Lincoln’s corrupt constitutionalism and his ideological style of politics have, over time, led to the hollowing out of traditional American society and the obscene concentration of power in the central government that the Constitution was explicitly designed to prevent.
A genuinely American conservatism, then, must adopt the project of preserving and restoring the decentralized federative polity of the Framers rooted in state and local sovereignty. The central government has no constitutional authority to do most of what it does today. The first question posed by an authentic American conservative politics is not whether a policy is good or bad, but what agency (the states or the central government — if either) has the authority to enact it. This is the principle of subsidiarity: that as much as possible should be done by the smallest political unit.
The Democratic and Republican parties are Lincolnian parties. Neither honestly questions the limits of federal authority to do this or that. In 1861, the central government broke free from what Jefferson called “the chains of the Constitution,” and we have, consequently, inherited a fractured historical memory. There are now two Americanisms: pre-Lincolnian and post-Lincolnian. The latter is Jacobinism by other means. Only the former can lay claim to being the primordial American conservatism.
David W. Livingston is a professor of philosophy at Emory University and the author of Philosophical Melancholy and Delirium (University of Chicago Press).
No you didn't. You simply claimed this to be true while offering no evidence whatsoever...
See #627.
You will tell any kind of lie.
Walt
Wow, you're either delusional or a young product of government schools.
Wow, you're either delusional or a young product of government schools.
Not according to Andrew Jackson:
"If this doctrine had been established at an earlier day, the Union would have been dissolved in its infancy. The excise law in Pennsylvania, the embargo and non-intercourse law in the Eastern States, the carriage tax in Virginia, were all deemed unconstitutional, and were more unequal in their operation than any of the laws now complained of; but, fortunately, none of those states discovered that they had the right now claimed by South Carolina. The war into which we were forced, to support the dignity of the nation and the rights of our citizens, might have ended in defeat and disgrace, instead of victory and honor, if the states who supposed it a ruinous and unconstitutional measure had thought they possessed the right of nullifying the act by which it was declared, and denying supplies for its prosecution. Hardly and unequally as those measures bore upon several members of the Union, to the legislatures of none did this efficient and peaceable remedy, as it is called, suggest itself. The discovery of this important feature in our Constitution was reserved to the present day. To the statesmen of South Carolina belongs the invention, and upon the citizens of that state will unfortunately fall the evils of reducing it to practice."
--Andrew Jackson
Or Sam Houston:
"The Federal Constitution, the Federal Government and its starry flag are glorious heritages bequeathed to the South and all sections of our common country by the valor and patriotism of Washington, and all the brave revolutionary soldiers, who fought for and won American independence. Our galaxy of Southern Presidents-Washington, Jefferson, Monroe. Jackson, Taylor. Tyler and Polk cemented the bonds of union between all the States which can never be broken. Washington declared for an indivisible union and Jackson made the secession of South Carolina and of other States impossible. Jefferson by the Louisiana Purchase added a vast empire of country to our union, and Polk followed his example by further extending our Union to embrace Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and California. Monroe established the Monroe Doctrine which for all time preserves and safeguards the Governments of the Western Hemisphere against foreign conquest.
All our Northern Presidents have been equally patriotic and just to the South. Not a single Southern right has been violated by any President or by any Federal Administration. President Lincoln has been elected, because the secession Democratic leaders divided the Democratic party and caused the nomination of two separate Presidential Democratic tickets and nominees.
Both branches of Congress are Democratic; therefore it will be impossible for President Lincoln's administration to enact or enforce any laws or measures that can injure Southern rights. But grant for the sake of the argument that the time may come when both branches of Congress are Republican and laws are enacted and enforced which will injure or destroy Southern rights what shall we then do? I answer that sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof, nor would there be the least danger of the Republican party ever controlling both branches of Congress and all branches of the Federal Government if the secession leaders would permit the Democratic party to remain a solid indivisible party. But if the day should ever come when Southern rights are ruthlessly violated or injured by the Republican party, we of the South will then fight for our rights under the Stars and Stripes and with the Federal Constitution in one hand and the sword in the other we shall march on to victory.
I believe a large majority of our Southern people are opposed to secession, and if the secession leaders would permit our people to take ample time to consider secession and then hold fair elections the secession movement would be defeated by an overwhelming majority. But the secession leaders declare that secession has already been peaceably accomplished and the Confederate Government independence and sovereignty will soon he acknowledged by all foreign governments. They tell us that the Confederate Government will thus be permanently established without bloodshed. They might with equal truth declare that the fountains of the great deep blue seas can be broken up without disturbing their surface waters, as to tell us that the best Government that ever existed for men can be broken up without bloodshed."
-- Sam Houston, 1861
Or George Washington:
"In all our deliberations on this subject we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existance. This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on our minds [at the constitutional convention] led each State in the convention to be less rigid on points of inferior magnitude...the constitution, which we now present, is the result of of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual deference and concession which the peculularity of our political situation rendered indispensible."
George Washington to the Continental Congress September 17, 1787
You don't seem very familiar with the history.
Walt
Learn:
"The nullifiers it appears, endeavor to shelter themselves under a distinction between a delegation and a surrender of powers. But if the powers be attributes of sovereignty & nationality & the grant of them be perpetual, as is necessarily implied, where not otherwise expressed, sovereignty & nationality are effectually transferred by it, and the dispute about the name, is but a battle of words. The practical result is not indeed left to argument or inference. The words of the Constitution are explicit that the Constitution & laws of the U. S. shall be supreme over the Constitution and laws of the several States; supreme in their exposition and execution as well as in their authority. Without a supremacy in those respects it would be like a scabbard in the hands of a soldier without a sword in it. The imagination itself is startled at the idea of twenty four independent expounders of a rule that cannot exist, but in a meaning and operation, the same for all."
--James Madison, 1833
How is that different from what President Lincoln said?
You don't have the faintest idea of what you are talking about.
Walt
Wow! Is there such a thing as a liberal that hates a lie? As far as I know, liberals love lies. That why I always figured you love Lincoln.
627 refers to Fort Sumter. We are discussing Moultrie, Johnson, and Pinckney.
Not any more than the rest of the country. In fact, despite it being the south's main east coast port, Charleston's only major new fort between 1800 and the war was Fort Sumter. The rest were all there from revolutionary days. Once again you simply do not know your facts, nor could you accurately identify the truth of the situation if it were stapled to your forehead.
Hardly. Count the forts the Feds built in the North. 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.
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. The customs house alone in Charleston cost over five million dollars to build, or nearly one tenth of one year of the Federal budget in the era it was constructed.
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 list goes on and on,
The south was totally lame financially, but the North put up with it to keep the Europeans out. The bottom for the North was that is was chump change to keep security for all of the states. For the south though, the total of all the largesse was an insurmountable debt, and will continue to be so for generations if not longer.
Gotta pay your own way in this life if you want to do your own think. You can't leach, preach and over reach like the south did.
627 refers to Fort Sumter. We are discussing Moultrie, Johnson, and Pinckney.
You said "forts in Charleston." If you didn't mean to include Sumter you should have said so.
You tried to deceive people and you got caught.
Walt
Yeah, in a post that repeatedly and specifically stated its reference to be Moultrie, Johnson, and Pinckney - as in the forts that were seized after Anderson moved into Sumter. It was your sidekick's argument at the time that SC had "stolen" those forts before it sent negotiators to Washington to deal with Sumter, which was another issue entirely. I simply pointed out the fact that they did not steal those forts, which had been theirs to begin with and which had been ceded only conditionally. As is your chronic habit, you came along and attempted to assign Sumter into my post and preceeded to debate an issue that I do not dispute. But since you are more interested in semantical nonsense than you are in facts this should come as no surprise.
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>
Sounds like the Devil is attempting to point a finger at a sinner to me.
"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
Another good example was the literacy rates. The census report that southern literacy rates were near 90%, but in fact, numerous sources such as Olmstead bear witness to the fact that the reverse was true. I only recently, in a history of the Anglican Church in America, found an account of a national convention in the late 1850's. Bishops from various regions presented their suggestions for reform, and Leonidas Polk (later general Polk, CSA), asked that the requirements for the more elaborate liturgical ceremonies be dropped, as they generally required the congregation to be literate to read the responses. He noted that in his region among Episcopalians, only 10% were able to read, so that, to his estimation, the elaborate liturgies were a hindrance to his work. Episcopalians, mind you. The traditional religion of the well to do and socially prominant.
The same rude awakening came to the Freedman's Bureau when they proceeded to pass out basic items of clothing and food to whites in the south after the war. The government required a reporting trail on all goods given out, and this of course required the recipient to sign his name. Almost none could.
To show that this awareness has recently dimmed, not long ago a I saw a movie made on the life of Andrew Johnson. In the movie, his townwspeople decide they need to send someone from their region who is close to the people, and at first they can think of no one who can read and write. Then someone remembers that Andy can, and so he is drafted to run for Congress.
Gotta laugh at the foolishnesss of those that want to make a silk purse out of the sow's ear of the old south.
The above link goes to the item below by Walt on the American Civil War Moderated Newsgroup. On Sept 5, 2003 Walt tells that group that, "I can't find any contemporary evidence that Lincoln and Butler even met on the day in question. I have ranted and raved on this subject on another forum, (freerepublic.com) where there are some pretty vociferous neo-rebs, and not a one of them has been able to confirm it either."
Underneath that is a post of August 30, 2003 where GOPcapitalist again tells Walt about the Hay memorandum, which GOPcap cites and quotes, proving beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty, that Butler had a meeting scheduled with Lincoln for April 11, 1865.
Beneath that I provide the online link for the Hay memo in the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, with a cut and paste of the precise entry therein.
From: WalterM140 (walterm140@aol.com)
Subject: Re: Did Lincoln ever publicly back away from Colonization?
View: Complete Thread (17 articles)
Original Format Newsgroups: soc.history.war.us-civil-war
Date: 2003-09-05 06:05:06 PST
He even believed, as he told Butler, that it would be best for everybody if all of the Negroes in the country could be shiped to some fertile place, with a pleasant climate, which they could have for their own. The President asked Butler if he thought it would be too difficult for the Navy to carry out such an evacuation. Calling at the White House two days later, Butler said he thought "exporting" the Negro population would not be possible. Even if every seaworthy naval and merchant vessel owned by the United States were used - - he did not think Negroes could be transported to the nearest place he thought fit for their habitation - - Santo Domingo - as rapidly as colored children would be born. Lincoln admitted that this estimate was probably correct and asked Butler if he had any other idea of what could be done with Negro soldiers. He did. He would like to take them to the Isthmus of Darien (Panama) and dig the ship canal the United States had long wanted to construct there. - - -
I can't find any contemporary evidence that Lincoln and Butler even met on the day in question. I have ranted and raved on this subject on another forum, (freerepublic.com) where there are some pretty vociferous neo-rebs, and not a one of them has been able to confirm it either. For this supposed meeting to come to light decades later, and when of course Lincoln was not around to refute or give his side, it's just all too fishy.
President Lincoln well knew that his 1862 overtures regarding voluntary colonization had been rebuffed on all sides. He -never- suggested that anyone be forced out of the country. This supposed conversation with Butler just makes no sense.
Walt
==========
To: WhiskeyPapa
The quote often provided by the neo-rebs to support this contention directed Butler to meet with a congressional committee, not the president.
False. It is a memo from John Hay, Lincoln's personal secretary, scheduling an appointment between Lincoln and Butler.
"Apr. 10. To Benjamin F. Butler, Hay for Lincoln, making appointment for ``tomorrow,''" - Routine Correspondences for 1865, listed on p. 588 of the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. 8, ed. Roy Basler
400 posted on 08/30/2003 6:08 PM CDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 393 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
==========
Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Roy P. Basler
APPENDIX II
Page 588
[1865]
Apr. 10. To Benjamin F. Butler, Hay for Lincoln, making appointment for ``tomorrow,'' ALS, DLC-Butler Papers
The result of the elections of November, 1860, gave a severe shock to public and private credit; southern banks withdrew large amounts of money on deposit in Northern banks; loans were contracted; and by the middle of the month the panic was complete. The government resorted to another treasury note issue under the act of December 17, 1860, but so low was the public credit and so disturbed the public mind that to float the notes at par it was necessary to pay from 10 to 11 per cent. interest on the larger part. With the beginning of the year 1861, although secession was becoming an accomplished fact, the appointment of John A. Dix as secretary of the treasury in place of Howell Cobb, with other changes in the cabinet, restored some measure of confidence in public credit. More vigorous efforts followed. By the act of February 8, 1861, a 6 per cent. loan was authorized with no restrictions as to sale at par, and this was reinforced by a new tax measure, the Morrill tariff. Nevertheless, when the new administration of Lincoln entered upon its difficult task on March 4, it found the treasury practically empty, the administrative departments disorganized, customs receipts almost at a standstill, the debt increasing, and government credit ebbing away. Nor could there be any thorough-going plans for the future, because nobody could clearly foresee the turn of political affairs.
The unsatisfactory condition of the treasury in 1860 is the more striking because the nation in that year was in excellent economic and material condition. the depression of 1857 was but temporary in its industrial effects; the development of railroad construction and shipping was speedily resumed; crops were abundant and prices remunerative. The cotton crop in 1860 reached 4,675,770 bales, nearly a million bales more than in any previous year; great gains had been made in the crops of wheat, corn, and other cereals; the production of anthracite coal in Pennsylvania was nearly 800,000 tons greater than in any preceding year; the output of pig iron was 913,000 tons, or 130,000 more than the average of the six preceding years; exports, including the precious metals, had reached the highest point then known, $400,000,000 (of which $316,000,000 was domestic merchandise), or $43,000,000 more than in any other previous year. The consuming powers of the people had never been so high, as was proved in particular by the unprecedented demand for sugar and tea; there was but little pauperism, and wealth on the whole was evenly distributed. 179,000 immigrants landed in 1860, or 58,000 in excess of the preceding eyar. The tonnage of American shipping was greater than ever before or since, and two-thirds of our imports and exports were carried in vessels having an American register.
In this wonderful material expansion and prosperity the Norther States had the advantage. Of the total population of 31,444,321, returned by the census of 1860, twh-thirds were in the States which remained in the Union in 1861. The value of the real and personal property of the whole country was estimated at $16,159,000,000, of which $10,957,000,000 was credited to the northern group, and in the southern share was included $2,000,000,000 for slave property. The wealth produced in 1859 was valued at $3,736,000,000, of which $2,818,000,000 was in the North. There were a thousand million acres of unoccupied public lands north and west of the slave region, a source of potential wealth to the struggling government: as secretary Chase said, "There are other mines than those of gold and silver; every acre of the fertile soil is a mine, and every acre is open to the fruitful contact of labor by the Homestead Act." The gold-bearing region of the Western States with comparatively insignificant exception was still the property of the nation; and the annual product of gold and silver was nearly $100,000,000. The contribution of Southern ports to the total import duties had been but $7,000,000, or 14 per cent. of the ordinary annual income from customs, and it was estimated that of the imports the South consumed less than half of its proportion according to population. The North was also fortunate in possessing the principal share of the manufacturing industries of the country.
Financial History of the United States, Part 1, 8 Ed., 1922, Davis Rich Dewey, p. 267
In following the course of receipts and expenditures summarized in the statistical tables of the treasury more than usual caution must be exercised for the peirod 1846-1861 because of changes in the system of accounts. By years receipts were as follows:
| Year | Customs | Public lands | Miscellaneous | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1846 | 26,712,000 | 2,694,000 | 293,000 | 29,699,000 |
| 1847 | 23,747,000 | 2,498,000 | 222,000 | 26,407,000 |
| 1848 | 31,757,000 | 3,328,000 | 543,000 | 35,628,000 |
| 1849 | 28,346,000 | 1,688,000 | 687,000 | 30,721,000 |
| 1850 | 39,668,000 | 1,859,000 | 2,065,000 | 43,592,000 |
| 1851 | 49,017,000 | 2,352,000 | 1,186,000 | 52,555,000 |
| 1852 | 47,339,000 | 2,043,000 | 464,000 | 49,846,000 |
| 1853 | 58,031,000 | 1,667,000 | 989,000 | 61,587,000 |
| 1854 | 64,224,000 | 8,470,000 | 1,106,000 | 73,800,000 |
| 1855 | 53,025,000 | 11,497,000 | 828,000 | 65,350,000 |
| 1856 | 64,022,000 | 8,917,000 | 1,117,000 | 74,056,000 |
| 1857 | 63,875,000 | 3,829,000 | 1,261,000 | 68,965,000 |
| 1858 | 41,789,000 | 3,513,000 | 1,353,000 | 46,655,000 |
| 1859 | 53,187,000 | 1,778,000 | 1,089,000 | 56,054,000 |
| 1860 | 53,187,000 | 1,778,000 | 1,089,000 | 56,054,000 |
| 1861 | 39,582,000 | 870,000 | 1,024,000 | 41,476,000 |
| Year | War | Navy | Indians | Pensions | Interest on debt | Miscellaneous | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1846 | 10,413,000 | 6,455,000 | 1,027,000 | 1,811,000 | 842,000 | 6,711,000 | 27,261,000 |
| 1847 | 35,840,000 | 7,900,000 | 1,430,000 | 1,744,000 | 1,119,000 | 6,885,000 | 54,020,000 |
| 1848 | 27,588,000 | 9,408,000 | 1,252,000 | 1,227,000 | 2,390,000 | 5,650,000 | 47,618,000 |
| 1849 | 14,588,000 | 9,786,000 | 1,374,000 | 1,328,000 | 3,565,000 | 12,885,000 | 43,499,000 |
| 1850 | 9,687,000 | 7,904,000 | 1,663,000 | 1,866,000 | 3,782,000 | 16,043,000 | 40,948,000 |
| 1851 | 12,161,000 | 8,880,000 | 2,829,000 | 2,293,000 | 3,696,000 | 17,888,000 | 47,751,000 |
| 1852 | 8,521,000 | 8,918,000 | 3,043,000 | 2,401,000 | 4,000,000 | 17,504,000 | 44,390,000 |
| 1853 | 9,910,000 | 11,067,000 | 3,880,000 | 1,756,000 | 3,665,000 | 17,463,000 | 47,743,000 |
| 1854 | 11,722,000 | 10,790,000 | 1,550,000 | 1,232,000 | 1,070,000 | 26,672,000 | 55,038,000 |
| 1855 | 14,648,000 | 13,327,000 | 2,772,000 | 1,477,000 | 2,314,000 | 24,090,000 | 58,630,000 |
| 1856 | 16,963,000 | 14,074,000 | 2,644,000 | 1,296,000 | 1,953,000 | 31,794,000 | 68,726,000 |
| 1857 | 19,159,000 | 12,651,000 | 4,354,000 | 1,310,000 | 1,593,000 | 28,565,000 | 67,634,000 |
| 1858 | 25,670,000 | 14,253,000 | 4,978,000 | 1,219,000 | 1,652,000 | 26,400,000 | 73,982,000 |
| 1859 | 23,154,000 | 14,690,000 | 1,490,000 | 1,222,000 | 2,637,000 | 23,797,000 | 68,993,000 |
| 1860 | 16,472,000 | 11,514,000 | 2,991,000 | 1,100,000 | 3,144,000 | 27,977,000 | 63,201,000 |
| 1861 | 23,003,000 | 12,387,000 | 2,865,000 | 1,034,000 | 4,034,000 | 23,327,000 | 66,650,000 |
Lincoln, Abraham, 1809-1865.: Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 8.
To Edward R. S. Canby
Executive Mansion, Washington,
Major General Canby: Dec 12, 1864.
I think it is probable that you are laboring under some misapprehension as to the purpose, or rather the motive of the government on two points---Cotton, and the new Louisiana State Government. It is conceded that the military operations are the first in importance; and as to what is indispensable to these operations, the Department Commander must be judge and master. But the other matters mentioned, I suppose to be of public importance also; and what I have attempted in regard to them, is not merely a concession to private interest and pecuniary greed.
As to cotton. By the external blockade, the price is made certainly six times as great as it was. And yet the enemy gets through at least one sixth part as much in a given period, say a year, as if there were no blockade, and receives as much for it, as he would for a full crop in time of peace. The effect in substance is, that we give him six ordinary crops, without the trouble of producing any but the first; and at the same time leave his fields and his laborers free to produce provisions. You know how this keeps up his armies at
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 164
home, and procures supplies from abroad. For other reasons we cannot give up the blockade, and hence it becomes immensely important to us to get the cotton away from him. Better give him guns for it, than let him, as now, get both guns and ammunition for it. But even this only presents part of the public interest to get out cotton. Our finances are greatly involved in the matter. The way cotton goes now carries so much gold out of the country as to leave us paper currency only, and that so far depreciated, as that for every hard dollar's worth of supplies we obtain, we contract to pay two and a half hard dollars hereafter. This is much to be regretted; and while I believe we can live through it at all events, it demands an earnest effort on the part of all to correct it. And if pecuniary greed can be made to aid us in such effort, let us be thankful that so much good can be got out of pecuniary greed.
As to the new State Government of Louisiana. Most certainly there is no worthy object in getting up a piece of machinery merely to pay salaries, and give political consideration to certain men. But it is a worthy object to again get Louisiana into proper practical relations with the nation; and we can never finish this, if we never begin it. Much good work is already done, and surely nothing can be gained by throwing it away.
I do not wish either cotton or the new State Government to take precedence of the military, while the necessity for the military remains; but there is a strong public reason for treating each with so much favor as may not be substantially detrimental to the military.
Allow me a word of explanation in regard to the telegram which you kindly forwarded to Admiral Faragut for me. That telegram was prompted by a piece of secret information inducing me to suspect that the use of a forged paper might be attempted on the Admiral, in order to base a claim that we had raised our own blockade.
I am happy in the hope that you are almost well of your late and severe wound
Yours very truly,
Lincoln, Abraham, 1809-1865.: Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 8.
Cotton Permit for Fergus Peniston [1]
Executive Mansion,
Washington, January 4th. 1865.
Whereas satisfactory evidence, has been furnished to me by Fergus Peniston, that he is now and was prior to April 1864 the legitimate owner of large amounts of cotton and naval stores situated in Louisiana and Southern Mississippi and reposing special trust and confidence in said Peniston, I do by these presents, authorize him to proceed with steamboats barges and other conveyances, at his own risk, up and down the Mississippi river and land at any points on said river between Natchez & Port Hudson, also up and down Red river and its tributaries and navigate the waters of Lakes Pontchartrain & Borgne to and from East & West Pascagoula and mouth of Pearl River and up and down Pearl & Pascagoula Rivers for the purpose of bringing out Twenty three Thousand Six Hundred & Forty Bales of Cotton and Seventeen Thousand Two Hundred Barrels of naval stores and continue said voyages until this stated amount of cotton & naval stores shall have been brought by him to new orleans. And in order to secure the products specified in this permit, I do furthermore authorize said Peniston to take on his boats or conveyances outside the Military lines of the United States and carry to any of the above designated localities, plantation supplies to the extent of Thirty per cent of the value of the cotton or naval stores brought to new orleans by his vessels.
Nothing in this permit is to be so construed as to prevent said Peniston from disposing of said cotton or naval stores in new orleans or new york at his option, after payment of the Internal Revenue & other taxes, fixed by Congress, not including however the Twenty five per cent tax.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 197
All officers of the army or navy of the United States & civil officers of the Government are hereby particularly required not only to not obstruct but to extend to said Peniston all facilities that may be required to carry out the design of this permit which is the introduction of cotton and naval stores within the Military lines of the United States.
Annotation
[1] Df (copy), DLC-RTL. The unsigned draft or copy is written on Executive Mansion stationery. On January 3 Hannibal Hamlin wrote Lincoln: ``I have confered with Mr Peniston in relation to the action you have so kindly taken in his case, and the Permit you have given him to obtain the cotton contracted for. The permit meets that case fully, but does not meet the case of the cotton owned and paid for. If you will allow him to explain the matter to you, I am sure you will see it is as I state. May I not ask that you will see him, and also that you will give your permit to him to get the cotton he has paid for. I will regard it as a favor to me.'' (DLC-RTL).
See also Lincoln's order concerning Peniston, January 28, infra.
O.R. Series 4, vol 3, Part 1, page 89
BUREAU OF SUBSISTENCE, Richmond, February 8, 1864.
Colonel L. B. NORTHROP,
Commissary-General:
COLONEL: I have to report the receipt of late services from Major W. H. Smith, commissary of subsistence, on inspection duty in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, in which encouraging accounts are given of the ability of the latter State to meet our wants fully with breadstuffs, and partially with meat, if the system inaugurated for supplying General Johnson's army be vigorously carried out, viz, drawing supplies from Northern Georgia and Alabama, and relieving Major Allen's district in Southwest Georgia, and if the required reforms in the management of railroad transportation are at once adopted. Major Smith cites numerous and flagrant abuses to which this important arm of the public defense has been and is constantly subjected, showing that the Government is deprived of many facilities by the cupidity of railroad companies and the corruption of agents and employees, who regard their personal interests as paramount to all other consideration. The official report of the Charlotte and South Carolina road exhibits the following statement of receipts: From the Confederate States, $336,603; private freight, $270,544; Southern Express Company, $186,281; the latter paying one-half as much as the Government, illustrating beyond dispute that the amount of transportation controlled by this company is greatly beyond what they are legitimately entitled to, and the additional fact is given that some twenty or thirty cars are owned by it at Augusta, which necessarily occasion interruption to more important trains. We are now dependent on the south for bread, yet under the most favorable circumstances, with existing arrangements, it is impossible to provide for the daily wants of General Lee's army and the troops in this State, to say nothing of the imperative necessity for creating a reserve in anticipation of the many emergencies likely to arise not only from movements of the enemy, but from accidents on a line of communication between 600 and 700 miles in length. To-day we have not on hand rations for two days, and with no prospect of accumulations in this State from purchases, &c., it is impossible to foresee how forward movements can be made by the Army of Northern Virginia, in the spring if we continue to be pressed for the current demands, and no increase is made from the only source to which we can confidently look. With no efforts to improve our facilities of transportation, and whilst the present defective system continues, we must remain in a condition of uncertainty that sooner or later will culminate in disaster.
* * *
O.R. Series 4, vol 3, Part 1, page 90
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
S. B. FRENCH,
Major and Commissary of Subsistence.
O.R. Series 4, vol 3, Part 1, page 84
BUREAU OF SUBSISTENCE, February 8, 1864.
Honorable JAMES A. SEDDON,
Secretary of War:
SIR: The letters of Messrs. Isaac Shelby and Charles F. Johnson, dated 22nd of January, in which they propose to exchange meat for cotton, referred by you to Colonel Northrop for "consideration and report" and by him to me, has been considered. For reasons which will appear in the sequel I submit the report directly to you, a fact known to and approved by Colonel Northrop. I have made so many
reports in such cases that it is unnecessary to repeat them here further than to say this, that I would never hesitate to make such contracts whenever they can be arranged so as not to conflict with oe sort, or with a different policy.
But I should be derelict in my duty as a citizen if I failed to urge your attention to another class of considerations growing out of such proposals. They are more particularly the result of reflections growing out of a contract which I recently made under your orders with Mr. Beverly Tucker. The present time seems propitious for the commencement of negotiations with one or more of the factions or parties in the United States with a view to give us an influence upon their affairs. The granting or apparent granting of a contract for various army supplies, wide enough in its scope to embrace many interests and large enough to tempt cupidity or venality, appears to be the best cover to approaches for that purpose, and a liberal compensation in cotton offers to them the most tempting as to us the cheapest and most looking to the mere procurement of supplies in limited quantities through the blockade have been made with various parties and that none of them have obtained provisions; but, in my judgment, this distributed among many individuals. Had they been wider, larger, and more concentrated, I think the result would have been very different. If they can be now made and connected with diplomatic movements judiciously conducted I am sanguine that they will not fail of a happy and probably an altogether successful issue.
Watching the expression of opinion on both sides in this war, I have been surprised at the absence of all speculation as to its ulterior effects upon the parties. We look merely to our own unhappy condition in the event of subjugation; they contemplate only emancipation, confiscation, and extermination. To my mind certain fixed consequences of great moment are suggested beyond these.
* * *
But money is usually necessary to political organizations. It is always necessary at the North. Now especially they must have it in sums sufficient to counteract what jobbers and army contractors can spare from their large gains to subsidize editors and leaders of the war and Abolition parties.
Possibly the speculations I have advanced will not find a lodgment in the minds of the North, who, whether as statesmen or citizens, may not look quite so far ahead. If so, we lack not the means of appealing to their love of money, power, and material advancement. The accumulation of cotton and cotton fabrics, which has hitherto enabled the world to stand all of from this war, is now nearly exhausted. As was expected, the dearth of cotton has not been compensated by increased Eastern production; for what it has cost us nearly a century of steady industry to reach could not be arrived at my mere price in three years, especially in a country like India. Cotton now sells for about six times its average peace price in gold. The articles for which we would barter it do not in any item exceed twice their peace prices; and if they reach so much it is only because of the inflation of Federal currency. To the Northern operator who can pay for cotton in exports it must be very valuable. Gold is really getting scarce with them because it is getting scarce in England; scarce there because gold now goes to India to buy cotton, but does not return; it is buried there. Hence the rise of interest in the Bank of England. But formerly she used to purchase cotton with exports mainly sent to us. The advantage of such mode of payment is now six times as great as it used to be. This is the true measure of the amount of subsidy that can be offered in money value. It cannot be had as cheaply by arms; still other inducements can be held out, among them a liberal commercial treaty.
* * *
But I decline to follow a subject so fruitful in diplomatic themes. Our own condition would seem to require the effort. I have good reason to think that the spirit of Congress as a whole is not heroic, and reserves in the spring may cause more defection than is now anticipated. North Carolina, better indeed than she is reported, is yet in an unsatisfactory condition. There certainly is not meat enough in our limits to feed both army and people at half their customary rates, and starvation is the parent of mutiny and discontent. The corn for General Lee's army is now mainly obtained from upon the integrity of the road from Weldon to Petersburg.
These things and many more that are too well known to you for recital, are potent persuasive to ward off by diplomacy blows which, are not be averted by battle; which may indeed be struck in the dark by traitors bought with Federal gold.
It may have been chivalrous in the commencement of this war to decline the use of means which all the time the enemy have successfully employed against us; means by which, I believe, they gained Kentucky and wrenched Missouri from us; means by which I am certain they are now trying to detach through the intimacy that has always existed between Mr. Holden and Governor Johnson, of me to be romantic. The character which the war has long since assumed justifies, in my judgment, a resort to much more questionable measures than I have suggested, which are in fact among the commonest expedients of hostilities.
I do not think it necessary to give herein the details of the plan I propose, which are necessarily imperfect and outlinear. I prefer in any case to leave them to other and abler hands. But if the above is approved to the extent that is shall be made ground of action, and you shall desire it, I will submit them hereafter for your consideration.
I trust I shall be pardoned for suggesting that if attempted the condition of our supplies and the political condition of the North demand speedy action.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
FRANK G. RUFFIN,
Lieutenant-Colonel and Commissary of Subsistence.
Lincoln, Abraham, 1809-1865.: Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 7.
Endorsement Concerning William F. Shriver [1]
May 15. 1864
Indorsed
The writer of this is personally unknown to me, though married to a young relative of mine. I shall be obliged if he be allowed what he requests so far as the rules and exigencies of the public service will permit.
A. LINCOLN
May 15. 1864
Annotation
[1] AES (copy), DLC-RTL. The copy of Shriver's letter of May 9. 1864 in Lincoln's autograph and with the above endorsement, reads as follows; ``This will be presented to you by Father Hanks who will more fully lay before you my wants than I can here explain. I will simply say that if consistent with your feelings, and not in any way conflicting with Army regulations I would like a permit to trade within the lines of the Armies of the Cumberland, Mississippi and Arkansas in Cotton & Hides for shipment North. For reference I can only offer Father hanks.''
William F. Shriver (Schriver) married Mary L. Hanks. daughter of Dennis Hanks.
Lincoln, Abraham, 1809-1865.: Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 8.
Order Permitting Robert E. Coxe to Bring Products through the Lines [1]
Executive Mansion,
January 5, 1865
An authorized agent of the Treasury Department having, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, contracted for the cotton and other products above mentioned, [2] and the party having agreed to sell and deliver the same to such agent.
It is ordered that the cotton and other products, moving in compliance with, and for fulfilment of said contract, and being transported to said agent, or under his direction, shall be free from seizure
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 200
or detention by any officer of the government, and, commandants of military Departments, districts, posts and detachments, naval stations, gun boats, flotilla's and floats [fleets] will observe this order, and give the said Robert E Coxe, his agents and transports, free and unmolested passage for the purpose of getting the said cotton or any part thereof through the lines, other than blockaded lines, and safe conduct within our lines while the same is moving in strict compliance with the regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury, and for fulfilment of said contract with the agent of the government
ABRAHAM LINCOLN
Annotation
[1] Copy, ORB. The original order has not been located. The copy along with other documents in the case was submitted by Hanson A. Risley to General Grant on April 21, 1865, with a request for another pass for Robert E. Coxe to pass through the lines. Although Lincoln's order is dated January 5, Risley's request to Grant explained that it was not signed by the President until March 16, at which time Lincoln gave him also a pass for Robert E. Coxe dated March 15 (infra). In the meantime, according to Risley, ``Mr. Coxe not yet having gone through the lines, and the President being dead, I went this morning to Genl Grant, and got another pass. . . .'' (Ibid.). See also the note to Lincoln's passes for James W. Singleton, infra.
[2] Hanson A. Risley's request for safe conduct for Coxe, upon which Lincoln's permit was written as an endorsement, enumerates ``Fifty Thousand bales of cotton, Ten Thousand boxes of manufactured tobacco, Ten Thousand barrels turpentine, and Ten Thousand barrels rosin. . . .'' (Ibid.).
Lincoln, Abraham, 1809-1865.: Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 8.
Cotton Permit for Mrs. R. I. Ward [1]
Executive Mansion January 18 1865.
An authorized agent of the Treasury Department having with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, contracted for the cotton above mentioned and the party having agreed to sell and deliver the same to such agent.
It is ordered, that the cotton moving in compliance with and for fulfilment of said contract, and being transported to said agent, or under his direction, shall be free from seizure or detention by any officer of the Government, and commanders of military departments, districts posts and detachments naval stations, gunboats flotillas and fleets, will observe this order and give the said Mrs. R. I. Ward her agents and transports, free and unmolested passage, for the purpose of getting the said cotton, or any part thereof through the lines other than blockaded lines, and safe conduct within our lines while the same is moving in strict compliance with the regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury and for fulfilment of said contract with the agent of the Government.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN
Annotation
[1] DS, RTL. Lincoln's permit is written on the certificate of the same date signed by Hanson A. Risley, supervising special agent of the Treasury, and issued to Mrs. R. I. Ward of Louisville, Kentucky, agreeing to purchase 1,000 bales of cotton. Both permit and certificate have ``Cancelled'' written across the face.
O.R. Series I, vol 46, Part 2, Page 445
CITY POINT, VA., February 7, 1865-10 a.m.
Honorable E. M. STANTON,
Secretary of War:
A. M. Laws is here with a steamer partially loaded with sugar and coffee, and a permit from the Treasury Department to go through into Virginia and North Carolina, and to bring out 10,000 bales of cotton. I have positively refused to adopt this mode of feeding the Southern army unless it is the direct order of the President. It is a humiliating fact that speculators have represented the location of cotton at different points in the South, and obtained permits to bring it out, covering more than the entire amount of the staple in all the cotton-growing States. I take this to be so from statements contained in a letter recently received from General Canby. It is for our interest now to stop all supplies going into the South between Charleston and the James River. Cotton only comes out on private accounts, except in payment for absolute necessities for the support of the war.
U. S. GRANT,
Lieutenant-General.
Evidently it is you with the counting difficulty. In addition to New York, the federal government built or improved upon pre-civil war forts all along the coast including in the following states on the northern side of the civil war:
New Castle, DE
Fort Delaware, DE
Fort Carroll, MD
Fort Mifflin, PA
Frankford Arsenal, PA
Fort Elizabethtown, NJ
Fort Hancock, NJ
Burlington Cantonment, NJ
...and that's just starting in MD and working up the coast. There were dozens more north and west of there, plus about a dozen forts surrounding Washington DC.
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.
Evidently they did as there are similar forts all the way up the coast. Check Baltimore Harbor or Delaware Bay (entrance to Philadelphia) if you doubt me. Each city had just as many if not more forts than Charleston. Included were outlying defenses and even artificial islands in the middle of the entrance just like Fort Sumter and constructed at the exact same time. The fact is you simply do not know your history or your geography.
Wasn't one of them that could stand up to artillery fire by 1860.
Probably not, yet fortified gun positions remained in widespread use by the federal government in both the north and south through at least the turn of the century. Concrete barriers and retractable long range guns extended their use well into the 20th century. If you doubt me, visit Fort Washington on the Potomac just south of DC. It's a war of 1812 fort that was still in use by the 1890's when they installed several concrete batteries and long range retractable guns.
Waste of money, unless, of course, you were really just making a living off federal largesse controlled by a southern dominated Senate.
As I have previously demonstrated to you, the south did NOT dominate the senate in 1860 or for quite some time before then. The north had a solid majority there just like they had in the house.
THe North had seven cash crops that out produced cotton.
Evidently they did not. In 1860 cotton alone made up 65% of the entire country's exports. In that same year tobacco made up another 8-9%. Those seven northern crops provided a COMBINED total of less than 20%.
It's in the Globe
Then you should be able to source it with ease. Simply saying "it's in the globe" no more suffices as a response to a request for specific citation than "it's in the encyclopedia" or the old favorite from Wlatdom "it's on google."
You're just afraid to look it up.
Not at all. In fact, I've probably read more debates out of the congressional globe from the immediate pre-war years than anyone else on this forum and even most civil war historians. They have figured prominently into two of my thesis papers and several dozen articles I have written. I've even transcribed (and provided to the public) some speeches and debates from them that have not appeared in print for over 140 years. I've also researched the economic statistics of the United States in that period and commented on them accordingly. The fact is they simply do not support what you claim in any way, shape, or form.
Too dangerous? For Federal troops?
No. For individual gold miners. It was also highly impractical. Tell me. Why do you think they established a mint in San Francisco in 1852? It wasn't a very big city at the time, and as far as the day was concerned California was the closest one could get to the middle of nowhere in any state. But one key thing happened there a few years earlier. It was called a gold rush, and that gold needed to be minted. It was impractical and dangerous for civilians to carry large quantities of unminted gold over land or sea, so they built a mint there. Well guess what. The EXACT SAME THING had happened two decades earlier in North Carolina - site of the nation's first gold rush. As a response the federal government constructed two tiny mints that only processed gold in GA and NC. They were both in small buildings that were dwarfed by the large mints at Philadelphia and New Orleans. To suggest as you do that they were southern pork barrels or to compare their output - strictly gold coins - to the main minting outputs at the two larger operations is simply absurd.
the last 100 years of southern dominated Federalista programs have made it.
So Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a southern Federalista?
The Post office did a fine job
No they didn't. The pre-war post office and especially the pre-1846 post office was a financial disaster. 1846 was the year that they were hit with several private competitors who severely undercut their rates. It forced them to shape up their finances briefly as congress reinstated them as a monopoly.
The odd thing about your claim is that the only branch of the Confederate government that never showed a loss was the Post Office.
Just shows what a little business sense and the great John Reagan can do for you.
Now you're over the top for sure, and in complete denial of all census materials collected and artificially bloated by the south itself.
And let me guess. It was all a giant southern conspiracy to distort the census bureau's findings, right? Hell, I bet the freemasons and the Rothschilds were even involved!
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.
You are practicing labor reductionism. Cotton was produced because the southern climate was especially suited for it and it was in high demand around the world at the time.
More goods were exported by the North
No they weren't. As of 1860 the north as a whole produced less than one quarter of the entire nation's exports. Said differently, the south's exports were three times the size of the north's exports.
Exporting is generally considered to be an achievement, but that notion comes from exporting finished goods, not raw materials.
Evidently your trade ignorance is as great as your historical ignorance. It is stupid for a country to attempt to export only finished goods, especially when it is comparatively advantaged in the production of a raw material.
Exporting raw materials instead of finished product is to give away the vast majority of wealth in the resource
No it isn't. If a country ends up spending more to make X dollars on a finished product when it can have the same on a raw material for significantly less it is simply stupid for them to shift their production to the finished product. Produce where you are comparatively advantaged and you will draw the greatest wealth. Produce where you are severely disadvantaged and you won't be able to compete with those who are advantaged in that same area.
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.
What a load of nonsense. North America could have easily continued on with two free governments of consent instead of one. But instead one of them decided to coerce obedience from the either by point of the sword, thus denying a free government of consent from both regions. Due directly to their actions the concept of government by consent died on the North American continent in 1865.
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.