Free Republic

There was a typo in my post 104. The article said: “Authorized messengers from President Lincoln at Washington have just informed Gov. Pickins and myself, that provisions will be sent into Fort Sumter, peaceably, if possible, but by force, if necessary.”

[signed] G. T Beauregard.

My error was that I had listed in my post 104 above that “provisions will be sent into Fort Pickens” instead of Fort Sumter.

I have been to both forts, and both are fascinating.

To Jeffersondem,

I posted the following years ago. Seems appropriate now:

I ran across the following concerning Fort Sumter in The Daily Picayune of New Orleans, published on April 13, 1861. It is long, so please forgive any typos:

Montgomery, April 12 – The following is the correspondence between the War Department of the Confederate States, by order of President Davis, and Gen. Beauregard, in command of Charleston Harbor, immediately proceeding the commencement of hostilities.

This correspondence grew out of the formal notification of the Government at Washington, as disclosed in Gen. Beauregard’s first dispatch to the Secretary of War, that it had resolved upon the provisioning and reinforcement of Fort Sumter.

First Dispatch from Gen. Beauregard

The following is the first dispatch from Gen. Beauregard to the Secretary of War, alluded to above:

Charleston, April 8, 1861
Authorized messengers from President Lincoln at Washington have just informed Gov. Pickens and myself, that provisions will be sent into Fort Pickens, peaceably if possible, but by force if necessary.
[signed} G. T. Beauregard

Secretary of War to Gen. Beauregard

Montgomery, April 10, 1861
Gen. G. T. Beauregard, in command Confederate forces, Charleston:
If you have no doubt of the authorized character of the agent who communicated to you the intention of the Government at Washington to supply Fort Sumter by force, you will at once demand its evacuation.
If this is refused, proceed in such manner as you may determine to reduce it. Please answer.
[signed] L. Pope Walker

Gen. Beauregard’s Second Dispatch

Charleston April 10, 1861
L. Pope Walker, Secretary of War:
The demand for the evacuation of Fort Sumter will be made at 12 o’clock to-morrow.
[signed] G. T. Beauregard

Secretary of War to Gen. Beauregard

Montgomery, April 10, 1861
Gen. Beauregard, Charleston:
Unless there are special reasons connected with your condition, it is considered proper that you should make the demand for the evacuation of Fort Sumter at an earlier hour.
[signed] L. Pope Walker

Gen. Beauregard’s Third Dispatch

Charleston, April 10, 1861
L. Pope Walker, Secretary of War The reasons for demanding the evacuation of Fort Sumter at 12 o’clock, are of a special nature.
[signed] G. T. Beauregard

Fourth Dispatch of Gen. Beauregard

Evacuation of Sumter Demanded

Charleston, April 11, 1861
L. Pope Walker, Secretary of War
The demand for the evacuation of Fort Sumter was made at 12 o’clock to day. Maj. Anderson will be allowed until 6 o’clock this evening to answer.
[signed]G. T. Beauregard

Secretary of War to Gen. Beauregard

Montgomery, April 11
Gen. Beauregard, Charleston:
Please telegraph at once the reply of Major Anderson.
[signed]L. Pope Walker

Reply of Major Anderson

Charleston, April 11
Gen. Beauregard
I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication, demanding the evacuation of this fort, and to say, in reply thereto, that it is a demand with which I regret that my sense of honor, and of my obligations to my Government prevent my compliance.
[Not reported in the newspaper were the following additional words: Thanking you for the fair, manly and courteous terms proposed, and for the high compliment paid me, I am, General, very respectfully, your obedient servant,]
[signed] Robert Anderson

Major Anderson adds verbally, “I will await the first shot, and if you do not batter us to pieces, we will be starved out in a few days.”
Please answer.
[signed]G. T. Beauregard

Secretary of War to Gen. Beauregard

Montgomery, April 11, 1863
Gen. Beauregard, Charleston:
Do not desire needlessly to bombard Fort Sumter.
If Major Anderson will state the time which, as indicated by him, he will evacuate, and agree in the meantime that he will not use his guns against us, unless ours should be employed against Fort Sumter, you are authorized thus to avoid the effusion of blood.
If this or its equivalent be refused, reduce the fort in the manner you, in your judgment, decide to be most practicable.
[signed]L. Pope Walker

Major Anderson’s Last Reply

Charleston, April 11
L. Pope Walker, Montgomery
Major Anderson will not consent to enter into the engagement you propose. I write you to-day.
[signed] G. T. Beauregard

Latest From Charleston

Opening of Fire on Fort Sumter

Charleston, April 12
L. Pope Walker, Montgomery
We opened fire on Fort Sumter at half-past four o’clock this morning.
[signed] G. T. Beauregard

Intercepted Dispatches

P.S. I have intercepted a dispatch, which discloses the fact that Mr. Fox, who had been allowed to visit Major Anderson, on the pledge that his purpose was pacific, employed his opportunity to devise a plan for supplying the fort by force.
This plan was adopted by the Government at Washington, and was in progress of execution when the demand was made on Major Anderson.
[signed] G. T. Beauregard

No, it’s now owned by the owner of the Boston Red Sox.

That is what the link I posted above in post 32 said.

The Boston Globe is NYTs...

Is that still the case? It has been a long time sent I was a student at MIT.

NY Times sells the Boston Globe"

Maybe the Times bought it back.

The administration at MIT is hopelessly, hopelessly woke.

There may be some truth in what you say. However, here is a link to a recent headline in the Boston Globe:

"MIT administrators warn pro-Palestinian student protesters, and counter-protesters, of possible suspension"

Nice home page, Jacquerie.

I perceive you must be quite a bit older than I am. :)

Yep. I knew one of my ancestors who was born in the Civil War. There were still Indian raids in his part of Texas when he was a young boy. He climbed a tree to hide from an Indian (either a Comanche or a Kiowa, I forget which) who was passing through their farm.

Controlling who gets to vote is what some politicians have been doing for a long time. Think of the Federalists and their Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 that extended the time of residency required for citizenship from 5 years to 14 years. The majority of immigrants at that time favored and voted for the Democratic-Republicans, not the Federalists.

Then there was the election of 1860, where some northern states let non-citizen immigrants vote if they promised to seek citizenship in the future.

The Southern Democrats of my youth stopped blacks from voting by requiring then to read and explain part of the US Constitution to the satisfaction of the registrar. I boned up on the Constitution before I registered to vote, but they didn’t ask me anything about the Constitution. I was white.

The current border policy has effectively let millions of aliens into the country. In addition, in the middle of the night some of the aliens were flown to various other states. Sounds to me like a way to affect the outcome of future elections.

Thanks guys. Good to know.

With respect to excess calcium brought about by taking vitamin D3, my suggestion is to search YouTube and the Internet for information about taking vitamin K-2 MK-7 along with your vitamin D3. Some argue that the K-2 MK-7 helps move the excess calcium to your bones. Review what you find with your doctor as I did with mine. I am no MD and have never worked in the medical field, but your doctor should be able to evaluate what you find.

You might also watch Dr John Campbell on YouTube. He is a British PhD Nurse who has trained nurses. Here is a link to one of his daily YouTube videos about Vitamin D3 and read the comments people make about each of his videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5sc7G4s4CY&t=19s

Looks like it went over the Prudhoe Bay oil field, wells, pipeline, etc., just east of Deadhorse, Alaska. Could be useful information to China if they are planning to take out a large source of US oil.

With respect to the history of slave trading, I should mention a book I recently purchased, "The War of Jenkins' Ear - The Forgotten Struggle for North and South America 1739-1742" by Robert Gaudi, Pegasus Books, New York London. Copyright 2021.

The first half of the book deals with the long history of the various European countries that were in charge of the African Slave Trade over the centuries. Countries would often pass the control of the slave trade to other European countries by treaty. It seemed like every country was in charge of the slave trade at one time or another.

My interest in the book was mainly Georgia history. One of my favorite places along the Georgia coast is the Fort Frederica National Monument on St Simons Island, near the present town of Brunswick, Georgia. Fort Frederica has some of the most beautiful moss-covered oak trees I've ever seen.

Fort Frederica was established by General Oglethorpe in 1736 to protect the new British colony of Georgia from the Spanish in Florida. He had earlier established the city of Savannah in Georgia further north up the coast in 1733.

The War of Jenkins Ear was named for a British ship captain who was captured by the Spanish. The Spanish cut the ship captain's ear off, hence the name of the short war that resulted from that incident.

Here is some information about the conflict between Britain and Spain and The War of Jenkins' Ear: Link

BJK: No, the truth is, you don't know who owned those packets because there were hundreds of them, of all sizes & capacities, many locally manufactured to take smaller loads shorter distances, down river.
The idea that all or even most were owned or "ran" by "New York" is simply not supported by any objective evidence.

From New York Daily Times, Dec 13, 1891 p. 17:

The accomodations [sic] for passengers on the old packet ships were much more confined, mainly owing to the smaller size of the vessels. These ships were the very best as to hull, spars and fittings. Most of them were built in New York by Webb, Smith & Dimon, Westervelt, and other builders on the East River. A few were the outcome of the best builders in the Eastern States.

In their day the sailing vessels were the pride of the New-Yorker and a credit to our merchant marine. They were all American. No foreign flag ever flew at the peak of a packet ship out of New-York that was worthy, and no foreign vessel ever competed successfully for the trade we had inaugurated and made successful. to-day we look in vain for an American vessel among the large fleet of fast European steamers.

BJK: And we know that Southerners did own ocean-going ships because some were famously caught with cargos of slaves in the years just before the Civil war.

Yes, some Southerners did purchase and run slave ships, but New York City was where most slave ships outfitted and set sail for Africa. From the New York Herald of May 22, 1860 [Link, third column]:

There are two parties, and two parties alone, responsible for the fact that the slave trade is more vigorously carried on at the moment than it has been for a long time – namely the British government and the merchants of our Northern cities. The government of England keeps up a show of preventing the running off of slaves from the African coast by maintaining a squadron there; but it happens, as we see, that they are of little of no service. The black republicans of our Northern States, while they are foremost in the agitation against the institution of slavery in the South, are the very men who, for the sake of profits accruing from the slave trade, which they hypocritically denounce, fit out these vessels, destined for the coast of Africa. It requires all the vigilance of government to prevent the sailing of slavers from our Northern ports and the landing of negroes on the coast of Cuba; yet it is remarkable that the very same parties who most loudly condemn the democratic administration as the friends of slavery are the most active instruments if fostering the importation of slaves – a forcible commentary upon the hypocrisy of abolition agitation, both at home and abroad.

From [The New York Based Slave Trade]:

One of history’s curious episodes was a rise in transatlantic slave trading based in the United States in 1850 that continued through 1863. ...

Harris tells how Portuguese and Brazilian slave traders relocated to New York City, establishing a new slave triangle: New York to Southwest Africa to Cuba). New York had everything they needed. The US’s biggest seaport, it was a city of immigrants, and the United States did not ban equipping ships as slaver. US flag ships could only be arrested carrying slaves. (Those of other nations could be seized for having slave decks and shackles.)

Harris tells a fascinating story. He shows how the trade grew, sheltered by US politics in the buildup to the Civil War, and funded by Free-State money. He traces the struggle, often underground, between the slavers and Great Britain. “The Last Slave Ships” is an interesting look at an odd corner of history.

Am very much aware of that. Several years ago was involved in a discussion with someone who said their family was involved in the shipping business in the Northeast, and they explained how the whole thing worked. I think it may have been rust bucket.

You asked me that about a year ago, DiogenesLamp.

Here is a link to my reply back then: Link

And you did remember who had made the remark you were trying to remember: Link 2

You remembered that it was a poster named "WarIsHellAintItYall", who hadn't posted since 2016. I had been on the thread at the same time as that poster.

Way to go, Phil Magness!

Let me be clear. The 24th amendment was sold as a anti-racist "poll tax" amendment, but the last three words eliminated the requirement to pay any taxes at all.

This created a positive feedback loop whereby the people who feel no pain from taxation are able to force those who pay taxes to transfer money to them through the government.

It is financial insanity.

Thanks for your comments. You reminded me of the wisdom of James Madison in the 1787 Constitutional Convention [James Madison on June 26, 1787)[my red bold font below]:

“The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa, or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge of the wants or feelings of the day laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe; when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability. Various have been the propositions; but my opinion is, the longer they continue in office, the better will these views be answered” (Farrand, Records, I, 430–31). [Max Farrand, ed., The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (4 vols.; New Haven, 1911–37)].

Poll taxes came later and were originally intended to expand the electorate by letting people vote who did not own property (i.e., land) by paying a poll tax. Poll taxes accomplished that end, but later they were used by southern state governments to restrict blacks and poor people from voting. [Link]

In addition to poll taxes, my home state used another method to exclude blacks from voting. They required them to read a section of the Constitution and interpret what it meant. I had heard about that, so I boned up on the Constitution before registering to vote. However, they didn't ask me anything. I was white.

... Prior to 1963, you couldn't vote unless you paid taxes.

That might have been true in some states, but I, who had never paid taxes, was off at school at MIT and therefore voted absentee in 1960. My southern home state had abolished poll taxes in the 1930s.

"Landside Lyndon" had his own bad history with elections.

The New York Times article in the March 7, 1862 issue had an article entitled: “Important from Tennessee, How Nashville Suffered from a Rebel Mob, The Contrast presented by the Union Forces.” Included the following statement (my bold below),

“Our accounts from Nashville present the sad picture of a city under the rule of a mob, and that, too, of the most despicable character. Had the Unionists been able to reach that city a week sooner, much wanton destruction of private and public property would have been prevented. As it is, however, all the bridges, both railroad, turnpike and highway, including the magnificent iron suspension bridge, have been either burnt or otherwise destroyed. The stores and shops of citizens have been entered and pillaged - no distinction having been made by the rebel outlaws between advocates of secession and the lovers of Union. All suffered alike at the hands of this band of marauders, who carried away everything they could possibly use, and destroyed what they could not take away”

“The leaders of this gang of thieves were cavalry men of Col. Forrest’s Texas Rangers, who claim to have cut their way through our army at Fort Donaldson, but who really ran away in the night with Pillow and Floyd, and quartered themselves in this fashion upon the inhabitants of what they chose to make their city of refuge. . . .”

I thought I would check to see what my books on Forrest had to say about this incident.

”Bedford Forrest and His Critter Company” by Andrew Nelson Lytle, says that when the news of Fort Donaldson’s fall and the coming of the federal army reached the city,

“… people fled into the streets. In a few minutes … the city was shaken by panic. … The civil government vanished. The Jews barred their shops. The president of a railroad, also a quartermaster of the army, loaded his property on a train and steamed away south, leaving the supplies to their fate. Mobs collected and began breaking down the doors of the government warehouses and plundering what might mean the life of the remaining part of the army. Floyd was out in charge of the city and ordered to bring off these supplies. He failed utterly to cope with the situation and marched away to Murfreesboro on the rumor of Grant’s approach.”

”The command over Nashville then devolved upon Colonel Forrest. In a few hours he had restored the capital to order. He rode into the mob, beat his pistol over the leader’s head, brought out the fire engine and turned ice cold water – it was February – on the rest, put guards over the warehouses, telegraphed for rolling stock, restored the mayor and council to authority, commandeered every vehicle in the city and began at once removing the supplies out of danger. After working steadily for three days and nights, he had emptied most of the warehouses and withdrew twenty-four hours after Buell’s advance had occupied Edgefield on the other side of the river, and then only at the mayor’s request.”

A similar report about Forrest at Nashville is given in the book, "That Devil Forrest" by John Allen Wyeth.

Would that we had commanders like Forrest these days. By the way, the Texas Rangers who were part of Forrest’s command were Terry’s Texas Rangers.

Samsung is building a $17 billion chip manufacturing plant near Austin, Texas. To be ready in the second half of 2024. Link

The secession of Virginia was essential to the Confederate cause, but Virginia held back so long as peace continued. In a Joint Resolution adopted on January 21, 1861, the Virginia Assembly, without a single negative vote in either house, declined immediate secession -- but also resolved that she would join the Confederacy if a war started.

I suspect it depended on which side instigated war and broke the peace. The Virginians were for peace. Here is what the Virginia Convention said on April 8, 1861:

Two articles from the Daily Nashville patriot (Nashville, TN) of April 11, 1861:

Titled: From Virginia

Richmond, April 8 - Wise's resolution that Virginia consents to the recognition of the independence of the seceded States, and that they be treated as independent, and laws to effect the separation, was adopted by a vote of 128 against 20.

During the recess, a report of a number of war vessels off Charleston harbor was received, which produced great sensation.

Titled: From Charleston

Charleston, April 9 - Prodigious preparations are progressing.
Wigfall is serving as a common soldier.
There are no war vessels outside, as far as known.

April 8, of course, was after it became publicly known that the Federal Government (i.e., Lincoln) was sending warships and troops somewhere south. Fort Sumter, Fort Pickens, and Texas were among the places where these ships and troops were speculated to be headed.

Here is an article from Daily Ohio statesman (Columbus, Ohio), April 11, 1861

Virginia Convention

Richmond, April 10. - The following resolution was adopted (my red bold below):

Resolved. that Virginia will wait a reasonable time for an answer to her propositions, but with the indispensable condition that a pacific policy be adopted towards the seceded States, no attempt made to subject them to Federal authority, or to reinforce forts, or to recapture forts, arsenals and other property, or exact payment of duties; and that all forts in the seceded States ought to be evacuated.

The extreme Union men in the Convention say they are not to be moved by telegraphic dispatches, and indicate that they will stand by the Government, if steamers are attacked. The Conservatives entertain different sentiments.

The Convention amended the 13th resolution and passed it. It is as follows:

In the opinion of this Convention, the people of Virginia will regard any action of the Federal Government or of the Confederate States, tending to produce a collision of forces, pending the efforts to effect an adjustment of existing difficulties, as unwise and injurious to the interests of both, and they would regard any such action on the part of either as leaving them free to determine their own future policy.

The convention adjourned.

On April 15, Lincoln called for 75,000 men to invade the South. On April 17, Virginia seceded subject to the approval of her people by a vote. Lincoln's call for troops to invade the South drove three other states to secede.

I am reminded by what Alexander Hamilton said in the New York Convention that ratified the Constitution for New York State (my bold below):

It has been well observed, that to coerce the States is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised. A failure of compliance will never be confined to a single State. This being the case, can we suppose it wise to hazard a civil war? Suppose Massachusetts or any large State should refuse, and Congress should attempt to compel them, would not they have influence to procure assistance, especially from those States which are in the same situation as themselves? What picture does this present to our view? A complying State at war with a non-complying State; Congress marching the troops of one State into the bosom of another; this State collecting auxiliaries, and forming, perhaps, a majority against its federal head. Here is a nation at war with itself! Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards a Government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself -- a Government that can exist only by the sword? Every such war must involve the innocent with the guilty.

Hamilton voted for New York's ratification of the Constitution that said the following:

Ratification of the Constitution by the State of New York; July 26, 1788.

WE the Delegates of the People of the State of New York, duly elected and Met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year One thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia in the Common-wealth of Pennsylvania (a Copy whereof precedes these presents) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, Do declare and make known. ...

That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; ...

... Under these impressions and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the Explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution ... We the said Delegates, in the Name and in the behalf of the People of the State of New York Do by these presents Assent to and Ratify the said Constitution.