Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
on further research, it appears the Brooklyn Eagle lost its mailing privleges briefly as part of the gold hoax you mentioned.
This is exactly what is counted as a shut-down. Not "go home and don't come back," but "If you're going to be like that, you don't get to use the mail." Shut-down is somewhat overblown.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
This is exactly what is counted as a shut-down. Not "go home and don't come back," but "If you're going to be like that, you don't get to use the mail." Shut-down is somewhat overblown.
And, since the city editor of the paper appears to be the man behind the hoax, forging the news to attempt to make money on a gold speculation, with one of his reporters as a chief accomplice, it is fairly easy to see why the paper was punished.
BTW, Lincoln pardoned the editor later that same year. Hard to make much of a case for suppression of the press out of this.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Is this referring to a specific event of Lincoln borrowing money (more than during Buchanan's administration) you'd like to share? Details, please. Most of the post just seems to be slanderous "ramble."
Cedarstripper
I was thinking of the threat of NYC to secede and the raising by Lincoln of funds on intrest for reasurance by the Rothschilds amongst others, that he would invade and end the secesion. ill go get some specific details of the $ value if i remember later.
I believe i went for libel rather than slander, and it would have not to be true to be libel.
Since lincoln explained his actions in these terms, its clear its not libel, but correct.
"These measures, whether strictly legal or not, were ventured upon under what appeared to be a popular demand and public necessity, trusting then as now that Congress would readily ratify them."Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Volume VII, page 3225
(The resolution which he introduced for ratification read in part as follows: "Be It Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled: that all the extraordinary acts, proclamations, and orders herein before mentioned be and the same are approved, and declared to be in all respects legal and valid to the same, and with the same effect as if they had been issued and done under the previous and express authority and direction of the Congress of the United States" .
on 9 March 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt followed the example and then asking Congress to validate his actions after the fact. The substance of Lincoln's resolution is now codified, with a few minor modifications, in Title 12, United States Code, Section 95b and grants virtually unlimited power to the President of the United States to circumvent the Constitution whenever he declares the existence of a national emergency.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Its called Congressional delegation. There is a 'fourth' branch of government many don't even think about, the quasi-Judicial branch which are essentially the Administrative Courts set up by the Executive branch.
For instance, Congress sets up a tax code (obviously they have the power of the purse), but they delegate rule making authority to the IRS (so you have a bunch of IRC, Internal Revenue Code rules).
Literally Congress does not want to deal with the minutia.
The rule that you're discussing is the National Emergencies Act, which by the way is duplicated at the state level.
So.....a blizzard on December 31st, when the Congress or state legislatures aren't in session shouldn't warrant a state of emergency?
No, Hanny. As already noted, Secretary of the Treasury Cobb is presenting a report to the Congress that includes only the first quarter of FY 1861, ending in September of 1860, and projecting the results of the next nine months to what will be on hand July 1, 1861. When he does so, no state has seceded from the Union (Cobb himself resigned in December of 1860). At this point, the amount of cash on hand is ALREADY some $14,000,000 below what it was on July 1, 1857, and Secretary Cobb is ALREADY projecting it will fall more than $3,000,000 in the next nine months to be virtually empty.
This type of financial disaster is one of the reasons Secretary Cobb, a Georgia man, had been asking for an increase in the Tariff in the late 1850s. He knew that this was not sustainable fiscal policy.
In addition, Federal income came to the Department of the Treasury through Federal hands. Import Tariffs were collected by Federal Customs agents. Funds for Federal land sales came to the Federal government through Federal agents as well. Those are virtually 100% of Federal income in those days, so please tell us who is holding the cash back.
Now it is certainly true that Southern secessionists conspired to hold back funds and seized Federal funds illegally from December of 1860 on. If you think Cobb was counting that in his projections before a single state had seceded, you would seem to be implying he was knowledgeable of their plans and perhaps conspiring to be a part of them -- which would seem to qualify as Treason under the Constitution. Is that what you are trying to say here?
Tim
No im commenting on you maths being not constant with the facts, your explantion not constant with the facts. And no Cobbwas not committing treason, he was just on watch when then eurpeans drained huge amounts out of the federal governm,ent top get a triple rate of return back in europe, leaving no one to finance the federal governemnt, giving it markedly reduced ability to borow at a rate that allowed it to be payed of in the short term, unlike the 1835 end of national debt.In 59 13.6 million was reisued as debt on rates of return triple that when it was initaly raised under, 60-64 that kind opf borrowing ran at around 14000million, ans well as 45o million greenbacks which were the same thing but had only to be redemmed by those issueing it, ie the government payed back what it spent without intrest.
Treassuryincome and outlat and intrest bearing debt, from the historical statiastics form colonial times to the present.
1850-1860 income equalled outlay, 1860 to 1879 is a completly diffewrnt matter.
No im commenting on you maths being not constant with the facts, your explantion not constant with the facts. ...
Look, Hanny, in general it appears that your constant tactic is to never admit when you don't have something quite right, and to always flood the Forum with long posts that go off in another direction to avoid facing what has been pointed out to you.
For example, you insist that only the final end-of-fiscal-year figures exist and are the only things that can be used in discussing this -- yet that is flatly wrong. The Secretary of the Treasury before Cobb (1857-1860) was James Guthrie of Louisville, KY, who served for four years under President Pierce (1853-57). Secretary Guthrie created a controversy in his administration by insisting that the reports to him had to be made monthly instead of quarterly. The reporting was monthly when President Buchanan appointed Cobb to be Secretary of the Treasury. Yet you insist that only the annual report figure can be used, and that this is the only way the Federal government did report it.
This is, of course, a minor matter. It can be resolved in a few sentences. Yet you have gone on about it in one form or another for a couple of months now.
Using your own figures (or at least one set of them, since over time the ones you have posted are not 100% identical), the national debt more than tripled from July 1, 1857 to July 1, 1861. Since those are the only figures you allow for the Buchanan administration (omitting the first 4 months and adding 4 months of Lincoln's administration to it), it is, I believe, a distortion at both ends -- but it is what you insist upon. So if you want to say Buchanan "only" increased the national debt from 28 to 90 million, more power to you: that is an increase of roughly 3.22 times.
However, that is still a misrepresentation of what happened. On July 1, 1857, the Treasury had $17,710,114.27 in cash on hand. Just before he resigned (report of December 4, 1860), Secretary Cobb estimated that on July 1, 1861 there would be about $245,891.58 in cash on hand. Between those dates, he is telling you, some $17.465 million in cash would have been used up/spent/drained from the Federal Treasury that is not included in the national debt figure you are insisting upon.
Now maybe that isn't important to you. Maybe you are far too insistent on saying that my claim the debt "quadrupled" is wrong, and will continue to insist on this arcane trivia about annual figures to try to make a big deal of the difference between "more than tripled" and "quadrupled". I'm sorry if you feel you have to do so. But please note that a debt of $28 million with some $17.5 million on hand in 1857 is nothing at all like a debt of $90 million with next-to-nothing on hand in 1861.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Not that I have ever found. I do suppose they could be found somewhere in the National Archives. When I have come across them, it has usually been in the footnotes of books.
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
From the book, Lee Considered, by Alan T. Nolan, Chapter Two, Lee and the Peculiar Institution, pg. 26.
"During the long crisis that culminated with the war, the participants and the political leadership made it clear that slavery was the root cause of their disagreement. Don E. Fehrenbacher has remarked that the "tendency of nearly all public controversy to fall into alignment with the slavery question bespeaks the power with which that question gripped the minds of the American people." It is an astonishing anomaly that, in spite of this fact, for one hundred years historians and commentators attempted to exorcise slavery as relevant or to downplay it as incidental to the conflict. Recent scholarship has at last acknowledged that the participants, after all, knew what they were contending about. Slavery--its expansion or limitation, its abolition or perpetuation--was what the war was all about. On the one hand, there was what Wyatt-Brown describes as "the desperate commitment of Southern whites to hold black Americans forever in their power." On the other hand, the North, in the words of Fehrenbacher, insisted on "the value and sanctity of the Union," and disagreement with the South was unavoidable in light of "the hardening opinion of a Northern majority that slavery was incompatible with the destinies of the Republic." Reasons for Northern objections were probably mixed, ranging from simple morality to material considerations such as interest in control of the territorial lands and political power, but the opposition was intense. D. W. Brogan, the Cambridge political scientist, a keen and detached observer of the American situation, has succinctly described the collision course that led to conflict: "The South was demanding of the North what it was less and less willing to give--theoretical and, as far as possible, practical equality for the 'peculiar institution.'"
Southern insistence that slavery be permitted to expand, so that it could be perpetuated, and Northern resistance to these goals resulted in secession and war. Kenneth Stampp's, And The War Came is a particularly persuasive statement of this thesis: concentrating on the political uproar before hostilities began at Fort Sumter, Stampp, like Fehrenbacher, argues convincingly that slavery was the sine qua non of all the turmoil. And surely it is no coincidence that a majority of the applications for pardon filed by Southerners immediately after the war identified slavery as the paramount cause of the conflict."
More to follow,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
