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.
The quote I provided you was from Abraham Lincoln.
Excessive volume based on distortion does not equal accuracy, especially when it comes to history.
I'll give you another quote and see if you can identify the author.
"History is not history unless it is the truth."
Good luck with this one.
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
No, you are simply chosing to ignore 'something' here.
It's called compelling evidence.
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
In a letter that was discovered in the streets of Columbia after Sherman's "bummers" passed through, Lieutenant Thomas J. Myers
Of course, actual historians have shown this letter to be a forgery. But don't be deterred by the facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf
Even more shocking is the following account given by William Gilmore Simms of Columbia:
Another account actual historians have shown to be without credibility.
As none of this has anything to do with the tariff, you're once again being rude to the group by not posting under the right thread.
We can only conclude you lack basic honesty and you want to try to cover up your dishonesty by diversionary tactics that take us off on tangents that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
I missed something here... At what point does Freehling dismantle McDuffie, is it?
- Beowulf
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
The post shows exactly where and how.
Also, I'm afraid you'll have to repeat whatever questions you had to the rest of my reply since your ignoring of basic etiquette makes it impossible for them to be reproduced here when I reply to you.
Also, I'm afraid you'll have to repeat whatever questions you had to the rest of my reply since your ignoring of basic etiquette makes it impossible for them to be reproduced here when I reply to you.
Regards,
Cash
My question was, "At what point does Freehling disprove the 40 bales theory?" All I read in there was McDuffie talking...
Freehling supposedly disproves this... I missed where, and how. (I did not get that he had disproved the theory by merely disparaging it!).
The quote I provided you was from Abraham Lincoln.
Excessive volume based on distortion does not equal accuracy, especially when it comes to history.
I'll give you another quote and see if you can identify the author.
"History is not history unless it is the truth."
Good luck with this one.
Unionblue
I knew it was one of those Liberals... I should have guessed Lincoln, because that's what he tried to do to the South; enslave them!
As to your new quote, I don't think any one person could claim that.
It is certainly a given, if you are speaking of history.
Real History is a redundancy. False history is propaganda.
History to some people is just that; His Story...
I am afraid that, in this Apocrypha-versus-Apocrypha we seem to be presenting each other, I have to hold your side accountable for the problem.
I am not learned, as I have said, elsewhere, heretofore. I am able to endure the blatant attitudes with which I am continually met, in presenting what I have read on the subject...
I can clearly see where the Rebels find what they call Yankee Arrogance, (I refer to certain among us who remind me of a Yankee drill instructor I had in police school), although I tend to see it more as a
self-satisfied air, (completely unearned, unless you see this as a competition of some sort between us)...
but still, if you indeed do have the TRUTH, you do not publish your findings and speak against this back and forth... (unless, of course, you just enjoy the banter).
But if you guys are truly are the all-knowing, all-wise Gray Counsel, I would say that it is your duty to put forth your efforts. Have you published? Or, will you be like Michelangelo, and die with 25,000 gold pieces and no disciples to carry on your work?
Think what he could have done had he started an institute!
But he was not immortal enough to share what he knew.
And unless one wanders into here, he does not get benefit of your vast posting experiences...
Wrong as usual. There are no rivers that flow from those Northern states to the south, so it's impossible for the phrase "down the river" to come from that. The term comes from slaveowners in the upper south selling their slaves to owners on southern Mississippi plantations. The river in question was the Mississippi River.
The rest of your post is equally meaningless and wrong. It's amazing how one person can post so many wrong things in succession.
Regards,
Cash
What has the water direction to do with it? You never heard of Down South, and Up North?
If the Upper South (certainly no Yanks involved, according to you!)
is in the same direction as the 'Glorious Union', what's the difference?
Of course, actual historians have shown this letter to be a forgery. But don't be deterred by the facts.
Another account actual historians have shown to be without credibility.
As none of this has anything to do with the tariff, you're once again being rude to the group by not posting under the right thread.
We can only conclude you lack basic honesty and you want to try to cover up your dishonesty by diversionary tactics that take us off on tangents that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Regards,
Cash
You speak with an air of authority, and, if not that, then certainly smug confidence. Forgive me if I do not share that opinion of you. I don't know you!
Actual Historians? Do they have names? What did they say about the letter?
Seems to me that it would be easier to prove the letter was in existence than to prove it was a 'forgery'... because it is very believable that a soldier trained to hate the South as much as these Yankees under Sherman were taught... would write such a thing...
But how does one prove a 'forgery'? That's like proving a negative. No atheist ever falls for that! There has to have been some sort of confession, or failed conspiracy, yes?
Prove for me this negative!
And what is wrong with William Gilmore Simms? Actual Historians, again? Saying, what, particularly?
And does it in any wise disprove the rest of the posting?
What of Dr. John Bachman's letter, dated 14 September 1865? Seems to me he is more damaging than the 'forgery', yet upon him, you are silent. When you guys are silent, is that a sign of submission?
How can you conclude I lack basic honesty? Your leaps in 'logic' are astounding. Clearly, since I don't worship at the Temple of the Five Dollar Bill, I am suspect. But I guess when one lacks basic honesty, he soons begins to think nothing of Threadiquette violations, and Sabbath-breaking!
So a propaganda pamphlet is pointed to as a source document? LOL
Poor history, as reference to Taussig and Freehling shows. His Satanic Majesty, John C. Calhoun, was behind the 1828 tariff.
In 1828 the public debt was $58,421,000. That's hardly "near to extinction" for the time. [Source: Historical Statistics of the United States, Part 2, p. 1104]
Oh, Edward Pollard, what an objective source--NOT.
The complete story is that the national debt was high, but the government was running a surplus so the debt was slowly being paid down.
In 1827 the debt was $67,475,000 and the surplus was $6,827,000.
In 1828 the debt was $58,421,000 and the surplus was $8,369,000.
In 1829 the debt was $48,565,000 and the surplus was $9,624,000.
In 1830 the debt was $39,123,000 and the surplus was $9,701,000
In 1831 the debt was $24,322,000 and the surplus was $13,279,000.
[Source: Historical Statistics of the United States, Part 2, p. 1104]
So 1831 was the first time there was the surplus Pollard claimed would have occurred in his propaganda piece, and this was AFTER the duties had been raised.
Actually, the case being built so far is less than flimsy at best. It's built on nothing but historical lies.
Wrong as usual, since the so-called "Tariff of Abominations" was designed by South Carolinians.
"On January 31st, the committee [this is the House Committee on Manufactures, which is the committee that originated all tariff bills] presented a report and a draft of a tariff bill, which showed that they had determined on a new plan, and an ingenious one. What that plan was, Calhoun explained very frankly nine years later, in a speech reviewing the events of 1828 and defending the course taken by himself and his Southern fellow-members. A high-tariff bill was to be laid before the House. It was to contain not only a high general range of duties, but duties especially high on those raw materials on which New England wanted the duties to be low. It was to satisfy the protective demands of the Western and Middle States, and at the same time to be obnoxious to the New England members. The [Andrew] Jackson men of all shades, the protectionists from the North and the free-traders from the South, were to united in preventing any amendments; that bill, and no other, was to be voted on. When the final vote came, the Southern men were to turn around and vote against their own measure. The New England men, and the [John Quincy] Adams men in general, would be unable to swallow it, and would also vote against it. Combined, they would prevent its passage, even though the Jackson men from the North voted for it. The result expected was that no tariff bill at all would be passed during the session, which was the object of the Southern wing of the opposition. On the other hand, the obloquy of defeating it would be cast on the Adams party, which was the object of the Jacksonians of the North. The tariff bill would be defeated, and yet the Jackson men would be able to parade as the true 'friends of domestic industry.'
"The bill by which this ingenious solution of the difficulties of the opposition was to be reached, was reported to the House on January 31st by the committee on manufactures. To the surprise of its authors, it was eventually passed by both House and Senate, and became, with a few unessential changes, the tariff act of 1828." [F. W. Taussig, _The Tariff History of the United States,_ pp. 88-89]
So the so-called "Tariff of Abominations" was actually cowritten by His Satanic Majesty, John C. Calhoun, and his southern henchmen. A majority of New Englanders did vote against it, but not enough to prevent its passage, and the rest of the Adams party men were able to vote for it because their constituents supported it.
"The tariff of 1828 was the law of the land, and South Carolinians were the authors of its worst abominations." [William W. Freehling, _Prelude to Civil War: The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina, 1816-1836,_ p. 137]
His Satanic Majesty was playing both sides against the middle. He was involved in crafting the tariff from the beginning, then he opposed it. He manufactured the crisis in order to give slaveholding states a weapon they could use against some future move to abolish slavery--nullification.
"Many clauses of the Constitution, if interpreted with the slightest latitude, gave Congress at least the power to debate slavery. If Congress can appropriate money for anything it deems in the general welfare, William Smith liked to ask, why can't a northern majority appropriate funds to abolish slavery?" [William W. Freehling, _Prelude to Civil War: The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 1816-1836,_ p. 111]
"In 1827 the American Colonization Society dispatched a petition to Congress which inaugurated its campaign for a federal appropriation. . . . to tidewater aristocrats, the colonization petition seemed teh fatal 'entering wedge' which, if not met at the 'threshold,' would clear the way for abolition. A colonization appropraition would set the vital constitutional precedent, for if Congress could promote the general welfare by colonizing free Negroes, it could also promote the general welfare by freeing Negro slaves. 'The only safety of the Southern States,' Hayne argued, 'is to be found in the want of power on the part of the Federal Government to touch the subject at all.' " [Ibid., p. 122]
Robert J. Turnbull, a South Carolina low country planter and pamphleteer, wrote a series of essays called _The Crisis._ Turnbull believed tariffs and internal improvements were dangerous because "acquiescence in these measures, on the part of the State sovereignties, sanctions . . . the constitutional right to legislate on the local concerns of the States." "... these words 'general welfare' are becoming every day more and more important to the folks, who are now so peacably raising their cotton and rice, between the Little Pedee and the Savannah. The question, it must be recollected, is not simply, whether we are to have a foreign commerce. It is not whether we are to have splendid national works, in which we have no interest, executed chiefly at our cost. . . . It is not whether we are to be taxed without end. . . . But the still more interesting question is, whether the institutions of our forefathers . . . are to be preserved . . . free from the rude hands of innovators and enthusiasts, and from the molestation or interference of any legislative power on earth but our own?" [Robert J. Turnbull, "The Crisis," pp. 12-14, 64, 139 quoted in William J. Freehling, _Prelude to Civil War: The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina, 1816-1836,_ p. 127]
The attack on the tariff was in reality, then, an indirect defense of the institution of slavery.
Calhoun himself discounted the tariff as the real cause of the Nullification Crisis:
"I consider the Tariff, but as the occasion, rather than the real cause of the present unhappy state of things. The truth can no longer be disguised, that the peculiar domestick [sic] institutions of the Southern States, and the consequent direction which that and her soil and climate have given to her industry, has placed them in regard to taxation and appropriation in opposite relation to the majority of the Union; against the danger of which, if there be no protective power in the reserved rights of the states, they must in the end be forced to rebel, or submit to have . . . their domestick [sic] institutions exhausted by Colonization and other schemes, and themselves & children reduced to wretchedness." [John C. Calhoun to Virgil Maxcy, 11 Sep 1830]
The Nullification Controversy was more about protecting slavery than anything else:
"The same doctrines 'of the general welfare' which enable the general government to tax our industry for the benefit of the industries of other sections of this Union, and to appropriate the common treasure to make roads and canals for them, would authorize the federal government to erect the peaceful standard of servile revolt, by establishing colonization offices in
our State, to give the bounties for emancipation here, and transportation to Liberia afterwards. The last question follows our giving up the battle on the other two, as inevitably as light flows from the sun." [James Hamilton to John Taylor, 14 Sep 1830]
And as we've seen, this is completely bogus, since the south only consisted of 29% of the population of the United States, and of that, 40% were slaves. So they didn't pay most of the tariff. They didn't use imported goods, so the tariff had no effect on what they bought. There was no effect on exports, so it didn't affect their sales of cotton.
McDuffie, of course, being the author of the "40-bale" propaganda piece. Freehling takes it apart completely, showing it's based on poor economics and unsupported by actual trade practices.
Freehling especially contradicts past statements by DiLiarenzo and Adams when he explains McDuffie's "forty-bale theory."
"The forty-bale theory was based on the notion that all the confusion about protective tariffs stemmed from one misleading fallacy. Southern producers assumed that the cash they received for their crop was derived from the sale of cotton in England. But in reality, claimed McDuffie, England shipped manufactured goods, rather than cash across the Atlantic to pay for cotton. As a result, the money dispatched to southern cotton planters was the proceeds of the sale of English manufactured goods in America. To take a hypothetical example, the planter exchanged his one hundred bales of cotton for one hundred pieces of cloth in Europe, and exchanged the European cloth for cash in America. The process was obscured by the intervention of merchants. But the merchants were merely agents who traded the raw cotton in Europe, sold the manufactured cloth in America, and forwarded the proceeds to the planter.
"Since foreign trade essentially involved an exchange of raw cotton for manufactured cloth, continued McDuffie, a protective tariff cut the exchangeable value of the southern staple. If no tariff was in effect, the planter could send his one hundred bales abroad and sell his one hundred pieces of cloth at home. But if a 40-percent tariff was enacted, the planter would have to pay forty pieces of cloth at the customhouse and would have only sixty pieces left to sell.
"The planter could not pass the tax on to consumers by charging higher prices for the surviving sixty pieces. McDuffie believed that the price of a commodity was dependent on the iron laws of supply and demand. Prices went up if the amount of goods available declined or if the amount of money in the economy increased. Tariffs did not change the domestic price because they had no effect on either the supply of cloth or the amount of money. Imagine an economy with one hundred dollars available to purchase cloth and one hundred pieces imported. A 40-percent tariff would neither augment nor decrease the one hundred dollars purchasers would use. Since the government would sell the forty pieces and the planter his sixty pieces, one hundred pieces of cloth would remain on the market. Thus the planter would receive sixty dollars for his sixty pieces. The intervention of merchants again obscured the process. But the merchants remained no more than agents who sold the one hundred pieces of cloth for one hundred dollars, handed forty dollars to the customs collector, and passed the loss on to the cotton planter by dispatching only sixty dollars. Therefore, McDuffie triumphantly concluded, a 40-percent tariff robbed the planter of forty bales per hundred!" [William J. Freehling, _Prelude to Civil War: The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina, 1816-1836,_ pp. 194-195]
So, if I read all this right, Calhoun was basically interested in preserving the South, its institutions, and its colored folks from being spirited away on some Middle Passage or other... back to Liberia..
He was getting crafty, if I read this right, and he wanted to see the tariff defeated completely by virtue of its lack of virtues. So, what, then? Not enough Southerners in on the ploy? Some good hearted yankees (ahem) voting against their own best interests - still not enough to defeat it?
That's what I like about your world, Cash! Innocent, open-faced yankees with not a shred of guile in them!
I knew it was one of those Liberals... I should have guessed Lincoln, because that's what he tried to do to the South; enslave them!
And I am certain this is what you are doing most of the time when you try to discuss or prove a point when it comes to historical event. You're guessing without doing any of the basic research that would save you from such displays of lack of historical knowledge.
As to your new quote, I don't think any one person could claim that.
It is certainly a given, if you are speaking of history.
Again, a little research, a bit of work with your search engine, and you would have seen this quote was one of Lincoln's also.
Real History is a redundancy. False history is propaganda.
Real History is not a redundancy, it is fragile, perishable, and damages easily with false handling and twisting of it's true content. It must be constantly rechecked, reviewed and defended because of the seemingly endless parade of fools who wish to advance some sort of personal agenda at it's expense.
History to some people is just that; His Story...
Only to those who again wish to CHANGE history to make it "His Story" to suit their personal views, meet their personal needs or advance a twisted agenda.
I am afraid that, in this Apocrypha-versus-Apocrypha we seem to be presenting each other, I have to hold your side accountable for the problem.
My side? You mean the vast legions of a secret Northern brotherhood, bent on hiding the REAL reasons of the Civil War? My secret contacts among Northern Historians who flood the bookstores with their coordinated, PC correct version of that time? Bent on advancing their Liberal, Humanistic, Godless social agenda? Along with my sworn allies of Capitalist, money-grubbing, industrial leaders who must keep the South in eternal darkness so that I, and they, can vacation in warmer, cheaper climes? I'll pass the word along that they & I have been found out and we must ready our "side" for renewed investigation.
I am not learned, as I have said, elsewhere, heretofore. I am able to endure the blatant attitudes with which I am continually met, in presenting what I have read on the subject...
Yet you can seem to find endless amounts of revisionist words that add up to nothing in a historically driven debate, but sound nice to the converted.
I can clearly see where the Rebels find what they call Yankee Arrogance, (I refer to certain among us who remind me of a Yankee drill instructor I had in police school), although I tend to see it more as a
self-satisfied air, (completely unearned, unless you see this as a competition of some sort between us)...
And sadly, I can find nothing "Southern" in your attempt to divide and conquer those who have used honest history when answering your attempts to further a version of history that won't fly, no matter how big the wings you try to glue on that neoconfederate rock.
but still, if you indeed do have the TRUTH, you do not publish your findings and speak against this back and forth... (unless, of course, you just enjoy the banter).
So in order to have the TRUTH, we must publish. And of course after we publish, another standard will be raised because we all know this "banter" we do back and forth is simply Yankee propaganda anyway.
But if you guys are truly are the all-knowing, all-wise Gray Counsel, I would say that it is your duty to put forth your efforts. Have you published? Or, will you be like Michelangelo, and die with 25,000 gold pieces and no disciples to carry on your work?
And your great work is? One does not have to publish a book to recognize truth, or more to the point, stated, recorded, historical fact. Even one of a Celtic background should be aware of that.
Think what he could have done had he started an institute!
Think of all the bandwidth that could be saved at this board is there was a sarcasm filter!
But he was not immortal enough to share what he knew.
And unless one wanders into here, he does not get benefit of your vast posting experiences...
It is here where the "vast posting experience" is needed most, and at boards just like this one.
Too often baseless and poorly researched versions of history are tossed around the internet on boards like this and too many who do not know the history of the time are likely to come away with not just a wrong impression, but a complete distortion of American History.
And the history of the American Civil War is simply too important to be left laying around for anyone to come along and treat it like its silly putty, to be stretched and twisted into any shape someone likes better than the original.
Lessons will be lost and have to be retaught, over and over again, with possible tragic outcomes.
Do the research. Apply yourself. Have the courage to step outside that world you have created and gotten comfortable with. Add to your library, if for no other reason so you can 'know your enemy' on the 'other side.'
Or so that at least you'll know whose quotes are being given.
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
