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.
First, some public property is not moveable, and thus must be occupied by the State authorities eventually, and can only be resolved by negotiation.
John, are you talking about some "Federal" public property is not moveable? If so, which document says that Federal property in a state that is "not movable" , therefore "must be occupied by the State authorities eventually..."? I was just curious as to which US document contains that sentence, or are you referring to a state document?
So are you talking about "unmoveable Federal public property" located within a state boundary, or unmoveable property that is not Federal?
Terry
__________________ "In this great struggle, this form of Government and every form of human right is endangered if our enemies succeed. There is more involved in this contest than is realized by every one." Abraham Lincoln - August 18, 1864 Speech to the 164th Ohio Regiment
RED = Items that would be purchased primarily by Southerners...
....since the same are produced and readily available in the North (no need to buy an import).
In reviewing the top five categories it appears the South would have purchased...
* the great majority of cotton and woollen goods......
* most of the sugar imports......
* and a larger than proportionate share of the coffee and silk items.
~~~
1860 Imports (Value in Millions of $)
Woollen goods (37.9)....Domestic Production: North $63.5 million......South $2 million
Silk goods (32.9)..........Domestic Production: North $5,920,571......South $0
Cotton goods (32.5)......Domestic Production: North $107.7 million......South $8.1 million
Sugar (31.0)................Domestic Production: North $31,759,697......South $328,937
Coffee (21.8)...............Domestic Production: North $4,012,472......South $27,800
Iron, steel mfrs. (21.5)
Linens (10.7)
Hides & skins, raw (10.5)
Tea (8.9)
Specie & bullion (8.5)
Tobacco mfrs. (6.0) Tin mfrs. (5.8)
Molasses (5.2)
Spirits, distilled (5.1)
Leather mfrs. (5.1)
Wool, raw (4.8)
Wines (4.7) Chinaware (4.5)
Fruits, dried & green (4.2)
Laces (4.0) Clocks & watches (2.9)
Linseed (2.7)
Soda (ash, sal & carb) (2.5) Glass (2.1)
Clothing, ready made (2.1)
Gunny cloth & bags (2.0)
Lead mfrs. (1.8)
Furs (1.8)
Jewelry, gems (1.7)
Rubber mfrs. (1.6) Hats & bonnets (1.6)
Copper (1.6)
Rags (1.5)
Salt (1.4)
Indigo (1.4)
Silk, raw (1.3)
Spices (1.1)
Hemp mfrs. (1.1)
Saltpetre (1.1)
Unidentified (20.4) "Articles from British Provinces"
Ole, the argument is bonafide for two reasons. First, some public property is not moveable, and thus must be occupied by the State authorities eventually, and can only be resolved by negotiation. The moveable Federal property was certainly a worthy item of discussion. But the Federal government, in refusing to order Anderson back to Moultrie, told every other Southern Governor not to wait for the Federal authorities to act honestly. The message of Sumter to the Southern authorities was, they must act first, and not rely on Federal honesty.
Even if it were true that some public property must eventually be occupied by the state authorities, the time for negotiation is before that property is siezed, not after. We're talking about theft here, and you're talking about negotiating for the stolen property. Unbelievable!
I do wish you'd look up the agreement to maintain the status quo regarding Moultrie and the movement to Sumter -- in the words of an old friend by "stealth of night." Then determine Anderson's orders with regard to remaining at Moultrie. You've said that this and that might not be true, but they felt that it was (and therefore rest your case). Anderson felt very strongly that his little command was in danger at Moultrie, so he moved it to Sumter which at the time seemed safer. His orders permitted him to do so. In the dark of night? He feared his movement would be fired upon; night seems a good idea to me.
I'm personally puzzled how an obviously learned, articulate person can justify the theft of public property by holding the representatives of that public responsible for refusing to negotiate with the thieves. I'd accept that what they did was inadvisable but justified -- it was a logical thing to do under the circumstances. But to hold the owners responsible for not negotiating is quite overboard.
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
I'm personally puzzled how an obviously learned, articulate person can justify the theft of public property by holding the representatives of that public responsible for refusing to negotiate with the thieves.
Well put, Ole. Or it could be said this way:
"Well, the reason we took your stuff....is, like, you wouldn't meet with us to discuss how we were gonna take possession of your stuff."
TW
__________________ "In this great struggle, this form of Government and every form of human right is endangered if our enemies succeed. There is more involved in this contest than is realized by every one." Abraham Lincoln - August 18, 1864 Speech to the 164th Ohio Regiment
I suggest the way you see it is just like Lincoln described it to a crowd during one of his speeches.
"Abraham Lincoln, making speeches in New England, used a story to illustrate how such big money interferes with understanding. There was, said Lincolon, an argument between two pastors. One pointed to a word in the Bible. "Do you see that word?" "Yes, of course." Then the first pastor put a gold coin over the word. "Do you see it now?" Lincoln's New England audiences, like the one at New Haven, would begin to laugh in anticipation of his application of this joke even before he stated it.
"Whether the owners of this species of property [slaves] do really see it as it is," Lincoln went on, "it is not for me to say, but if they do, they see it as it is through 2,000,000,000 of dollars, and that is a pretty thick coating." The audience laughed. "Certain it is," Lincoln continued, "that they do not see it as we see it. Certain it is, that this two thousand million of dollars, invested in this species of property, all so concentrated that the mind can grasp it at once--this immense pecuniary interest, has its influence upon their minds."
The tariff was not the 'coin' covering the words of the Constitution, slavery was. The attempt to inflate the tariff as such and all the arguments, theories, charts and schedules, when boiled down to the one essential fact is, it was not enough to bring about the bloodshed you claim it did.
You, as they could not then, 'do not see it as we see it.'
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
I have read your post #100 and I must admit I was going to type out a long and detailed reply. But I feel it would just be a waste of bandwith and I do not want to bore you with a lot of details you would reject in any case. Sometimes the simplest answer is the best.
Yes, my mind is closed, especially when it comes to the idea that the tariff is the cause of the war. I do not consider this fact one to be sad about, as my mind became closed to this idea after much study and research. I tend to consider it 'reaching a conclusion' rather that a 'closed mind'. Just I consider you mind closed on the subject of slavery. You have reached a conclusion and will not consider any others if it detracts from it. And trust me, I am not 'sad' that you have closed yours, as it is your right and choice to do so.
It is my prediction that we are both going to be losing our patience over the subject of slavery and the tariff, but that's fine, as we both pretty much seem to have already made them up on the subjects. It's true, my 'record' is pretty much listed here on this board for all to see and it would be pretty hard to draw any other conclusion that I am going to change my mind any time soon. I am a very stubborn man, once I have made up my mind, but that's my problem, my cross to bear, which I will do gladly, as it is mine and mine alone.
As for people lying about dead soldiers and their motives in order to further a modern agenda, it is remarkable how much we think alike on this subject, as I feel that some of those who advance the theory of the tariff as a cause of the war are doing exactly the same thing. Twisting history in order to defend a dishonourable goal. But, as you have observed, that is my own take on the situation.
I will abide by your request to place on another thread, those utterances I find concerning those who said the war was about slavery and I will try to meet your conditions you set in your post.
And I will also agree with your statement that there is a big difference in secession as a means of defending slavery and the idea that the states seceding because they were tired of being 'milked for cash.' One I believe, the other I do not.
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
John, are you talking about some "Federal" public property is not moveable? If so, which document says that Federal property in a state that is "not movable" , therefore "must be occupied by the State authorities eventually..."? I was just curious as to which US document contains that sentence, or are you referring to a state document?
So are you talking about "unmoveable Federal public property" located within a state boundary, or unmoveable property that is not Federal?
Terry
Terry, I was not quoting any document. The words are mine. What I had in mind was places like Fort Sumter. It is not moveable.
The best that can be done with it (from the US persepctive) is to get reimbursement for the expense of building it.
As for moveable property, (e.g. equipment in arsenals, etc.), that could be removed.
Hope this helps explain my poor wording.
Resectfully,
John Taylor
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
Yep. Just as when the Confederacy imposed tariffs on US goods in February of 1861, the immediate effect was to raise the prices Confederate consumers paid on goods not previously taxed. Europeans *might* decide to ship goods there for sale in the future because their rate was lowered slightly -- or they *might not*. Americans *might* decide to lower their prices there for sale in the future -- or they *might not*. But the immediate and short-term effect is merely to take money out of the pocket of the Southern consumer.
Regards,
Tim
Tim, the larger the market, the greater the elasticity of supply. If your were going to buy a commodity, and, for some reason, you decided only to purchase a commodity in your township, the likelihood of getting it cheap is low. If you are willing to purchase anywhere in your county, then you are more likely to get cheaper. If you are willing to purchase from anywhere in New Jersey, your odds get better. If you are willing to buy from anywhere in the US, your odds get pretty good.
By getting out of the relatively small US customs market, lowering tariffs, and opening their market to world-wide competition, the Confederates were more likely to get their commodities at lower prices, because they would be accessing the world-wide elsticity of supply, whereas, stying in the US, they would be restricted to the US elasticity of supply.
In the example I used with Neil, the size of the customs market is staying the same, only tariffs are going up. The two situations are not analogous.
Respectfully,
John Taylor
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
Yes, my mind is closed, especially when it comes to the idea that the tariff is the cause of the war. I do not consider this fact one to be sad about, as my mind became closed to this idea after much study and research. I tend to consider it 'reaching a conclusion' rather that a 'closed mind'. Just I consider you mind closed on the subject of slavery. You have reached a conclusion and will not consider any others if it detracts from it. And trust me, I am not 'sad' that you have closed yours, as it is your right and choice to do so.
Neil, convictions, based on study, are not bad things. But they are different from closed-mindedness. Holding an informed opinion means that you are still open to new information. Having a closed mind means that no new information is going to get in, no matter what. That is a sad thing, in my view. I think I am convicted. As I said, if you have new info, lay it on me. Your views seems closed-minded. You said that no info could change your mind. I hope I am wrong about your view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unionblue
As for people lying about dead soldiers and their motives in order to further a modern agenda, it is remarkable how much we think alike on this subject, as I feel that some of those who advance the theory of the tariff as a cause of the war are doing exactly the same thing. Twisting history in order to defend a dishonourable goal. But, as you have observed, that is my own take on the situation.
The difference is that I quote from the record, and I am open to further looking at the record. My views are liable to modification. You have indicated that your views are not open to modification. That is a critical difference. And I am not trying to be holier than thou. I just wish that your mind was open to new info, and your views subject to modification. That doesn't mean that your views must change, or even will change, just that you are willing to critically examine the record with an open mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unionblue
I will abide by your request to place on another thread, those utterances I find concerning those who said the war was about slavery and I will try to meet your conditions you set in your post.
I look forward to reading what you have to say. Respectfully, John Taylor
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
