Posted on 04/29/2003 1:36:59 PM PDT by jgrubbs
(March 2, 1861), law passed to increase tariff rates in an effort to help business because of poor economic conditions during the Civil War. The rates were gradually increased during and after the conflict, bringing in revenue to help pay for the war.
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/gahff/html/ff_129200_morrilltarif.htm
The U.S. House of Representatives, under the influence of this Northern protectionist lobby, "actually passed the Morrill tariff in its 1859-60 session, prior to the departure of southern congressman from the House of Representatives," write McGuire and Van Cott (emphasis added). "This vote took place on 10 May 1860, well before Lincoln's election, Confederate secession, and Lincoln's inauguration."
This suggests that the Morrill Tariff was not a "war tariff" put into place to finance the war but the usual kind, designed to thwart free trade and plunder consumers, especially Southern consumers. This bill was passed a month before the first shot of the Civil War was even fired.
Moreover, the House vote of 105-64 was very lopsided in terms of Northern supporters and Southern opponents of the Morrill Tariff (Congressman Justin Morrill was a steel manufacturer from Vermont). "Only one yes vote was from a secessionist state (Tennessee)" and "only 15 no votes came from northern states."
Or that the war was fought to free the slaves!
"The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty."
~ Karl Marx
[insert honey-drippiing Southern accent here] Well, ahem.........that would be the "War OF Northern Aggression", sugah.
The same way the Japanese won WW-II in the Pacific... in the long run. (Or so it appeared before the Japanese economic boom went bust. Sometimes I think it was the Red Chinese who actually one the war, mostly by fighting the Nationalist Chinese with more vigor and resources than they fought the Japanese)
Never mind the fact that the President at the time broke a truce that he wouldn't send troops and sent them anyway. Never mind the fact that installation was there for one reason and one reason only. Hint, it wasn't there to free slaves. Make people slaves perhaps, but not free them.
Of course you need to post a link to your book so everyone can order a copy. We all know how unbiased it is.....
And let's not forget the Republican/Whig/Federalist party at the time was the party of big government and the Democrats were the conservatives.
That was our last year in government schools. Nobody cared that this BS was in a textbook as fact. Not the teacher, not the curriculum specialist at the district office, not nobody.
No, much better to enslave the whole population. That's more Stalinist, eh? BTW, o great one, perhaps you could point to us which President instituted the first federal income tax? Why did he do that? Hmmmm, not enough money coming from the tariffs? Why where did the tariff money go if all the tariffs were coming from the north? And tell us, where exactly did the national debt go in a four scant years? And please spare us the crap of lincoln giving a dern about blacks or slaves of any color. His own words time and time again prove that to be false.
And I gather you think it was okey-dokey for US troops to invade, burn private housing, rape women of both races, and kill innocent civilians
-Gen. P. Cleburne
Have you heard the Battle Hymn of the Republic? "As He died to make men holy, / let us die to make men free, / While God is marching on." That's what the Union soldiers were singing.
Actually, that quote is out of context. It has been circulated out of context for decades largely in an attempt to invoke the negative and disreputable association that Marx brings to the side of the war he supported. In reality Marx did NOT believe anything of that quote and in fact argued at length against that assertion. He wholly embraced Lincoln's side in the war and thought it to be the next revolutionary phase of the proletariat in America. Here is the full quote in context:
"For months the leading weekly and daily papers of the London press have been reiterating the same litany on the American Civil War. While they insult the free states of the North, they anxiously defend themselves against the suspicion of sympathising with the slave states of the South. In fact, they continually write two articles: one article, in which they attack the North, and another article, in which they excuse their attacks on the North. In essence the extenuating arguments read: The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war is, further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery and in fact turns on Northern lust for sovereignty." - Karl Marx, editorial of October 25, 1861
Cut the modern comparative crap. You made a comment to billbears alleging of him that he believed in shooting US troops and hanging people for having a flag - an assertion based entirely upon his position in defense of those who fired upon an those troops at a time in our history when they were being used by northern states to invade and conquer southern states. He responded by simply noting the irrefutable historical fact that some of those soldiers, while engaged in that act of invasion, also participated in arson, rape, theft, and murder against the civilian population of those same states. If you believe than any such action is a legitimate and permissable exercise of the United States Army, be it in 1863 or 2003, I invite you to declare so and defend that position. Otherwise, quit attempting to excuse away the criminal acts of sinful individuals from a century ago with a false cloak of modern Iraqi-war patriotism.
Note also that, after he was freed, he became an advisor to Croesus, King of Lydia, by whom he was much appreciated. Aftwer his death, a statue was erected in his honor in Athens.
Huh, you call that a boook? I read Webster's Third International Dictionary from cover to cover in the 1960's; now, that's a Booook.
Religion was by no means the exclusive domain of yankeeland. Southern symbolism relied heavily upon Christian imagery, from Deo Vindice to the chorus from the southern version of Battle Cry of Freedom: "Our Dixie forever, she is never at a loss Down with the tyrant and up with the cross."
In fact, most of the southern religious imagery came from a mainstream protestant tradition. This contrasts heavily with the most prominent yankee pronouncements of religion - the "Battle Hymn," which came strait out of the bowels of left wing New England Unitarianism, and the speeches of a president who, though very familiar with the Bible, is not known to have ever displayed a strong or genuine affiliation to religious practice itself.
Ruh, roh! I called myself proofreading, but you know those OOOOs just run together after awhile! LOL!
BINGO!!!!!! Besides, Thomas Jefferson was leader of the original "Republican-Democrat" party, which became the Democratic party of the day. The Black Republican party of Lincoln (protectionist/anti-constitutional socialists) morphed into todays Dims.
The largest military force used by the US up to that time was about 11K - yet Lincoln asked for 75K. Lincoln attacked property legally belonging to SC (the terms of cession to the federal government had been violated). And Lincoln lied to the peace commissioners when attacking (just like the Japanese in WWII!)
The rebel government was raising an army of 100,000 men when President Lincoln called for 75,000 militia.
U.S. Army size in 1860 was @ 17K. Most of the army was on the frontier. For instance, the U.S. armory at Pensacola was maintained by an ordnance sergeant and his wife.
Walt
As you well know, President Lincoln refused to meet with any rebel commissioners or even consider them as anything except private citizens.
Seward met with the commissioners without recognizing them as officials.
If you read "The Coming Fury" by Bruce Catton, he says that the Lincoln administration continued unchanged the Buchanan policy of not recognizing the validity of the rebel government.
Lincoln never made any secret of his plans or intentions, as this correspondence to War Dep't clerk Robert Chew shows:
"Washington, April 6. 1861
Sir--
You will proceed directly to Charleston, South Carolina; and if, on your arrival there, the flag of the United States shall be flying over Fort-Sumpter, and the Fort shall not have been attacked, you will procure an interview with Gov. Pickens, and read to him as follows: "I am directed by the President of the United States to notify you to expect an attempt will be made to supply Fort-Sumpter with provisions only; and that, if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or amunition, without will be made, without further notice, or in case of an attack upon the Fort"
After you shall have read this to Governor Pickens, deliver to him the copy of it herein enclosed, and retain this letter yourself--
But if, on your arrival at Charleston, you shall ascertain that Fort-Sumpter shall have been already evacuated, or surrendered, by the United States force; or, shall have been attacked by an opposing force, you will seek no interview with Gov. Pickens, but return here forthwith-- [On Following Sheet:]
I am directed by the President of the United States to notify you to expect an attempt will be made to supply Fort-Sumpter with provisions only; and that, if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or amunition will be made, without further notice, or in case of an attack upon the Fort--
[Endorsed on Envelope by Lincoln:]
Notice carried by R. S. Chew to Gov. Pickens, and his report2 as to how he gave the notice--
Charleston S. C. April 8th 1861
To The President
Under the foregoing orders I left Washington at 6 P.M. Saturday April 6th, 1861, in company with Capt. Theodore Talbot, U. S. Army, and arrived at Charleston, S. C. on Monday at the same hour. Finding that Fort Sumter had neither been surrendered, evacuated nor attacked, I immediately thro' Capt. Talbot, requested an interview with Governor Pickens, which was at once accorded to me, and I then read to him the portion of said orders in italics, and delivered to him the copy of the same which was furnished to me for that purpose, in the presence of Capt Talbot. Govr. Pickens received the Copy and said he would submit it to General Beauregard, he having, since the ratification of the Constitution of the Confederate States by South Carolina, been placed in charge of the Military operations in this vicinity-- Genl. Beauregard was accordingly sent for, and the Governor read the paper to him. In reply to a remark made by Governor Pickens in reference to an answer I informed him that I was not authorised to receive any communication from him in reply--
Respectfully submitted
R. S. Chew
War Department
Washington, April 6, 1861."
You've seen all this before, but you still spout your lies.
Walt
How, EXACTLY, were the terms of the land sale violated by the Federal government?
No, it was federal property free and clear. The feds refused to build the fort unless clear title was conveyed, which it was in 1841.
"In the specific case of Fort Sumter, in 1827, the Secretary of War, a man named John C. Calhoun (!) had approved the construction of a new fort in the harbor. The first appropriations were made by Congress in 1828 and construction started on the harbor shoal. In November, 1834, after the Untied States had expended roughly $200,000, a person named Major William Laval, Esq., claimed title to the land & which included the under-construction fort.
A South Carolina statute passed in 1791 established a method by which the state disposed of its vacant lands (we tend to forget that much of the territory of the states was empty in the Nineteenth Century: in the original thirteen states, this land was held by the states; in the remaining part of the country, it was held by the Federal government, except in Texas, where the public lands were retained by the state when it was admitted). Laval used the law to claim title to the land – but he described it in a vague manner and given the lack of decent maps of any of the country, his vagueness hid the exact location of the tract he claimed.
When Laval appeared on the scene, he Corps of Engineers stopped work and asked for instructions. It appeared that Laval had filed a proper claim for the land except that the land was below low tide and therefore exempt from purchase.
Well South Carolina was aghast! They did not want to lose the fort to protect themselves, nor the payrolls that would come with the completed fort.
The result was a state law:
December 31st, 1836
The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:
Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.
Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.
Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.
Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:
T. W. GLOVER, C. H. R.”
IN SENATE, December 21st, 1836
Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order: JACOB WARLY, C. S.
Poor Maj. Laval lost his scheme to blackmail the United States!
For those wishing to further pursue the ownership of Fort Sumter, et. al, most college and university libraries will have American State Papers: Documents Legislative and Executive of the Congress of the United States, Military Affairs, vol. 5, Twenty-third Congress, Second Session, No. 591, The Construction of Fort Sumter, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina,pp 463-472.
The War Department became concerned in the 1890s that they might not have clear title to all of their various installations, so they had a civilian attorney in the Judge Advocate General’s office research the chain of title. Fortunately for us, not only were the various National Cemeteries still War Department properties, but so were most of the forts used in the early Republic, the Civil War and the Indian Wars.
The result was James B. McCrellis, Military Reservations, National Military Parks, and National Cemeteries. Title and Jurisdiction, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1898. If you can not locate a hard copy, CIS has copied McCrellis on microfiche: U.S. Executive Branch Documents, 1789-1909: War Department, W 1002.8."
-- from the moderated ACW newsgroup
I don't believe the rebels even claimed title to the fort. They thought pulling a gun would suffice, just as a common criminal would.
Walt
He knows better.
Apparently, any lie will do if it serves the cause of southern heritage.
Walt
Oh right, like you have any credibility or any historical knowledge, oh ye who had no knowledge of the history of Japanese atrocities against civilian populations in Asia.
And I gather you think it was okey-dokey for US troops to invade, burn private housing, rape women of both races, and kill innocent civilians
You can't invade your own country.
Private property was largely not burned in federal operations in the south. There was nothing done by federal troops to match the burning of Chambersburg, PA by rebel forces, for instance.
There were few rapes and almost no murders of citizens by federal forces. There was certainly nothing to match the actions of rebel forces at Lawrence, KS.
Rebel forces murdered Union POW's on numerous occasions. There is no parallel with that on the Union side.
Although many civilians were detained under suspension of habeas corpus by the federal government, all were released unharmed. One the other hand, over 50 loyal Union men were hanged by rebel officials simply for remaining loyal to the old flag.
In many ways, the rebels were just as brutal as the Nazis, in spite of the campaign of disinformation that is ongoing in their behalf.
Walt
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.