Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Economics of the Civil War
LewRockwell.com ^ | January 13, 2004 | Mark Thornton and Robert Ekelund

Posted on 01/13/2004 9:01:35 AM PST by Aurelius

Dust jackets for most books about the American Civil War depict generals, politicians, battle scenes, cavalry charges, cannons[sic] firing, photographs or fields of dead soldiers, or perhaps a battle between ironclads. In contrast our book {[url=http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=2XGHOEK4JT&isbn=0842029613&itm=7]Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation: The Economics of the Civil War Mark Thornton, Steven E. Woodworth (Editor), Robert B. Ekelund[/url]features a painting by Edgar Degas entitled the "Cotton Exchange" which depicts several calm businessmen and clerks, some of them Degas’s relatives, going about the business of buying and selling cotton at the New Orleans Cotton Exchange. The focus of this book is thus on the economic rationality of seemingly senseless events of the Civil War – a critical period in American history.

What caused the war? Why did the Union defeat the Confederacy? What were the consequences of the War? The premise of the book is that historians have a comparative advantage in describing such events, but economists have the tools to help explain these events.

We use traditional economic analysis, some of it of the Austrian and Public Choice variety, to address these principal questions and our conclusions generally run counter to the interpretations of historians. In contrast to historians who emphasize the land war and military strategy, we show that the most important battle took place at sea. One side, the blockade runners, did not wear uniforms or fire weapons at their opponents. The other side, the blockading fleet, was composed of sailors who had weapons and guns but they rarely fired their cannons in hopes of damaging their opponents. Their pay was based on the valued of captured ships. Historians often have argued that the Confederacy lost because it was overly reluctant to use government power and economic controls, but we show the exact opposite. Big Confederate government brought the Confederacy to its knees.

Some now teach that slavery was the sole cause of the Civil War – an explanation that historians have developed in the twentieth century. However, this analysis does not explain why the war started in 1861 (rather than 1851 or 1841) and it fails to explain why slavery was abolished elsewhere without such horrendous carnage.

We emphasize economics and politics as major factors leading to war. The Republicans who came to power in 1860 supported a mercantilist economic agenda of protectionism, inflation, public works, and big government. High tariffs would have been a boon to manufacturing and mining in the north, but would have been paid largely by those in the export-oriented agriculture economy.

Southern economic interests understood the effects of these policies and decided to leave the union. The war was clearly related to slavery, but mainly in the sense that Republican tariffs would have squeezed the profitability out of the slave-based cotton plantation economy to the benefit of Northern industry (especially Yankee textiles and iron manufacturing). Southerners would also have lost out in terms of public works projects, government land giveaways, and inflation.

The real truth about wars is that they are not started over principle, but over power. Wars however, are not won by power on the battlefield, but by the workings and incentives of men who go to work in fields and factories, to those who transport, store and sell consumer goods, and most especially to the entrepreneurs and middlemen who make markets work and adapt to change. This emphasis and this economic account of tariffs, blockade and inflation, like the focus of Degas’s "Cotton Exchange" reveals the most important and least understood aspect of war.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: dixie; dixielist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 651-700701-750751-800 ... 1,101-1,131 next last
To: Ditto
the USA was NEVER 1/2 slave & 1/2 free.

your ignorant, arrogant,self-righteous damnyankees don't want to admit that right up until 1866 that THOUSANDS of northern individuals & large companies OWNED SLAVES, including your vaunted GEN U S Grant!

did you think we were too stupid to know those "inconvenient facts"?????

free dixie,sw

701 posted on 01/21/2004 9:18:54 AM PST by stand watie (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. -T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 601 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
perhaps you are partially correct.

LIBERTY, though without question, DIED when Richmond fell.

the WBTS was the end of the FREE REPUBLIC that T. Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton & others believed would ETERNALLY exist.

free dixie,sw

702 posted on 01/21/2004 9:22:08 AM PST by stand watie (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. -T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 613 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
YEP!

free dixie,sw

703 posted on 01/21/2004 9:25:07 AM PST by stand watie (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. -T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 626 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
i'd ADD the northeastern states!

free dixie,sw

704 posted on 01/21/2004 9:26:40 AM PST by stand watie (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. -T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 627 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
No... explain how Jackson was going to get in touch with the Congress and ask them to suspend the Writ -- with no telegraph and the Brits on the doorstep.

Irrelevant.

You wish it was.

It strikes straight to the heart of the matter. The executive (Jackson in this case) must have authority to act in an emergency.

The Constitution nowhere says what the president may or may not do in regard to the Writ. The matter has not been authoritatively decided to this very day.

However, when presented with a real world situation, Congress rewarded Jackson for his actions.

Walt

705 posted on 01/21/2004 9:39:04 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 679 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
It is also incomparable to any situation Lincoln ever faced because where Jackson did not have a telegraph and was hundreds of miles away from the capital building, Lincoln DID have a telegraph and was about half a mile away from the capital building.

The only way that would affect the principle is if the Framers knew about telegraphs when they wrote the Constitution.

Walt

706 posted on 01/21/2004 9:42:36 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 679 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
So your answer is that you would do nothing.
707 posted on 01/21/2004 10:17:39 AM PST by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 697 | View Replies]

To: Conservative til I die
If you had a point I'm afraid you forgot to make it, I guess you just got too wrapped up in trying (unsuccessfully I'm sorry to say) to be funny. But I guess you made yourself laugh.
708 posted on 01/21/2004 10:51:14 AM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 664 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
The only way that would affect the principle is if the Framers knew about telegraphs when they wrote the Constitution.

Not really. They certainly didn't know that Louisiana was going to become a part of the United States when they wrote the Constitution. In fact, the only states back then were all along the coast and at most a few days travel from each other. News could be quickly communicated among the 13 states they knew when they wrote it, so no credible reason exists to even so much as speculate that they would have let the president suspend the writ absent of congressional approval. As for 1860, the telegraph made notice instantaneous so no excuse exists there either.

709 posted on 01/21/2004 11:02:23 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 706 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
You wish it was.

No Walt. It is irrelevant. Jackson exceeded his authority, got fined, OPENLY CONCEDED THAT THE FINE AGAINST HIM WAS PERFECTLY LEGAL AND PAID IT, then some years later got a refund from Congress out of kindness. NOBODY - not even Jackson himself - disputed that the fine was assessed for a legally valid reason. Congress simply said after the fact "yeah, you exceeded your authority but didn't do any harm by it so we forgive you"

It strikes straight to the heart of the matter. The executive (Jackson in this case) must have authority to act in an emergency.

No he doesn't. First off, there is absolutely NO reason why Jackson could not have booked his arrestees with specific charges. Thus his suspension was NOT out of necessity but rather convenience to conduct the very same arrests with less paperwork and without the trouble of having to specify crimes for the detained. Second, when the law struck back at him for suspending the writ he abided by it (unlike Lincoln).

The Constitution nowhere says what the president may or may not do in regard to the Writ.

The Constitution also says nothing about the president having to abide by laws that make murder illegal. Does that mean he can murder anyone he wants?

As for what the Constitution DOES say, it places the suspension power in one place and one place only: the Congress. The matter has not been authoritatively decided to this very day.

Repeat that fib all you desire (and I have no doubt that you will considering that you are an habitual liar) but these authorities all say otherwise:

"The privileges and benefit of the writ of Habeas Corpus shall be enjoyed in this Government, in the most expeditious and ample manner; and shall not be suspended by the Legislature, except upon the most urgent and pressing occasions, and for a limited time not exceeding months." - Charles Pickney, announcing the proposal to limit the suspension of habeas corpus, Constitutional Convention, 1787

"The people by adopting the federal constitution, give congress general powers to institute a distinct and new judiciary, new courts, and to regulate all proceedings in them, under the eight limitations mentioned in a former letter; and the further one, that the benefits of the habeas corpus act shall be enjoyed by individuals." - Richard Henry Lee, Anti-Federalist #16, "Federal Farmer"

"In the same section it is provided, that "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion and invasion, the public safety may require it." This clause limits the power of the legislature to deprive a citizen of the right of habeas corpus, to particular cases viz. those of rebellion and invasion; the reason is plain, because in no other cases can this power be exercised for the general good." - Robert Yates, delegate to the Constitutional Convetion, Anti-Federalist #9, "Brutus"

"The safest and best restriction, therefore, arises from the nature of the cases in which Congress are authorized to exercise that power [of suspending habeas corpus] at all, namely, in those of rebellion or invasion. These are clear and certain terms, facts of public notoriety, and whenever these shall cease to exist, the suspension of the writ must necessarily cease also." - Judge Francis Dana, presenting the Constitution to the Massachusetts Ratification Convention

"In the United States, it can be suspended, only, by the authority of congress; but not whenever congress may think proper; for it cannot be suspended, unless in cases of actual rebellion, or invasion. A suspension under any other circumstances, whatever might be the pretext, would be unconstitutional, and consequently must be disregarded by those whose duty it is to grant the writ." - St. George Tucker, Commentaries, 1803

"The decision that the individual shall be imprisoned must always precede the application for a writ of habeas corpus, and this writ must always be for the purpose of revising that decision, and therefore appellate in its nature. But this point also is decided in Hamilton's case and in Burford's case. If at any time the public safety should require the suspension of the powers vested by this act in the courts of the United States, it is for the legislature to say so. That question depends on political considerations, on which the legislature is to decide." - Justice John Marshall, writing for the majority in Ex Parte Bollman and Swartwout, United States Supreme Court, 1807

"Those respecting the press, religion, & juries, with several others, of great value, were accordingly made; but the Habeas corpus was left to the discretion of Congress, and the amendment against the reeligibility of the President was not proposed by that body." - Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, 1821

"The Constitution seems to have secured this benefit [habeas corpus] to the citizen by the description of the writ, and in an unqualified manner admitting its efficacy, while it declares that it shall not he suspended unless when, in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety shall require it. This writ is believed to be known only in countries governed by the common law, as it is established in England; but in that country the benefit of it may at any time be withheld by the authority of parliament, whereas we see that in this country it cannot be suspended even in cases of rebellion or invasion, unless the public safety shall require it. Of this necessity the Constitution probably intends, that the legislature of the United States shall be the judges. Charged as they are with the preservation of the United States from both those evils, and superseding the powers of the several states in the prosecution of the measures they may find it expedient to adopt, it seems not unreasonable that this control over the writ of habeas corpus, which ought only to be exercised on extraordinary occasions, should rest with them. It is at any rate certain, that congress, which has authorized the courts and judges of the United States to issue writs of habeas corpus in cases within their jurisdiction, can alone suspend their power" - William Rawle, "A View of the Constitution of the United States of America," 1826

"It would seem, as the power is given to congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in cases of rebellion or invasion, that the right to judge, whether exigency had arisen, must exclusively belong to that body." - Justice Joseph Story, "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States," Book 3, Chapter XXXII, § 1336, 1833

"And who could hold for a moment, when the writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended by the legislature itself, either in the general government or most of the States, without an express constitutional permission, that all other writs and laws could be suspended, and martial law substituted for them over the whole State or country, without any express constitutional license to that effect, in any emergency? Much more is this last improbable when even the mitigated measure, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, has never yet been found proper by Congress, and, it is believed, by neither of the States, since the Federal Constitution was adopted." - Justice Levi Woodbury, dissent in Luther v. Borden, United States Supreme Court, 1849

"With such provisions in the constitution, expressed in language too clear to be misunderstood by any one, I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the president, in any emergency, or in any state of things, can authorize the suspension of the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus, or the arrest of a citizen, except in aid of the judicial power. He certainly does not faithfully execute the laws, if he takes upon himself legislative power, by suspending the writ of habeas corpus, and the judicial power also, by arresting and imprisoning a person without due process of law." - Justice Roger B. Taney, Ex Parte Merryman, US Circuit Court of Appeals, 1861

"There has been much discussion concerning the question whether the power to suspend the "privilege of the writ of habeas corpus" is conferred by the Constitution on Congress, or on the President. The only judicial decisions which have been made upon this question have been adverse to the power of the President.Still, very able lawyers have endeavored to maintain -- perhaps to the satisfaction of others -- have maintained, that the power to deprive a particular person of the "privilege of the writ," is an executive power. For while it has been generally, and, so far as I know, universally admitted, that Congress alone can suspend a law, or render it inoperative, and consequently that Congress alone can prohibit the courts from issuing the writ, yet that the executive might, in particular cases, suspend or deny the privilege which the writ was designed to secure. I am not aware that any one has attempted to show that under this grant of power to suspend "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus," the President may annul the laws of States, create new offences unknown to the laws of the United States, erect military commissions to try and punish them, and then, by a sweeping decree, suspend the writ of habeas corpus as to all persons who shall be "arrested by any military authority." I think he would make a more bold than wise experiment on the credulity of the people, who should attempt to convince them that this power is found in the habeas corpus clause of the Constitution. No such attempt has been, and I think none such will be made. And therefore I repeat, that no other source of this power has ever been suggested save that described by the President himself, as belonging to him as commander-in-chief." - Justice Benjamin R. Curtis, "Executive Power," 1862 However, when presented with a real world situation, Congress rewarded Jackson for his actions.

710 posted on 01/21/2004 11:16:27 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 705 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand
I can only speculate on, and I speculate thus: Can't conceive of wages honestly paid ever being lower than slave wages.

The problem with that speculation is that it only considers the cost of wages. While it is true that the price paid for labor itself from a slave (virtually nothing) will be less than the salary of wage labor, the labor costs of the latter more or less end there. Slave labor incurs costs elsewhere in the form of everything from housing, food, clothing, the price of buying a slave itself, and yes - the expenditure of resources on preventing and capturing fugitives. The costs of most of these and other factors were all going up by 1860. So long as that trend continued, substitution to wage labor by economic necessity was only a matter of time.

711 posted on 01/21/2004 11:27:22 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 689 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
What costs were up?

Provision of necessities (housing etc.), deterence and capture of fugitives, cost of acquiring a slave itself.

That can only indicate that they were increasingly more valuable both as labor, and as a self-replicating investment vehicle.

Not necessarily. It could indicate that supply had shifted upward, thus raising the price of a slave for any given level of quantity from where it previously was. It could also indicate that demand for labor was outpacing the supply of one type of labor, in which case a substitute would eventually be sought. Put differently, they were able to buy fewer slaves for the same ammount of money as previously was the case. Since slaves were the labor INPUT to economic production their price is economically considered in production decisions. Production decisions change on any number of circumstances but a common one is substitution. Suppose for example you are a building houses for a living and use concrete bricks, which for some reason are the cheapest types of bricks right now. Also suppose they are the same color gray as any other type of gray bricks and that consumers don't seem to have much of a preference for one or the other - all they care about is getting a brick house as long as its gray. Now suppose that price goes up on gray concrete bricks until they become more expensive than gray ceramic bricks. You have a new house starting that sells for the same price as the old ones and want to get it built as cheaply as possible to reap the most profit. Since the buyer only cares that he gets a gray brick house, do you stick with the more expensive concrete bricks or switch to the cheaper ones?

712 posted on 01/21/2004 11:42:22 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 688 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
The capitol building where no one was home

Actually, the Senate was home until the end of March and could have been easily extended since Lincoln fully knew that a week later he would be starting a war.

while the rebels had sabatours burning the bridges between Philaderlphia and Baltimore that were to only way members of Congress could return to Washington in an expediant manner.

They were? Curious. Cause if I recall correctly, Lincoln quickly amassed an army containing several tens of thousands of soldiers from places as far away as Illinois and Massachusetts. Some of these soldiers were the reason why the bridges were being burned, yet they still made it to Washington. Yet you are apparently telling me that a single congressman could not have done the same thing?

There was no Reagan Ariport or I 95 in those days, ya know.

No, but their were railroads connecting every major city in the country save those on the left coast. There were also steamships serving every port on the east coast with a few days journey in between any two of them at most. The process was quite simple: get a telegram that Congress is to return, hop on a train and make it there in a day or two. If the train isn't working, hop on a ship and get there in three or four. And if the steamship isn't working, hop on the back of a horse and get there in a week.

What would President Bush do if an insurrection broke out in the Washington suburbs today while Congress is out of session?

Simple. Tell them to avoid those suburbs and come into town from the other side of the city. And if that doesn't work, tell them to sail up the Potomac. Either way, not a one of them would have an excuse for arriving much more than a week after the call at most.

713 posted on 01/21/2004 11:50:31 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 685 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
So where does it say that habeas corpus can be suspended only by Congress or through legislation, GOP?

Article I, Section 1 which vests the powers within that article, of which the clause stating "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it" is one, with the Congress.

714 posted on 01/21/2004 11:52:07 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 684 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
So long as that trend continued, substitution to wage labor by economic necessity was only a matter of time.

Show us any data that shows that wage labor was displacing slave labor. In fact, the opposite was happening in the upper south. As demand for farm labor decreased, crafts and manufacturing were slowly moving from wage labor artisans to slaves rented from their rural owners. From craft labor like blacksmiths to shoemakers to common laborers in factories, mines, mills and railroad construction, rented slave labor was in fact replacing wage labor in the upper south. In the lower south, the "opportunity costs" of taking slaves away from the cotton fields was suficiently high that wage labor was less expensive than the price owners would demand for the use of their slaves. That opportunity cost premium is a very far way from wage labor being cheeper than slave labor.

You also highly exaggerate to costs of slave owning. While initial purchase was indeed expensive, estimates of costs of upkeep averaged between $2 and $3 per year per slave. Unless house slaves of a prosperous owner, they only had hand-me down clothing. Food was mostly what the slaves could grow in their "off-hours" with what ever reject scraps of meat the white family didn't want. (Would anyone invent something like chitlens if they had access to a rump roast?) Housing was dirt-floor shacks containing multiple "families". Medical care was spotty at best. There were no educational costs, no luxuries, no entertainment expenses.

715 posted on 01/21/2004 11:59:55 AM PST by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 711 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
The capitol building where no one was home, while the rebels had sabatours burning the bridges between Philaderlphia and Baltimore that were to only way members of Congress could return to Washington in an expediant manner.

The bridge burnings I know of happened about April 20 or so and were designed to prevent another riot in Baltimore. Were there other bridge burnings? Merryman was arrested May 25. Surely there was enough time between April 20 and May 25 to call a quorum of the Congress to consider the suspension of the writ.

The bridges were burned at the order of the mayor and governor. This stopped Northern troops from entering the city and thus stopped the bloodshed that had already occurred (4 troops were killed and 36 wounded while 12 civilians were killed and scores wounded).

Even after the bridge burnings, Northern troops could still get to Washington by simply bypassing the city via Relay House on the Northern Central railroad, which is what they ended up doing as the result of face-to-face negotiations between the mayor and Lincoln.

During the April 19th riot, the mayor himself had had to kill a rioter to help Massachusetts troops get through and the police chief and his men stood between the Baltimorians and the Massachusetts troops. From the report of the commander of the Massachusetts troops:

The mayor of Baltimore placed himself at the head of the column beside Captain Follansbee, and proceeded with them a short distance, assuring him that he would protect them, and begging him not to let the men fire; but the mayor's patience was soon exhausted, and he seized a musket from the hands of one of the men and killed a man therewith, and a policeman, who was in advance of the column, also shot a man with a revolver.

Nevertheless, the mayor of Baltimore was arrested for Southern sympathies in September along with newspaper editors and 30 Maryland legislators. The mayor was imprisoned for 14 months. I'm not sure he was ever charged.

716 posted on 01/21/2004 12:09:09 PM PST by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 685 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
The states freely withdrew their representation when they began their rebellion.

The seceding states voluntarily withdrew I agree.

They willingly participated in the rebellion.

Nope. Only they defended their country from invasion.

They accepted the results of their actions, and that included keeping those who led the rebellion from returning to Congress as if nothing had happened.

The states resumed their seats in the federal congress, after being forced to ratify the 13th amendment as a "condition" of re-admission (find that in the Constitution). After those same states - now re-admittted - failed to ratify the 14th, they were prevented ex post facto from seating their congressmen.

Davis wanted the war. He needed the war. He got the war, and the results of it.

Davis did not want war - he sent peace commissioners to Washington. Lincoln refused to meet them. Lincoln wanted the war. Lincoln needed the war. Lincoln lied to Justice Campbell and the commissioners to get a war.

Negotiate what?

Settlement of disputed items. Renumeration for constuction costs of forts, renumeration for their share of western territories. To avoid bloodshed. Lincoln refused.

717 posted on 01/21/2004 12:27:39 PM PST by 4CJ (||) Dialing 911 doesn't stop a crime - a .45 does. (||)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 693 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
Show us any data that shows that wage labor was displacing slave labor.

The immigration trends for one. Circa 1857 immigration into the southern states, which had been relatively stagnant for a couple decades, began to increase. The economics of immigration dictate that labor moves where opportunity for obtaining wealth exists for the reason that immigrants are utility maximizers (meaning they go where they think they can get a job or make money). The presence of wage jobs accordingly tends to induce immigration to the location of those jobs.

In fact, the opposite was happening in the upper south.

Actually it was the Virginia where the immigration trends most noticeably reversed in the 1850's. Virginia is the largest upper south state, so that appears to contradict your theory.

As demand for farm labor decreased, crafts and manufacturing were slowly moving from wage labor artisans to slaves rented from their rural owners.

Wrong. Skilled labor and craftsmen among the slave population had been commonplace since the mid-1700's when indentured servant artisans took on slaves as apprentices upon their arrival here. All the major plantation houses of architectural significance today from Mount Vernon and Monticello to the lesser known ones on the James River and Potomac had long employed this system. By 1850 it was not replacing farm labor for the reason that craft labor itself was on an even greater economic decline than farm labor due to increased mechanization in the production of former craft goods. It is this same reason why we still have farmers today but we don't have any blacksmiths, exempting of course those wierdos who work at renaissance fairs.

From craft labor like blacksmiths to shoemakers to common laborers in factories, mines, mills and railroad construction, rented slave labor was in fact replacing wage labor in the upper south.

No it wasn't. Craft labor as a whole was on the decline faster than any unskilled labor position. Slave labor had always been used in unskilled construction projects like railroads and buildings.

You also highly exaggerate to costs of slave owning. While initial purchase was indeed expensive, estimates of costs of upkeep averaged between $2 and $3 per year per slave.

Provide your source on that and a breakdown of the costs as well. I ask because it is doubtful they account for non-dollar expenses such as those that may be obtained from the farm itself (i.e. food, which can come from the grown produce of a plantation's domestic garden). You should also note that the seemingly small ammount of 2-3 dollars is the equivalent of about 50 dollars today - still not much, but a heck of a lot more than the tiny $2 per person fee. Multiply that $50 cost by 100-150 slaves and pretty soon you are talking a substantial ammount of money.

Unless house slaves of a prosperous owner, they only had hand-me down clothing.

Even hand-me downs cost something initially and have some value of their own. That aside, much of the slave clothing was NOT hand-me down but rather self-produced by the same slaves who sewed the clothing for the plantation household.

Food was mostly what the slaves could grow in their "off-hours" with what ever reject scraps of meat the white family didn't want. (Would anyone invent something like chitlens if they had access to a rump roast?)

The so-called chitlins, or chitterlings "delicacy," is largely the product of poverty during the post-war economic climate among the black communities. They were the only scraps that they could afford. Food on plantations before the war consisted primarily of the products obtained from the domestic gardens. In this sense many large plantations were like micro-cities that sustained their own populations on what they grew.

Housing was dirt-floor shacks containing multiple "families".

Indeed they were, yet housing still costs something. It should be similarly noted that those shacks were not of substantial difference in quality from the dwellings of most of the working class in that era, be they tenements in the big cities or single room dirt floor cabins in the woods.

Medical care was spotty at best.

Medical care from the era was spotty at best in its entirity for simple lack of knowledge. The assertion that slaves, in most cases, were not provided with what was available defies economic sense because of the investment factor (for example, are you going to deny a slave that cost 100 dollars a dollar's worth of medicine for an illness that prevents him from working or, worse, kills him when untreated?)

718 posted on 01/21/2004 1:08:21 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 715 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
in point of fact, if ANYONE wanted/needed war it was lincoln the tyrant & his henchmen!

President Davis would have done anything HONORABLE to have avoided bloodshed.

sadly, the damnyankee elites wanted a war. for them war was a positive good.

free dixie,sw

719 posted on 01/21/2004 2:09:54 PM PST by stand watie (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. -T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 717 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
The states freely withdrew their representation when they began their rebellion. They willingly participated in the rebellion. They accepted the results of their actions, and that included keeping those who led the rebellion from returning to Congress as if nothing had happened.

Perhaps you'd be interested in the view of the Detroit Free Press about the conditions the Union placed on Southern states (The Memphis Daily Appeal, [Atlanta, Georgia], February 26, 1864):

How the States are Brought Back Into the Union

Not all the Northern papers endorse Lincoln’s farce of "dragooning" the seceded States "back into the Union." The Detroit Free Press (the organ of General Cass) says of the game being played in Arkansas:

The President says to the people of Arkansas: I will allow you to return to the Union, but not under your own Constitution and the Constitution of the United States. You must first join the abolition party, and next you must make – or I will make for you – an abolition Constitution and abolition laws. If you don’t do this, I’ll send an army there to thrash you till you do it. I’ll send Northern politicians to rule you – some consistent bantam like T. W. Lockwood, or some virtuous chieftain like Colonel Dorus Fox [I think he may have been charged with buying commissions]. I’ll make you a Constitution and enforce it upon you by bayonets, and the First Michigan Ethiopian. It is my will, and you must submit. You must accept this "unconditional Unionism." The interests of God and humanity require it, and the people of Massachusetts wish it.


720 posted on 01/21/2004 2:25:22 PM PST by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 693 | View Replies]

To: The Grammarian
A grammarian you may be; a speller you ain't.
721 posted on 01/21/2004 5:41:26 PM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 546 | View Replies]

To: stand watie; WhiskeyPapa
never in US history had an ogre, tyrant & war CRIMINAL been so quickly transformed into a saint.

One has to almost feel sorry for those poor fools, such as WhiskeyPapa, who buy into the propaganda completely and misdirect their admiration to such an unworthy object.

722 posted on 01/21/2004 5:47:37 PM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Main Entry: 1can·non
Pronunciation: 'ka-n&n
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural cannons or cannon

Dictionary.com:

can·non ( P ) Pronunciation Key (knn)
n. pl. cannon or can·nons
723 posted on 01/21/2004 5:51:46 PM PST by The Grammarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 721 | View Replies]

To: The Grammarian
Webster was a damned Yankee. We don't admit his worthless dictionary in our homes, and eschew his vulgar misspellings.
724 posted on 01/21/2004 5:56:19 PM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 723 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist; Non-Sequitur
So where does it say that habeas corpus can be suspended only by Congress or through legislation, GOP?(Non Seq)

Article I, Section 1 which vests the powers within that article, of which the clause stating "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it" is one, with the Congress.(GOPCAPITALIST)

I think it is hard to argue what is or is not in the constitution with someone who can't even admit and even lied about Linclon mentioning the Fugitive Slave Act in his inaugural speech. Like typical liberals, what's there isn't and what is not there is.

How about it Non-Seq, it's only been about a year with no reply on the Fugitive Slave Act issue?

725 posted on 01/21/2004 5:59:32 PM PST by bjs1779
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 714 | View Replies]

To: The Grammarian
"For cultural distinctiveness the LS eschews the use of Webster's so-called "American" English orthography which actually is nothing more than a bastardisation of the proper and correct English language by New England busybodies."

"Whenever possible, we prefer to use the more traditional, antebellum Southern English orthography; widely known to many as the Oxford standard which once saw widespread usage in Dixie prior to the War for Southern Independence and Reconstruction and even some limited use afterwards. This is why you'll see words like "colour" and "organisation" throughout DixieNet instead of the spellings you were taught in school."

..........

" No self-respecting antebellum Southern writer would ever have considered using Webster (for obvious reasons) as a guide."

726 posted on 01/21/2004 6:06:41 PM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 723 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
"Whenever possible, we prefer to use the more traditional, antebellum Southern English orthography; widely known to many as the Oxford standard which once saw widespread usage in Dixie prior to the War for Southern Independence and Reconstruction and even some limited use afterwards. This is why you'll see words like "colour" and "organisation" throughout DixieNet instead of the spellings you were taught in school."

We honour our Lord and Saviour. Southern lexicon bump.

727 posted on 01/21/2004 6:41:25 PM PST by 4CJ (||) Dialing 911 doesn't stop a crime - a .45 does. (||)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 726 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
"Webster was a damned Yankee. We don't admit his worthless dictionary in our homes, and eschew his vulgar misspellings."

Good for you. Since you don't like Merriam-Webster, here's several other dictionaries that say the exact same thing.

Cambridge Online Dictionary (dictionary.cambridge.org; it has connections to Cambridge University in the U.K.):

Definition
cannon (GUN) [Show phonetics]
noun [C] plural cannon or cannons
1 a large, powerful gun fixed to two or four wheels, which fires heavy stone or metal balls, and which was used in the past

Again, Dictionary.com (since you decided to ignore it while you spewed venom against Webster):

can·non ( P ) Pronunciation Key (knn)
n. pl. cannon or can·nons

American-Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (http://www.bartleby.com/61/5/C0070500.html):

SYLLABICATION: can·non
PRONUNCIATION: knn
NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. cannon or can·nons

Wordsmyth.net dictionary:

Pronunciation kae nEn
Inflected Forms cannon [or] cannons
728 posted on 01/21/2004 7:48:02 PM PST by The Grammarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 724 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
[Walt] The Prize Cases majority opinion clearly refers to the Militia Act and says the president has the power under that act to call out the Militia and suppress insurrection and rebellion.

REALITY CHECK: "But by the Acts of Congress of February 28th, 1795, and 3d of March, 1807, he is authorized to call out the militia and use the military and naval forces of the United States in case of invasion by foreign nations, and to suppress insurrection against the government of a State or of the United States."

I prefer to discuss what SCOTUS actually said, rather than to discuss your inaccurate paraphrase. The President may act alone in case of invasion, whether by a foreign nation or by states in rebellion. However, in case of insurrection, action pursuant to the Militia Act requires a state request. What are you going for, Walt? Invasion that did not require a state request, or insurrection that did require such request?

Specifically, SCOTUS partially restated the clause that says: "And, in case of an insurrection in any State against the Government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the Legislature of such State, or of the Executive, (when the Legislature cannot be convened,) to call forth such number of the militia of any other State or States as may be applied for, as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection."

The Militia Act is not involved with the holding in the decision. SCOTUS was extracting Lincoln's chestnuts from the fire. SCOTUS was addressing the question of a blockade which led to the seizure of foreign ships and their cargo. One does not blockade in an insurrection, one closes the ports. A blockade is an act of war. SCOTUS found a war to exist. The ruling explicitly states that the authority to institute the blockade and make it lawful was jus belli or the laws of war.

SCOTUS did --NOT-- apply the Militia Act to the facts of the instant case and find it to have any relevance

Lincoln had cited the Militia Act. SCOTUS incompletely stated the content of the Act, not wanting publicly to make Lincoln look like a fool. That does not change the content of the Act.

AGAIN, HERE IS HOW THE COURT ACTUALLY RULED:

WHAT THE SUPREME COURT SAID:

THE QUESTION:

Mr. Justice GRIER.

There are certain propositions of law which must necessarily affect the ultimate decision of these cases, and many others, which it will be proper to discuss and decide before we notice the special facts peculiar to each.

They are, 1st. Had the President a right to institute a blockade of ports in possession of persons in armed rebellion against the Government, on the principles of international law, as known and acknowledged among civilized States?

THE SUPREME COURT RULING ON THAT QUESTION:

On this first question therefore we are of the opinion that the President had a right, jure belli, to institute a blockade of ports in possession of the States in rebellion, which neutrals are bound to regard.

"The president had a right, jure belli...."

The president had a right pursuant to the laws of war....

[Walt] This is just another case of a neo-reb wanting only part of the record considered. I can't imagine how you expect to sway people when you are so blatantly unfair.

This is just another case of a a Lincoln-pimp deliberately misstating the ruling of the Supreme Court. I can't imagine how you expect to sway people when you are so blatantly manufacturing your facts and ignoring the actual ruling of a court decision, even after the actual ruling has been quoted to you.


729 posted on 01/21/2004 11:08:56 PM PST by nolu chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 663 | View Replies]

To: stand watie; 4ConservativeJustices
General Meigs seemed to know about the start of the war on April 10, 1861. Inquiry at the Executive Mansion and State Department turned up no copy of the orders. The President and State ran this operation and cut the Navy and War Departments out of the loop.

"THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF THE WAR"
General M.C. Meigs, April 10, 1861

OFFICIAL RECORDS, Volume 1, Series 1

Page 368

Honorable WM. H. SEWARD, Secretary of State:

DEAR SIR: By great exertions, within less than six days from the time the subject was broached in the office of the President, a war steamer sails from this port; and the Atlantic, built under contract to be at the service of the United States in case of war, will follow this afternoon with 500 troops, of which one company is sappers and miners, one a mounted battery. The Illinois will follow on Monday with the stores which the Atlantic could not hold.

While the mere throwing of a few men into Fort Pickens may seem a small operation, the opening of a campaign is a great one.

Unless this moment is supported by ample supplies and followed up by the Navy it will be a failure. This is the beginning of the war which every statesman and soldier has foreseen since the passage of the South Carolina ordinance of secession. You will find the Army and the navy clogged at the head with men, excellent patriotic men, men who were soldiers and sailors forty years ago, but who now merely keep active men out of the places in which they could serve the country.

If you call out volunteers you have no general to command. The general born, not made, is yet to be found who is to govern the great army which is to save the country, if saved it can be. Colonel Keyes has shown intelligence, zeal, activity, and I look for a high future for him.

England took six months to get a soldier to the Crimea. We were from May to September in getting General Taylor before Monterey. Let us be supported; we got to serve our country, and our country should not neglect us or leave us to be strangled in tape, however red.

Respectfully,

M. C. MEIGS.

U. S. TROOP-SHIP ATLANTIC,

Lat. 32^13', Long. 74^49'15'', April 10, 1861.


Page 441

Washington, D. C., February 27, 1865.

Bvt. Brigadier General E. D. TOWNSEND,

Assistant Adjutant-General, War Department:

MY DEAR GENERAL: The Navy Department has no copy of the instructions to D. D. Porter and other naval officers under which they co-operated with the expedition of April, 1861, to re-enforce Fort Pickens.

The President has none, and they have applied to me. My copies, I think, I placed in Hartsuff's hands. He was adjutant of the expedition.

Please forward the inclosed note to him, and if you have copies let me have for the Navy Department a copy of the President's order to Porter and to other naval officers. Also of the order to Colonel Brown, which required all naval officers to aid him.

General Scott knew of the expedition and its orders; and you were acting confidentially with him and may have had custody of those orders, which were kept secret even from the Secretaries of War and Navy, I believe.

Yours, truly,

M. C. MEIGS,

Quartermaster-General, Brevet Major-General.

QUARTERMASTER-GENERAL'S OFFICE,


Washington City, March 15, 1865.

Brigadier General E. D. TOWNSEND,

Assistant Adjutant-General, Washington, D. C.:

DEAR TOWNSEND: The Navy Department has lately inquired after the orders under which the Fort Pickens expedition was organized and carried out.

The instruction to Colonel Brown and to Captain D. D. Porter were

Page 442

prepared by Colonel Keyes and by myself, or the greater part of them were so prepared, and the more important papers were signed by the President.

I left all my notes of these instructions with Hartsuff, that he might make up a complete record of the orders and instructions for the headquarters of the Department of Florida, of which Colonel Brown was placed in command. As he left Fort Pickens before they were engrossed, he left my papers in the office of the commander of the department.

The department having been broken up, it is probable that the records are still at Fort Pickens or Pensacola. I believe that the records of a department, when it is discontinued, should, by military rule, be sent to the Adjutant-General's Office at the War Department for safe keeping.

Would it not be well to send out orders for the transmission of the early records of headquarters of the Department of Florida to your office, so as to insure their preservation?

Inquiry at the Navy Department, and at the Executive Mansion and at the State Department, has failed to discover any copies of the orders.

It was an Executive act, unknown at the time to any but those engaged therein, including General Scott, the Secretary of State, and the President.

I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

M. C. MEIGS,

Quartermaster-General, Brevet Major-General, Chief Engineer of the Expedition to Relieve Fort Pickens in April, 1861.


THE LINCOLN ABSOLUTION REGARDING "IRREGULARITIES"

Order of the President of the United States to the Secretary of the Navy, relieving

Lieutenant D. D. Porter, U. S. Navy, from special duty.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 11, 1861.

SIR: Lieutenant D. D. Porter was placed in command of the steamer Powhatan and Captain Samuel Mercer was detached therefrom by my special order, and neither of them is responsible for any apparent or real irregularity on their part or in connection with that vessel. Hereafter Captain Porter is relieved from that special service and placed nnder the direction of the Navy Department, from which he will receive instructions and to which he will report.

Very respectfully, ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

The SECRETARY OF THE NAVY.


LINK

Abraham Lincoln Papers at the Library of Congress. Transcribed and Annotated by the Lincoln Studies Center, Knox College. Galesburg, Illinois.

From Gustavus V. Fox to John G. Nicolay, February 22, 1865

Washington, Feby 22 1865

Dear Sir:

Early in April 1861, the U S S Powhatan, under the command of Lieut. D. D. Porter, was despatched from New York to Pensacola on confidential service. [1] The orders were from the President direct and do not appear in the records of this Department. If there is a record of them in your office, will you be kind enough to furnish a copy for the files of this department?

[Note 1 David D. Porter, aboard the USS Powhatan, was dispatched by special Presidential order to the relief of Ft. Pickens in Pensacola harbor. See Official Records, Series I, Volume 1, 406-07; and Nicolay to Fox, February 24, 1865.] G. V. Fox.


LINK

Abraham Lincoln Papers at the Library of Congress. Transcribed and Annotated by the Lincoln Studies Center, Knox College. Galesburg, Illinois.

From John G. Nicolay to Gustavus V. Fox, February 24, 1865

Copy

Washington, Feb'y 24, 1865.

Dear Sir:

In reply to your letter of the 22d inst., the President requests me to say that he thinks no record was kept here of the orders given to Lieut. D. D. Porter, in regard to his confidential mission to Pensacola in the U. S. S. Powhatan, in 1861. [1] The President however remembers that Lieut. Porter was selected at the suggestion of Brevet. Maj. Genl. (then Captain) Montgomery C. Meigs, who, he thinks may be able to inform you where the records or memoranda you desire were kept.

[Note 1 David D. Porter, aboard the USS Powhatan, was dispatched by special Presidential order to the relief of Ft. Pickens in Pensacola harbor. See Official Records, Series I, Volume 1, 406-07; and Fox to Nicolay, February 22, 1865.]

Your obt servt

(signed) Jno. G. Nicolay

Priv. Sec.



730 posted on 01/22/2004 1:21:10 AM PST by nolu chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 719 | View Replies]

To: nolu chan
However, in case of insurrection, action pursuant to the Militia Act requires a state request.

No, it clearly does not.

"And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session."

When the laws are obstructed, the president may act unilaterally.

Walt

731 posted on 01/22/2004 2:38:24 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 729 | View Replies]

To: nolu chan
General Scott knew of the expedition and its orders; and you were acting confidentially with him and may have had custody of those orders, which were kept secret even from the Secretaries of War and Navy, I believe.

Can you say coverup? Sure you can.

732 posted on 01/22/2004 2:55:27 AM PST by 4CJ (||) Dialing 911 doesn't stop a crime - a .45 does. (||)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 730 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
Settlement of disputed items. Renumeration for constuction costs of forts, renumeration for their share of western territories. To avoid bloodshed. Lincoln refused.

If you had ever read the legislation authorizing the so-called peace commissioners, you would have found that their instructions were A: for the purpose of negotiating friendly relations between that government and the confederate states of america, and B: the settlement of all questions of disagreement between the two governments. So before any other discussions on settlement of disputed items or renumeration for constuction costs of forts, etc., Lincoln had to give in accept the legitimacy of the southern regime and independence for the confederacy. Everything else was secondary. And you blame Lincoln for not accepting that pre-condition? Lincoln would have been more than happy to meet with the delegation if a peacefull end to the rebellion had been one of the options open for discussion. It was not. Davis sent the commissioners there to fail, and give him a moral victory. He threw that away when he started his war.

733 posted on 01/22/2004 4:14:25 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 717 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
Perhaps you'd be interested in the view of the Detroit Free Press...

Not really, no.

734 posted on 01/22/2004 4:15:55 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 720 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
Perhaps you'd be interested in the view of the Detroit Free Press...

Not really, no.

735 posted on 01/22/2004 4:15:56 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 720 | View Replies]

To: bjs1779
I think it is hard to argue what is or is not in the constitution with someone who can't even admit and even lied about Linclon mentioning the Fugitive Slave Act in his inaugural speech.

What the hell are you babbling about?

736 posted on 01/22/2004 4:16:54 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 725 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
Article I, Section 1 which vests the powers within that article, of which the clause stating "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it" is one, with the Congress.

That is your opinion, and the opions of may others, but not one shared by Abraham Lincoln. Since the Constitution does not explicitly state who may suspend habeas corpus then it would be for the Supreme Court to determine who is right. And the haven't done that yet.

737 posted on 01/22/2004 4:30:49 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 714 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
[Walt quoting] "And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act...."

You are hopeless.

I will now put it in context.

Designation of Section 1, and Clauses added for clarity]

[Sec. 1] Be it enacted, &c., [Clause 1: Invasion] That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth such number of the militia of the State or States most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action, as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper. [Clause 2: Insurrection Against a State Government] And, in case of an insurrection in any State against the Government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the Legislature of such State, or of the Executive, (when the Legislature cannot be convened,) to call forth such number of the militia of any other State or States as may be applied for, as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection,

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, [Clause 1: Obstruction of the Courts] That when­ever the laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed in any State, by combinations too powerful to be sup­pressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such State, or of any other State or States, as may be necessary to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and the use of militia so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the then next session of Congress,

Section 1, Clause 1, relates to invasions. Section 1, Clause 2 relates to insurrection against a State government. This part of the act was referred to in the Prize cases. It was not the basis of the ruling but it was mentioned.

Section 2, Clause 1, relates to obstruction of the courts and provision of assistance to the Marshals of said courts.

This has nothing to do with either invasion or insurrection.

This is unrelated to what is cited in the Prize Cases.

This is unrelated to what Lincoln cited.

Within the CSA, there were no Federal courts, and there were no marshals to assist. They had all resigned.

This desperate "Hail Mary" is legally assinine. It does not even pass the giggle test.

The Prize Cases concerned the Union blockade of Confederate ports, and the seizure of foreign ships and cargo. It was not about assisting the marshals of the courts.

The Supreme Court did not find a state of obstruction of the courts beyond the capability of the (non-existent) marshals of the (non-existent) courts. It found a state of war. It found a blockade was authorized pursuant to the jus belli, the laws of war.


OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 3, vol 1, Part 1 (Union Letters, Orders, Reports)

O.R. page 89

The O.R. copy contains many OCR errors. I copied from here:

LINK

By the President of the United States of America.--A Proclamation.

Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and the laws of the United States for the collection of the revenue can not be effectually executed therein, conformably to that provision of the Constitution which requires duties to be uniform throughout the United States; and

Whereas a combination of persons engaged in such insurrection have threatened to grant pretended letters of marque to authorize the bearers thereof to commit assaults on the lives, vessels, and property of good citizens of the country lawfully engaged in commerce on the high seas and in the waters of the United States; and

Whereas an Executive proclamation has been already issued requiring the persons engaged in these disorderly proceedings to desist therefrom, calling out a militia force for the purpose of repressing the same, and convening Congress in extraordinary session to deliberate and determine thereon:

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, with a view to the same purposes before mentioned, and to the protection of public peace and the lives and property of quiet and orderly citizens pursuing their lawful occupations until Congress shall have assembled and deliberated on the said unlawful proceedings, or until the same shall have ceased, have further deemed it advisable to set on foot a blockade of the ports within the States aforesaid, in pursuance of the laws of the United States and of the law of nations in such case provided. For this purpose a competent force will be posted so as to prevent entrance and exit of vessels from the ports aforesaid. If, therefore, with a view to violate such blockade a vessel shall approach or shall attempt to leave either of the said ports, she will be duly warned by the commander of one of the blockading vessels, who will endorse on her register the fact and date of such warning, and if the same vessel shall again attempt to enter or leave the blockaded port she will be captured and sent to the nearest convenient port for such proceedings against her and her cargo as prize as may be deemed advisable.

And I hereby proclaim and declare that if any person, under the pretended authority of the said States, or under any other pretense, shall molest a vessel of the United States, or the persons or cargo on board of her, such person will be held amenable to the laws of the United States for the prevention and punishment of piracy.

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington this nineteenth day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-fifth.

[L.S.]

Abraham Lincoln.

By the President:

William H. Seward,
Secretary of State.


Proclamation of the President of the United States regarding extension of blockade to the ports of Virginia and North Carolina, April 27, 1861.

Whereas, for the reasons assigned in my proclamation of the 19th instant, a blockade of the ports of the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, was ordered to be established; and, whereas, since that date public property of the United States has been seized, the collection of the revenue obstructed, and duly commissioned officers of the United States, while engaged in executing the orders of their superiors, have been arrested and held in custody as prisoners, or have been impeded in the discharge of their official duties without due legal process by persons claiming to act under authority of the States of Virginia and North Carolina, an efficient blockade of the ports of those States will therefore also be established.

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington, this twenty-seventh day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and of the independence of the United States the eighty-fifth.

[L.S.]

Abraham Lincoln.

By the President:

William H. Seward,
Secretary of State.


http://speaker.house.gov/library/texts/lincoln/spmsg.asp

Message to Congress in Special Session

July 4, 1861

Recurring to the action of the government, it may be stated that, at first, a call was made for seventy-five thousand militia; and rapidly following this, a proclamation was issued for closing the ports of the insurrectionary districts by proceedings in the nature of Blockade. So far all was believed to be strictly legal. At this point the insurrectionists announced their purpose to enter upon the practice of privateering. Other calls were made for volunteers, to serve three years, unless sooner discharged; and also for large additions to the regular Army and Navy. These measures, whether strictly legal or not, were ventured upon, under what appeared to be a popular demand, and a public necessity; trusting, then as now, that Congress would readily ratify them. It is believed that nothing has been done beyond the constitutional competency of Congress.

a proclamation was issued for closing the ports of the insurrectionary districts by proceedings in the nature of Blockade

He meant to say that he proclaimed a blockade. He proclaimed a blockade, not a closing of the ports. He did eventually get around to closing the ports -- on April 11, 1865, four days before he died.

Just before the war ended, Lincoln issued an order closing the ports, rather than blockading them.

From Gideon Welles, Lincoln and Johnson, First Paper, Galaxy Magazine, April 1872, p. 523

Mr. Seward, who had been uneasy since his return, [nc: Seward had been thrown from his carriage and injured] read to the Secretary of the Treasury and myself the draft of a proclamation he had prepared for the President to sign, closing the ports of the Southern States. This was a step which I had earnestly pressed at the beginning of the rebellion, as a domestic measure, and more legitimate than a blockade, which was international, and an admission that we were two nations.

* * *

The President reached Washington on the evening of Sunday, the 9th of April. When I called on him the next morning he was in excellent spirits, the news of Lee’s surrender, which however was not unanticipated, having been received. While I was with him he signed the proclamation for closing the ports and expressed his gratification that Mr. Seward and myself concurred in the measure, alluding to our former differences.

OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 3, vol 5, Part 1, page 107

(Union Letters, Orders, Reports)

VII. April 11, 1865.-Closing certain ports.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas, by my proclamations of the nineteenth and twenty-seventh days of April, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one the ports of the United States in the State of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas were declared to be subject to blockade; but whereas, the said blockade has, in consequence of actual military occupation by this Government, since been conditionally set aside or relaxed in respect to the ports of Norfolk and Alexandria, in the State of Virginia; Beaufort, in the State of North Carolina; Port Royal, in the State of South Carolina; Pensacola and Fernandina, in the State of Florida, and New Orleans, in the State of Louisiana;

And whereas, by the fourth section of the act of Congress approved on the thirteenth of July, eighteen hundred and sixty- one; entitled "An act further to provide for the collection of duties on imports, and for other purposes," the President, for the reasons therein set forth, is authorized to close certain ports of entry:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, do hereby proclaim that the ports of Richmond, Tappahannock, Cherrystone, Yorktown, and Petersburg, in Virginia; of Camden (Elizabeth City), Edenton, Plymouth, Washington, New Berne, Ocracoke, and Wilmington, in North Carolina; of Charleston, Georgetown, and Beaufort, in South Carolina; of Savannah, Saint Mary's, and Brunswick (Darien), in Georgia; of Mobile, in Alabama; of Pearl River (Shieldsborough), Natchez, and Vicksburg, in Mississippi; of Saint Augustine, Key West, Saint Mark's (Port Leon), Saint John's (Jacksonville), and Apalachicola, in Florida; of Teche (Franklin), in Louisiana; of Galveston, La Salle, Brazos de Santiago (Point Isabel), and Brownsville, in Texas, are hereby closed, and all right of importation, warehousing, and other privileges shall, in respect to the ports aforesaid, cease, until they shall have again been opened by order of the President; and if, whole said ports are so closed, any ship or vessel from beyond the United States, or having on board any articles subject to duties, furniture, and cargo, shall be forfeited to the United States.

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington this eleventh day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the eighty- ninth.

[L. S.]

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

By the President:

WILLIAM H. SEWARD,

Secretary of State.

738 posted on 01/22/2004 5:17:57 AM PST by nolu chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 731 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
[Stonewall Abraham and Gideon Welles] it is believed the communication of the information called for would not, at this time, comport with the public interest

Yep. I can say coverup.

STONEWALL ABRAHAM

STONEWALL #1

Page 440

Page 441

O.R. Series 1, Vol. 1, Part 1, Page 440-1

Message of the President of the United States, in answer to a resolution of the Senate requesting information concerning the quasi armistice alluded to in his message of the 4th instant.

JULY 31, 1861.- Read, ordered to lie on the table and be printed.

To the Senate of the United States:

In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 19th instant, requesting information concerning the quasi armistice alluded to in my message of the 4th instant, I transmit a report from the Secretary of War.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

JULY 30, 1861.

NAVY DEPARTMENT,

July 29, 1861.

The Secretary of the Navy, to whom was referred the resolution of the Senate of the 19th instant, requesting the President of the United States to "communicate to the Senate (if not incompatible with the public interest) the character of the quasi armistice to which he refers in his message of the 4th instant, be reason of which the commander of the frigate Sabine refused to transfer the United States troops into Fort Pickens in obedience to his orders; by whom and when such armistice was entered into; and if any, and what, action has been taken by the Government in view of the disobedience of the order of the President aforesaid," has the honor to report that it is believed the communication of the information called for would not, at this time, comport with the public interest.

Respectfully submitted.

GIDEON WELLES.

The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.


STONEWALL #2

LINK

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 30, 1861.

To the SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:

In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 23rd instant requesting information concerning the imprisonment of Lieutenant John J. Worden [John L. Worden], of the U. S. Navy, I transmit a report from the Secretary of the Navy.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

[Inclosure.]

NAVY DEPARTMENT, July 29, 1861.

The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:

The Secretary of the Navy, to whom was referred the resolution of the Senate of the 23rd instant requesting the President of the United States to inform the Senate "under what circumstances Lieutenant John J. Worden [John L. Worden], of the U. S. Navy, has been imprisoned at Montgomery, Ala., whether he is still in prison, and whether any and if any what measures have been taken by the Government of the United States for his release," has the honor to report that it is believed the communication of the information called for would not at this time comport with the public interest.

Respectfully submitted.

GIDEON WELLES.

739 posted on 01/22/2004 5:35:53 AM PST by nolu chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 732 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
And you blame Lincoln for not accepting that pre-condition? Lincoln would have been more than happy to meet with the delegation if a peacefull end to the rebellion had been one of the options open for discussion. It was not.

I disagree. The Confederacy and SC made several attempts to end the matter peacefully. Meet with them. Conduct negotiations. At least make some attempt at a peaceful settlement. Let tempers calm. Maybe Lincoln could have convinced them to rejoin the union.

South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas all seceded before the special session of Congress began 4 Mar 1861. When that session ended, the seceded states were still seceded. No invasion, no declaration of war. Lincoln waited until Congress was out of the way and then attacked.

740 posted on 01/22/2004 5:36:34 AM PST by 4CJ (||) Dialing 911 doesn't stop a crime - a .45 does. (||)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 733 | View Replies]

To: nolu chan
Excellent posts sir. But you are wasting you time on them (lurkers will be educated though). For them to admit the correctness of you explanation would be to admit that Lincoln invaded a foreign country and that Lincoln exceeded his constitutional authority.

We know he wouldn't do that </sarcasm>

741 posted on 01/22/2004 6:00:35 AM PST by 4CJ (||) Dialing 911 doesn't stop a crime - a .45 does. (||)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 738 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
The Confederacy and SC made several attempts to end the matter peacefully. Meet with them. Conduct negotiations. At least make some attempt at a peaceful settlement. Let tempers calm. Maybe Lincoln could have convinced them to rejoin the union.

That is absolutely ridiculous. After getting Lincoln to agree that they were, in fact, independent you expect the rebels to agree to reunification? Why would they do that? They launched their rebellion because they saw Lincoln as a threat to slavery. Lincoln wasn't going away. Slavery wasn't going to become any less important in the weeks or months to come. But you believe that there was a chance that the confederate congress would change their mind, the Davis regime would fold it's tent, and everyone would reunite under Lincoln's leadership. All while holding hands and singing 'Kumbaya' no doubt.

No discussions with the so-called peace commissioners was possible because nothing was open for discussion until recognition was bestowed. Peaceful settlement was possible only if everything was open for discussion and that was not the case. Davis didn't want it that way.

742 posted on 01/22/2004 6:19:26 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 740 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
For them to admit the correctness of you explanation would be to admit that Lincoln invaded a foreign country and that Lincoln exceeded his constitutional authority.

Why would we admit something as completely asinine as that? Lincoln didn't invade a foreign country and he didn't exceed his constitutional authority.

743 posted on 01/22/2004 6:21:12 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 741 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
i never feel sorry for ole WP, as he is a SCALAWAG & TRAITOR to his state & the southland.

free dixie,sw

744 posted on 01/22/2004 7:53:38 AM PST by stand watie (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. -T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 722 | View Replies]

To: nolu chan
!!!!!
745 posted on 01/22/2004 7:59:27 AM PST by stand watie (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. -T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 730 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Why would we admit something as completely asinine as that?

Your assertion is that the President - by meeting with anyone - establishes diplomatic relations? Congress by law establishes such relations. Anything else is simply a meeting.

Lincoln didn't invade a foreign country and he didn't exceed his constitutional authority.

The blockade extended - by international law - official recognition of a foreign government.

746 posted on 01/22/2004 8:51:51 AM PST by 4CJ (||) Dialing 911 doesn't stop a crime - a .45 does. (||)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 743 | View Replies]

To: nolu chan
Within the CSA, there were no Federal courts, and there were no marshals to assist. They had all resigned.

Yes, the laws had "failed of execution" in the south, is the way I believe the president put it.

That triggers section 2, and as the Court said, the president is authorized to act under the act of 2/28/1795 -- the Militia Act.

All your verbose excuses fail besides the clear words of the Prize Cases ruling.

Walt

747 posted on 01/22/2004 9:29:23 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 738 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Were the parties belligerents? In the decision, Justice Grier wrote,
When the party in rebellion occupy and hold in a hostile manner a certain portion of territory, have declared their independence, have cast off their allegiance, have organized armies, have commenced hostilities against their former sovereign, the world acknowledges them as belligerents, and the contest a war.
Were they considered belligerents and was it a war?
Foreign nations acknowledge it as war by a declaration of neutrality. The condition of neutrality cannot exist unless there be two belligerent parties.

[O]n the 13th of May, 1861, the Queen of England issued her proclamation of neutrality ... This was immediately followed by similar declarations or silent acquiescence by other nations.

The world considers the contest a war and the parties belligerents. Next, what rights are accorded to the parties as belligerents, and what type of war is this?
Hence the parties to a civil war usually concede to each other belligerent rights. They exchange prisoners, and adopt the other courtesies and rules common to public or national wars.
No problem so far, the world, and the governments all recognize the parties as belligerents, and the war as a public war. So what does Grier have to say about belligerent parties in a public war?
'The parties belligerent in a public war are independent nations.

748 posted on 01/22/2004 12:35:49 PM PST by 4CJ (||) Dialing 911 doesn't stop a crime - a .45 does. (||)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 747 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
That is your opinion, and the opions of may others,

It's no opinion, non-seq. It is a simple matter of fact about the document as written by the people who were there and as understood by any and all but the most tortured, willfully obtuse, and intentionally deceptive readings of that document's explicit text. If your argument were valid - which it is not - you would have to not only accepted an extremely tortured reading of the constitution but also explicitly deny the recorded understanding of that clause by the people who were physically there at the constitutional convention. In any case, such an argument is unsustainable, indefensible, and for all practical purposes junk.

Case in point: Robert Yates, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, explicitly wrote of that clause that "In the same section it is provided, that "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion and invasion, the public safety may require it." This clause limits the power of the legislature to deprive a citizen of the right of habeas corpus, to particular cases viz. those of rebellion and invasion; the reason is plain, because in no other cases can this power be exercised for the general good."

Robert Yates was there at the convention, non-seq. Had the authors of the constitution considered even the remote possibility that the clause pertained to anybody other than Congress do you think that Yates would have said what he did? Do you honestly believe that Robert Yates or any of the other delegates to that convention - any single one of them - ever believed that the clause they wrote and they inserted into Article I under the explicit provisions of Article I applied to somebody other than Congress? If you do then not only do you possess great ignorance of your country's history - you are also willfully dishonest about it.

but not one shared by Abraham Lincoln.

The assertion that black people are equal to white people was not shared by Abraham Lincoln. Does that make it less true?

Since the Constitution does not explicitly state who may suspend habeas corpus then it would be for the Supreme Court to determine who is right.

Your premise is faulty. The Constitution DOES explicitly state who can suspend it and that body is Congress. Once again, exactly what about the phrase "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States" is so confusing? Exactly what about that phrase do you not understand?

749 posted on 01/22/2004 4:26:19 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 737 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
exactly what about the phrase "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States" is so confusing?

That phrase doesn't state that the suspension of habeus corpus is a legislative power, only that legislative powers are vested with congress, and your interpretation doesn't account for the extended periods when Congress is not in session.

Lincoln did pretty well given the secessionist cards he was dealt. For example in 1861 he could have leveled Charleston without suspending habeus corpus, and he didn't.

750 posted on 01/22/2004 6:29:17 PM PST by mac_truck (Aide toi et dieu l’aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 749 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 651-700701-750751-800 ... 1,101-1,131 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson