View Single Post
Old 06-29-2006, 11:48 PM   #12
SFL Cat
College Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South Florida


Letters to the editor

Dear Republic:

James Buchanan was the worst possible choice for President of these United States. He is short on imagination and wit, not a talented orator or skilled debater, nor is he an accomplished legislator. Buchanan's defective vision, which results in his odd squinting and head-tilting mannerisms, compounded by his lack of personal warmth, his bachelor status and need for "cronies," suggests someone less than ideal as President of the United States.

Need I remind you that Buchanan was one of the authors of the notorious Ostend Manifesto, which proposed force against Spain if they resist demands for Cuba. Buchanan is a "doughface" of the worst kind as demonstrated by his trust of Senator John Slidell, a transplanted New Yorker turned ardent Southerner. In addition, Buchanan's hatred of abolitionists and free-soil Republicans shows he lacks the discretion to handle the Kansas crisis.

K. Stampp

Opinion

In the Dred Scott case, Chief Justice, Roger B. Taney declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permitting slavery in all the country's territories. This is an interesting evaluation of the case, especially interesting because of Taney's "rewriting" of history.

Dissenting Justice Benjamin R. Curtis of Massachusetts convincingly refutes Taney's "justification" for the Supreme Court decision in the Scott case by demonstrating Taney's glaring disregard for historical truth. Taney had claimed that neither of Scott's residences had freed him because, among other things, the Missouri Compromise was invalid and because descendants of slaves imported from Africa could never become citizens with rights "that any white man was bound to respect."

Referring to the language in the Declaration of Independence that includes the phrase, "all men are created equal," Taney reasoned that "it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration. . . ."

Curtis presented historical evidence that Blacks were voting citizens in five states at the founding of the Union. He also showed that seven presidents, including Washington, had signed legislation prohibiting slavery in federal territories.

Because the two dissenting judges, Curtis and McLean, had such convincing arguments and several other judges presented arguments conflicting with those of Taney, the Supreme Court Dred Scott decision is an unjustified one.

U.S. News & Politics

Kansas Territory update
Free-staters refuse to participate in Lecompton convention

The Kansas Territorial Legislature announced June elections to select delegates for a constitutional convention that will be held this fall in Lecompton, a stronghold for pro-slavery forces. Free-state leaders have vowed to ignore what they call "the latest ploy of the bogus Legislature" and will refuse to participate.

The February call for a constitutional convention is seen as pro-slavery supporters' response to last year's Topeka Convention, which was organized outside the territorial legislature by free-staters. The constitution adopted by that body caused no small commotion in the political circles in Washington. The Fed recognized the territorial legislature as the only legislative authority in Kansas and considered the whole Topeka movement as treasonable. The free-state legislature was dispersed by Federal troops when it tried to convene last July and the leaders of the Topeka government were indicted and arrested on charges of treason. They were later acquitted.

A Congressional committee sent to Kansas did find evidence of massive election fraud in the selection of the territorial legislature. It is said that thousands of armed Southerners known as "Border Ruffians", mostly from Missouri, poured over the line and voted proslavery delegates into power.

Did Buchanan influence high court ruling?

During his inauguration speech, President Buchanan dismissed the concern that a territory might prohibit slavery as "a matter of but little practical importance," and qualified the right of a territory to direct its "domestic institutions" in its own way as "subject only to the Constitution of the United States." He then stated that the Supreme Court would "speedily and finally" decide this issue.

However, there may be evidence that Buchanan manipulated the Supreme Court prior to his inauguration. Sources claim that Buchanan corresponded with Justice Catron of Tennessee in February, inquiring about the Supreme Court decision regarding Dred Scott. In this letter, Buchanan indicated that he was pressuring Justice Grier, a fellow Pennsylvanian, to favor the proslavery judgment in order to deflect the accusation that the decision was sectional and biased. At the time of his inauguration, it is alleged that Buchanan knew the Court was about to declare the congressional restriction on slavery incorporated in the Missouri Compromise invalid.

Republicans have requested a full investigation, saying this clearly constitutes a breach of the separation of powers and should invalidate the Supreme Court's decision in the Dred Scott case. Democrats have countered that the accusation is simply another example of Republican "smear" tactics aimed at circumventing the High Court's decision. "The Supreme Court has ruled," said one Southern Democrat, "the debate is finished."

Southerners charge bias

Southerners are objecting to what they call northern "indoctrination" through literature and education. They claim books and mail are increasingly "tainted with antisouthern bias." Many southern states have started to censor materials they consider biased. In addition, teachers lacking familiarity with "Southern culture" are being prohibited from teaching in southern schools.

International News

England and France declare war on China
British and French armed forces prepare to launch offensive

The British Parliament has decided to seek redress from China based on the report about the "Arrow Incident" submitted by Harry Parkes, British Consul to Guangzhou.

Last October 8, officials of the Qing dynasty boarded the Arrow, a Chinese-owned ship that had been registered in Hong Kong and was suspected of piracy and smuggling. Twelve Chinese subjects were arrested and imprisoned. British officials in Guangzhou demanded the release of the sailors claiming the Arrow had been flying a British ensign and that the Qing soldiers had insulted the flag.

France, the USA, and Russia received requests from Britain to form an alliance. France has announced it will join the British action against China, prompted by the execution of a French missionary, Father August Chapdelaine by Chinese local authorities in Guangxi province.

Many analysts believe Europe's thirst for expansion has more to do with coming conflict than slighted national honor. Some see it as a continuation of the Opium War (1834-1843).

During the early part of the century, the xenophobic Qing dynasty of China resisted calls by foreign powers for two-way trade. Europeans were eager to obtain porcelain, silk, spices and tea from China, but were unable to sell goods in return. Instead, they were forced to trade directly in silver, which strained finances already squeezed by numerous European wars.

Opium had been manufactured in China since the 15th century for medical purpose. However, faced with the health and social problems associated with opium use, the Chinese imperial government prohibited the smoking and trading of opium in 1729.

The British began manufacturing opium in India in significant quantities starting in the mid-18th century and began a trade of opium for silver in southern China. The British saw the great potential profit in the opium. British illegal exports of opium to China skyrocketed from an estimated 15 tons in 1730, to 75 tons in 1773. The narcotic was shipped in over two thousand "chests", each containing 140 pounds (67 kg) of opium.

In 1773, the Governor-General of Bengal was granted a monopoly on the sale of opium. For the next 50 years, opium was the key to the British East India Company's hold on India. Since importation of opium into China was illegal (China already produced a small quantity domestically), the British East India Company would buy tea in Canton on credit, carrying no opium, but would instead sell opium at auction in Calcutta on the condition it was smuggled to China.

In 1799, the Chinese Empire reaffirmed its ban on opium imports. However, the decree had little effect. The Manchu Chinese government in northern Beijing was too far away to control the merchants who smuggled opium into China from the south. In the 1820s, illegal opium trade averaged 900 tons per year from Bengal to China.

In 1834, to accommodate the revocation of the East India Company's monopoly, the British sent Lord Napier to Macao. He attempted to circumvent the restrictive Canton Trade laws, which forbade direct contact with Chinese officials, and was turned away by the governor of Macao, who promptly closed trade starting on September 2nd of that year. The British then agreed to resume trade under the old restrictions.

Within the Chinese mandarinate, there was a debate on legalizing opium trade itself, but this was rejected in favor of continued restrictions. In 1838, the death penalty was imposed for native drug traffickers; by this time the British were selling 1,400 tons annually to China.

In March of 1839, a new commissioner, Lin Zexu was appointed by the emperor to control the opium trade at the port of Canton. He immediately enforced the imperial demand that there be a permanent halt to drug shipments into China.

When the British refused to end the trade, Lin imposed a trade embargo on the British. On March 27th, 1839, Charles Elliot, British Superintendent of Trade, demanded that all British subjects turn over opium to him, to be confiscated by Commissioner Lin Zexu, amounting to nearly a year's supply of the drug. After the opium was surrendered, trade was restarted on the condition that no more drugs were smuggled into China. Lin demanded that British merchants had to sign a bond promising not to deal in opium. He then disposed of the opium, by dissolving it with water, salt and lime and flushing it out into the ocean.

The British government and merchants regarded the action as a destruction of their private property, roughly 3 million pounds of opium, as well as a notable revenue source. The British responded by sending warships and soldiers, along with a large army from British India, which arrived in June of 1840.

British military superiority was clearly evident during the armed conflict. British warships attacked coastal towns at will, and their troops, armed with modern muskets and cannons, were able to easily defeat the Qing forces.

In 1842, the Qing authorities sued for peace, which concluded with the Treaty of Nanjing negotiated in August of that year and accepted in 1843. Under the treaty, China agreed to cede Hong Kong Island (together with some small nearby islands) to the British Empire, and opened the cities of Canton, Amoy, Foochow, Ningpo and Shanghai for foreign trade.

Great Britain also received: 21 million ounces silver as war compensation; fixed tariffs ; extraterritoriality for British Citizens on Chinese soil and Most Favored Nation status. In addition to these indemnities, China allowed British missionaries into the interior of China for the first time, and allowed British merchants to establish "spheres of influence" in and around British ports. Other European nations, as well at the U.S., were able to secure similar concessions from the Manchu government.

The new conflict will further weaken the Qing dynasty, which already has its hands full dealing with the internal Taiping Rebellion.

Jim the Penman convicted

James Townsend Saward, an English barrister was convicted on charges of forged money orders. Nicknamed, "Jim the Penman," Saward was born in 1799, was accepted into the Bar in 1840, and became a barrister. Saward acquired blank cheques, imitated signatures, and handed them over to accomplices who cashed them. In this way, Saward got a couple of hundred pounds at a time. In addition, Saward and his associates fenced stolen goods; they helped with the disposal of the stolen gold from the Great Gold Robbery of 1855.

Eventually banks grew suspicious in London and Saward decided to try his luck elsewhere. In Great Yarmouth, an accomplice named Hardwicke blundered when he opened an account with one name and commissioned solicitors to collect "debts" by another name. When he realized his mistake, he asked Saward for instructions. By the time Saward's answer came, the bank had warned the police who were already questioning Hardwicke. They opened the letter and found out his identity. Saward was sentenced to transportation to Australia for 14 years.

Last edited by SFL Cat : 06-30-2006 at 01:51 PM.
SFL Cat is offline   Reply With Quote