Posted on 12/22/2019 4:23:47 AM PST by Bull Snipe
"I beg to present you as a Christmas gift the City of Savannah, with one hundred and fifty heavy guns and plenty of ammunition and about twenty-five thousand bales of cotton." General William T. Sherman's "March to the Sea" was over. During the campaign General Sherman had made good on his promise d “to make Georgia howl”. Atlanta was a smoldering ruin, Savannah was in Union hands, closing one of the last large ports to Confederate blockade runners. Sherman’s Army wrecked 300 miles of railroad and numerous bridges and miles of telegraph lines. It seized 5,000 horses, 4,000 mules, and 13,000 head of cattle. It confiscated 9.5 million pounds of corn and 10.5 million pounds of fodder, and destroyed uncounted cotton gins and mills. In all, about 100 million dollars of damage was done to Georgia and the Confederate war effort.
Yes, Porter had orders to take command of the Ship, but he had other orders besides those, and those we've never seen.
You can get a clue from reading Lincoln's orders to Mercer where he references that Porter has particular instructions.
Also, does that sound like Porter wrote it?
The ships never got within gun range.
And it would not make a difference, if not a single warship showed up. Davis was not going to allow Sumter to be provisioned by any means by anyone. Any attempt to bring provisions to Sumter would have met exactly the same result.
He would reduce the fort by force, before he would let it be provisioned.
but he had other orders besides those, and those we’ve never seen.”
How do we know this?
“does that sound like Porter wrote it?”
Very definitely, it sounds as if Porter wrote it. Relief of command, other than by normal rotation, is a career killer in the United States Navy. Porter knew this. He had no desire to harm Mercer. All he wanted is his ship. He felt it was necessary reassure Mercer that the relief would not in any way related to his performance as the Captain of Powhatan. And that that relief would not jeopardize his career in the Navy. Porter would have understood this. I doubt that Lincoln would have.
If you would honestly read the message traffic for both sides, you would realize that yes, it would have made a very big difference. There would have been no attack on Sumter at all but for the arrival of those ships.
See Beauregard's message to Anderson asking him to refrain from firing upon them if they got into an engagement with the ships.
No bombardment, no war. Anderson was pretty adamant that he wasn't going to "surrender". He used the word "evacuate".
When you're starved into submission that's a surrender.
If this is true, why did he send a telegraph telling Beauregard not to attack the fort if Anderson would just name a time at which he would evacuate?
You mean 'surrender' don't you?
It would have made no difference. Davis would have used force to prevent any resupply effort. All he had to do was prevent resupply for a few days and Sumter would have surrendered. If he allowed to be resupplied, he would have a political firestorm on his hands.
“Sorry, but I’m almost certain this quote is misattributed — it sounds much more like that Devil Lincoln, not the blessed St. Robert.
I mean, think of it — if Devil Lincoln had said such a thing, wouldn’t it be proof-positive of his Hitlerian, Nazi, Marxist, Communist, central planning tyranny?
And wasn’t blessed St. Robert a firm believer in the sovereign right of states to be free of such tyranny?
So obviously the quote must be fake — maybe, yes maybe, Lincoln did actually write it, but put it in a letter with blessed St. Robert’s return address, just to fool young Lee into thinking his dad had gone insane... yeh, that’s the ticket.”
I have repeatedly encouraged you to work something humorous into your posts. You did your best; it just didn’t work.
And, upon reflection, I don’t think it can. Please do not attempt to do it again.
Still waiting on your answer to the question; Do you believe chattel slavery as practiced in America was morally wrong?
Well I know it because I've read it among the reams of text i've read regarding this incident. In order for you to know it, you'll either have to read through a bunch of material till you find it, or wait until I find it again and send you a link.
I did find this just now.
https://www.nytimes.com/1861/04/13/archives/capt-mercer-and-the-powhatan.html
Very definitely, it sounds as if Porter wrote it. Relief of command, other than by normal rotation, is a career killer in the United States Navy. Porter knew this. He had no desire to harm Mercer. All he wanted is his ship. He felt it was necessary reassure Mercer that the relief would not in any way related to his performance as the Captain of Powhatan. And that that relief would not jeopardize his career in the Navy. Porter would have understood this. I doubt that Lincoln would have.
If I remember correctly, Mercer never recovered from what he viewed as a horrible dishonor and died not too long thereafter. March of 1862.
He surrendered after the bombardment, but prior to that he said he would "evacuate". Don't take my word for it. Look up what Anderson wrote.
You mean 'surrender' don't you?
*I* am not the one who had a problem with the word "surrender." So far as i'm concerned, Anderson leaving under pressure is a "surrender", but Anderson refused to use that term, and he insisted he would "evacuate." I think there is some sort of difference in military pomp for an evacuation than there is for a "surrender".
He could call it a "tactical retreat" for all the difference it makes.
If those ships hadn't shown up, that is exactly what would have happened. Of course, as Kalamata has pointed out, Lincoln said he would retake any forts, so it wouldn't have mattered. Lincoln was going to have his war one way or the other.
If he allowed to be resupplied, he would have a political firestorm on his hands.
And if Lincoln couldn't stop the South from trading directly with Europe, he was going to have a political firestorm on his hands too. Too much money would have been lost by powerful people in the North, and they were not going to let that happen.
“wait until I find it again and send you a link.”
Have all the time in the world. look forward to reading them.
Had not heard that about Mercer. Could understand his chagrin and resentment. Regardless of Lincoln’s letter, relief for any reason other than normal rotation is considered suspect in the Navy.
If those ships hadn’t shown up, that is exactly what would have happened.
That is correct, no resupply, Sumter surrenders in a couple of day.
An unarmed merchant ship, showing up with provisions for the Fort would have caused Davis to Fire on the Fort. He was not going to allow provisions to be landed by anyone.
He allowed for the situation to go on for 3 months. Also a ship wouldn't have gotten through. They had the channel all bollixed up with chains, sunken ships, and whatnot. They could have stopped anything without firing a shot.
He was not going to allow provisions to be landed by anyone.
I believe I have read that they were being provisioned by Charleston for a long time, and they finally stopped doing that. They were especially upset that Fox lied about his intentions when they allowed him to visit Anderson.
“Again you dodge the question. Sometimes a cigars is just a cigar and sometimes a racist is just a racist. I think it is very telling that you refuse to answer it.”
It is telling that you continue to attempt to play the race and slavery cards against your idea opponents. It usually comes right after you have been embarrassed by one of your frequent gaffes.
For example, in your post 1376 you offer a seemingly exculpatory explanation for why slavery was enshrined into the United States Constitution.
You said: “ . . . from what I’ve read of the constitutional convention we would have lost Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina if the hardline anti-slavery founders had pushed the issue. And the founders were more concerned about a fractured America fighting amongst itself or being influenced or taken over by foreign powers. So they kicked the can down the road.”
It is probably true the original 13 slave states were more concerned about their own economic and political best self interest than ending slavery. But for you to embrace their rationale for keeping slavery and then use it as a basis to attack others for being “racist” . . . that doesn’t make sense to me.
Also a ship wouldn’t have gotten through.
The ship Harriet Lane fired on sailed out Charleston harbor.
So the entrance was not completely blocked. Remember, the plan did not call for the war ships or the supply ship to enter the harbor. Lie off, transfer the cargo to small boats and have them towed in to the Fort. Same plan would have worked for an unarmed merchant ship with an unarmed tug.
No difference. Davis would still have fired on Sumter or the supply ship. He was not going to allow Sumter to be provisioned.
Charleston stopped selling provisions to Anderson shortly after he moved into Sumter.
Well that’s because you seem to have comprehension difficulties. It was more important to insure a strong, United, consolidated, country at that time then it was to get rid of slavery. Sometimes you have to choose between the lesser of two evils. The founding fathers feared the evils that would befall America if it failed. These evils consisted of the country breaking into smaller countries that would war among themselves unceasingly as was the history of the European countries. The other evil was that foreign countries would conquer or influence these shards of America.
Most of the founding fathers realized that slavery was incompatible with the founding ideology of this country”...that all men are created equal...”. In fact they were so embarrassed by slavery that they wouldn’t even use the word in the constitution. Unlike the southern rebels you seem to worship that used the word and truly enshrined it in their constitution.
The founding fathers also believed they had set it upon the road to eventual extinction. In fact Ben Franklin, and several other founding fathers, joined abolitionist society’s after the constitution was ratified.
I find it perplexing that you cannot grasp these concepts. Your posts seem to be written by a person of reasonable intelligence. I must assume you do not want to acknowledge these facts, as you refuse to answer my question. Perhaps you have more important things to do, like attend a League of the South meeting?
Are you naturally a sanctimonious jerk, or did you evolve?
"****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "I thought you didn't want to debate me? You specifically asked me not to ping you in my replies?"
>>x wrote: "That was before you wrote something so breathtakingly ignorant that I felt like I had to respond."
There is nothing "ignorant" about criticizing Leftwing Lincoln cultists. Consider it an act of community service. Every true conservative should participate.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "Philip Foner was pre-revisionism, so he is far more likely to have relied on actual source material from that day, than ideology."
>>x wrote: "Revisionism was in its heyday in Philip Foner's youth. Revisionism was the attempt to deny the role of slavery in provoking the Civil War."
The claim that the war was caused by slavery is the narrative of the Left and neocons. They had me fooled for the better part of my life. I see you are still fooled. One day you will wake up and realize that the love-affair of a ruthless dictator named Lincoln with the crony-capitalist "American System" (so-called,) combined with his own greed and self-importance, were the precipitators of the Civil War. His refusal to compromise, choosing instead to engage in total war (which is another term for war crimes,) led to a million deaths.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "By the last week in March, the vast majority of New York business men saw clearly that it was no longer an issue involving "vagabond negroes" or a "patch of territory." The war of the tariffs had cleared away... (more)... "
>>x wrote: "You have quoted someone who was not only a Communist and a plagiarist but also a liar."
All communists are liars, so that point is irrevelant.
****************
>>x wrote: "August Belmont wrote those words in a letter at the end of May 1861, after war had already begun, and Foner uses his words to describe the mood of March 1861 before the war had begun."
You are incorrect. Foner said the mood among most of the merchants had already changed (e.g., from pacifist to hawk) by the end of March. At that time they realized that the real issue was economics, and not slavery. Read carefully:
"By the last week in March, the vast majority of New York business men saw clearly that it was no longer an issue involving "vagabond negroes" or a "patch of territory." The war of the tariffs had cleared away the clouds of confusion, and in so doing, it brought home to each business man the real issue in the crisis. Lincoln had put his finger on the issue when he said in his inaugural address that "physically speaking," the North and South could not separate, and that no "impassable wall" could be erected between the sections. No merchant could sit by idly and watch the South destroy a business system which had been built up over so many years. It was no longer an issue, for him, of slavery, states' rights, nullification or secession. "It is now a question of national existence and commercial prosperity," wrote August Belmont, who had hitherto championed the cause of peaceful separation, [13] "and the choice cannot be doubtful." [14]"
[13] Cf. letter of August Belmont to the Democratic State Convention held in Albany, Feb. 1, 1861, in pamphlet, Proceedings, p. 39. See also Russell, loc. cit.
[14] Belmont, Letters, Speeches and Addresses, p. 51.
Footnote 13 refers to a Jan 31, 1861 letter by Belmont to the Chairman of the NY Democratic State Convention of Jan 31-Feb 1, which reads (heavily excerpted):
"Dear Sir—It becomes our duty to notify you of the decision of the National Democratic delegates accredited from Tammany Hall, in view of the action of the State Convention this day… By order of the Convention. With respect, we have the honor to be, AUGUST BELMONT, Chairman"
Following that letter are the proceedings, which champion the cause of peaceful separation, exactly as Foner asserted. This is the first part of the last resolution:
"8. Resolved, Pending these remedied measures, we implore the States in the attitude of secession, to stay the sword and save the nation from Civil War, until the "sober second thought" of the people of all the states be rendered efficient, in perfecting the work of compromise and in the restoration of Peace."
So, that footnote pointed to the previous climate, promoting a peaceful separation, which was no longer an option after Lincoln blockaded the Southern ports in April, which was the first official act of war. The second ref in Footnote 13 is more of the same, with a few additional details:
"[Sunday, March 17, 1861] Mr. Bancroft conversed for some time on the aspect of affairs, but he appeared to be unable to arrive at any settled conclusion, except that the republic, though in danger, was the most stable and beneficial form of government in the world, and that as a Government it had no power to coerce the people of the South or to save itself from the danger. I was indeed astonished to hear from him and others so much philosophical abstract reasoning as to the right of seceding, or, what is next to it, the want of any power in the Government to prevent it…"
"I dined with a New York banker, who gave such a dinner as bankers generally give all over the world. He is a man still young, very kindly, hospitable, well-informed, with a most charming household — an American by theory, an Englishman in instincts and tastes — educated in Europe, and sprung from British stock. Considering the enormous interests he has at stake, I was astonished to perceive how calmly he spoke of the impending troubles. His friends, all men of position in New York society, had the same dilettante tone, and were as little anxious for the future, or excited by the present, as a party of savans chronicling the movements of a "magnetic storm."
"On going back to the hotel, I heard that Judge Daly and some gentlemen had called to request that I would dine with the Friendly Society of St. Patrick to-morrow at Astor House. In what is called "the bar," I met several gentlemen, one of whom said, "the majority of the people of New York, and all the respectable people, were disgusted at the election of such a fellow as Lincoln to be President, and would back the Southern States, if it came to a split."...
"[Tuesday, March 19, 1861] "Among the guests were the Hon. Horatio Seymour, a former Governor of the State of New York; Mr. Tylden, an acute lawyer; and Mr. Bancroft. The result left on my mind by their conversation and arguments was that, according to the Constitution, the Government could not employ force to prevent secession, or to compel States which had seceded by the will of the people to acknowledge the Federal power. In fact, according to them, the Federal Government was the mere machine put forward by a Society of Sovereign States, as a common instrument for certain ministerial acts, more particularly those which affected the external relations of the Confederation. I do not think that any of the guests sought to turn the channel of talk upon politics, but the occasion offered itself to Mr. Horatio Seymour to give me his views of the Constitution of the United States, and by degrees the theme spread over the table. I had bought the "Constitution" for three cents in Broadway in the forenoon, and had read it carefully, but I could not find that it was self-expounding; it referred itself to the Supreme Court, but what was, to support the Supreme Court in a contest with armed power, either of Government or people? There was not a man who maintained the Government had any power to coerce the people of a State, or to force a State to remain in the Union, or under the action of the Federal Government; in other words, the symbol of power at Washington is not at all analogous to that which represents an established Government in other countries. Quid prosunt leges sine armis? Although they admitted the Southern leaders had meditated "the treason against the Union" years ago, they could not bring themselves to allow their old opponents, the Republicans now in power, to dispose of the armed force of the Union against their brother democrats in the Southern States."
[William Howard Russell, "My Diary, North and South." T. O. H. P. Burnham, 1863, pp.13-14]
Footnote 14 refers to a May 28, 1861 letter from Belmont to Baron Lionel de Rothschild, London, written after the war began, expressing concerns that Britain had officially recognized the Confederacy:
"It would be difficult for me to convey to you an idea of the general feeling of disappointment and irritation produced in this country by this manifesto of the British Government, by which a few revolted States are placed, in their relations with Great Britain, upon the same footing as the Government of the United States. (pg.51)"
The statement quoted by Foner is on the next page:
"My fears that the position of England would only complicate matters are, unfortunately, very likely to be realized. The sympathy of the British Government for the South, so far from lessening the determination of our Government and people, has only increased their ardor. It is now a question of national existence and commercial prosperity, and the choice can, of course, not be doubtful. (pg.52)"
Follow the money . . .
In conclusion, Foner's statement is historically accurate, according to the historical documents referenced. I am not denying Foner is a plagiarist, but I haven't seen it thus far: not in this book.
I really don't know what your problem is, but you obviously had it before I showed up.
Mr. Kalamata
No, that seems to be your department.
They had me fooled for the better part of my life. I see you are still fooled.
I used to think as you did. Then I read some real history and grew up.
In conclusion, Foner's statement is historically accurate, according to the historical documents referenced.
Nonsense. You write a lot of opaque gobbledygook, but so far as I can figure out what you are saying, it basically supports my point. Foner uses a letter written at the end of May, after Sumter, to characterize the mood of the business community at the end of March, before Sumter. I don't have his lying Marxist book in front of me, so I don't know if you left anything out, but if the book is as you've excerpted it, Foner was being deceptive.
I don't have the time or the inclination to put up with your b.s.
BroJoe, you seem to have a higher tolerance for this clown. Maybe you could look into this.
As a matter of fact, I was educationally abused by progressives, like you – mostly in graduate school. But, fortunately my parents instilled in me the desire to learn and to seek the truth; so I grew out of it.
****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: "For example, consider our Founders' debates over "internal improvements" -- out of power Jefferson opposed Federalist plans on grounds of "strict construction" and then President Jefferson's own plans were opposed by Federalists on those same grounds."
There is no doubt Jefferson usurped power. For that reason, Joey apparently believes the federal government should have unlimited to do as it pleases under the banner of, "Jefferson usurped power: why can't we." Joey is one sick (minded) puppy.
****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Most people would shrug & say: "that's politics for you", but Kalamata uses this debate to label one particular Jeffersonian Democrat (later Whig) a "tyrant" among other things, for proposing, in effect, to make America great by putting Americans first."
Joey's posts are always deceptive. I was referring to Henry Clay, the slick usurper who was Lincoln's most admired. In this statement, Clay not only admits that the 1824 tariff bill he push through Congress set a legislative precedence (that is, power WAS usurped from the states and people,) but the power usurped was still not up to the level his friends desired:
"The Tariff of 1824 provided a general level of protection at about 35 percent ad valorem. It was not an especially high tariff, but it did hike duties on iron, woolens, cottons, hemp, and wool and cotton bagging. Clay was naturally pleased with his handiwork, although he expressed reservations. "The measure of protection which it extends to Domestic industry is short of what it should have been," he told George W. Featherstonhaugh, an Englishman who had settled in New York. "But we have succeeded in establishing the principle, and hereafter I apprehend less difficulty will be encountered in giving to it a more comprehensive & vigorous application." James Madison wrote to Clay and indicated his own exceptions to the general principle of protection, but on the whole, replied the Speaker, "my opinions were not widely different from yours." Government ought not to interfere between capital and labor or between different classes of society, he agreed, but "it ought to interfere, in behalf of our own people, against the policy and the measures of Foreign Governments." Once again Clay admitted that the measure fell "short of what many of its friends wished," but considering the "sensibilities" awakened by it, perhaps the wiser course dictated "that we should advance slowly."
[Robert Vincent Remini, "Henry Clay: Statesman for the Union." W. W. Norton & Company, 1997, p.232]
As you can see, Clay was a whiny, privileged little weasel -- a precursor to Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, and even Obama.
The last clause by Clay was given to us as a warning by Madison, when he explained we would more likely lose our liberty by "gradual and silent encroachments," than by "sudden and violent usurpations." Of course, Madison never envisioned that a psychopath would become president in 1861.
****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: "As President Trump often says, Democrats are vicious and horrible. I think it's because they were abused as children politically."
I had a wonderful childhood, Joey. However, if President Trump is right, and I believe he is, that explains why you are so messed up.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "Obviously those legislators, who had sworn an oath to the U.S. Constitution, were not aware it had been superseded by the new Lincoln Constitution, written by the devil himself. Did Joey mention that U.S. Congressman Henry May was also arrested? How about the mayor of Baltimore? How about newspaper editors and publishers?"
>>BroJoeK wrote: "The truth is that after Confederates formally declared war on the United States, May 6, 1861, any Union citizens who "adhered" to Confederates, "giving them aid and comfort", were guilty of treason and properly arrested for it."
The enemy of the United States was Abraham Lincoln, Joey, as well as those who gave aid and comfort to him. He is the one who appointed himself dictatorial powers, and then ran roughshod over the rights of countless Northern citizens.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "Joey's numbers are always deceptive."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "My numbers are always as accurate as I can make them. By "deceptive" Dan-bo only means he doesn't like what they imply."
Let me rephrase that in Dan Ratherese: "Joey's numbers are deceptive, but accurate." LOL!
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "Maryland supported the right of the secessionists; and if Maryland had been allowed to exercise their natural and Constitutional right to secede, rather than being oppressed by Lincoln's thuggery, those numbers would have been reversed, and moreso, providing Joey's numbers are accurate in the first place, which is always in doubt."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Here are the numbers for Maryland Confederate soldiers: . . . "
Those numbers became meaningless after Lincoln declared martial law, suspended habeas corpus, harassed and arrested Maryland's legislators, and shut down some newspapers. Who knows how many would have fought for Lincoln if he didn't force them to at the point of a bayonet, and threaten their property and liberty?
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "Like all devout progressives, Joey treats the Constitution like a McDonald's Menu, when he is not using it for toilet paper."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Like all Democrat propagandists, our Dan-child hyperbolizes his feeeeeeeeeeelings until there's no connection between his words and actual reality. Politically abused children become abusive adults."
Like all progressive democrats, Joey accuses me of what he is guilty of.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "Madison: "The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect. Madison states that usurpations or abuses of power JUSTLY have the same effect as the consent of the other parties."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Right, I have posted that quote innumerable times on these threads, always with the note that neither mutual consent nor abuses & usurpations existed in 1860."
Joey's posts are always deceptive. The seceding States certainly thought there were substantial abuses by the North. That is all it matters, from a constitutional perspective.
Progressives, like Joey, believe the Constitution had "evolved" by 1860 to give the federal government all powers once reserved to the states.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "Neither Madison nor any other Founder ever said that Federal tariff rates were matters that could justify unilateral secession."
Of course they did. They, via the Constitution, restricted the general government to uniform rates, which were abused over and over again.
Now that you mentioned it, you can find reasons for the secession in the Confederate Constitution. These are the Revenue Clauses of both Constitutions, with the differences highlighted:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." ["Constitution of the United States and Amendments." 1787, Article I.8]
"[The Congress shall have power] To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for revenue, necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States; but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry; and all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States." ["Constitution of the Confederate States." Avalon Project, March 11, 1861, Article I, Sec. 8.1]
As you can see, the Confederate Congress eliminated the ability of slick crony-capitalists, like Henry Clay, to squeeze corporate welfare for their supporters out of the Confederate Constitution. That, in itself, was enough for a devout crony-capitalist, like Lincoln, to invade the Confederacy.
But in all fairness to Joey (he needs all the help we can give him,) it is likely the Founders may not have realized how severely the Revenue Clause could be abused. Hamilton himself explained how it would be "self-correcting," in a manner of speaking:
"Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counterbalanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised."
[Alexander Hamiltion, Federalist No. 21, "Other Defects of the Present Confederation," Dec 12, 1787, in Bill Bailey, "The Complete Federalist Papers." The New Federalist Papers Project, p.102]
But now we know that Hamilton was a deceitful crook, who had figured out ways to bypass the barriers to usurpation, even before the ink was dry on the Constitution.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "Therefore, when Lincoln usurped powers from the states, he effectively gave consent to secession by those whose powers were being usurped."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Lincoln held no public office when seven states unilaterally declared secession & Confederacy, at pleasure. After Fort Sumter, four more states used Lincoln's actions as their excuse to declare secession, Confederacy and war against the United States."
So, you agree that Lincoln's usurpations caused some of the states to secede. You forgot to mention that Maryland was forced to stay in the Union at the gunpoint.
****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Every other state, including slave-states remained in the Union and helped defeat the military forces attempting to destroy the United States."
You are living in La-La Land, Joey. Lincoln invaded the Confederacy, not the other way around.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "So much for crazy-Lincoln's "Union of the whole people" deception."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "In his post #1,512 OIFVeteran quotes a 1787 letter from George Washington to the president of congress explaining that his new Constitution did indeed seek to consolidate the states into a nation. So obviously, there is a range of interpretations of our Founders' Original Intent possible."
That is more of Joey's deception. In Washington's Farewell Address he warned against consolidation:
"It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those intrusted with its administration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern, some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them."
[George Washington, "Farewell Address." 1796]
If you examine Washington's Convention 1787 speech carefully, you will see it promoted the same theme as all other Founding Fathers: a sharing of powers between the states by distributing some of them to their agent (the general government) via a compact (the Constitution.) Expressed in general terms, Washington stated:
"Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest."
It is not rocket science, Joey.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "A quarter-century of one-sided protective tariffs that transferred vast amounts of wealth from the South to the North, which was then used for corrupt, crony-capitalist infrastructure projects – IN THE NORTH – could not be considered by any sane person as a light and transient cause! So, what was the remedy?"
>>BroJoeK wrote: "As a typical Democrat, our Dan-child hyperbolizes minor differences in tariff rates into some grandiose justification for secession."
Joey, like all Far-Left Democrats, accuses others of his own crimes. And, as usual, Joey's statement is deceptive, in this case, amazingly so! From 1824 onward (as soon as Clay weaseled protective tariffs into federal legislative "precedent",) the South was plagued with moderate to heaven financial burdens from the tariffs.
****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Of course tariffs were a "light and transient cause" and the proof of that is most Southerners were happy with the tariff rates of 1857, and even of the higher rates of 1846. The rest of that nonsense about "transferring vast wealth from South to North" is sheer political fantasy."
Only a historically-challenged fool would say that, or Joey, but I repeat myself.
****************
>>Kalamata wrote: "Like I said, it was not only the right of the states to secede, but their DUTY! It is not rocket science, Joey, but a concept difficult to grasp by those wired to be bullies."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Says our own Dan-bo, who was trained from childhood to mock & bully the truth with ludicrous Democrat propaganda."
Joey knows I am a counterpuncher, but he is also a liar, so don't take his word for it. In his very first few posts to me on this forum he came across as his typical know-it-all, jackass self (and, of course I was the dummy, according to him.) Naturally, things went downhill from there. LOL!
I had been following Joey's posts with others, before posting, so I knew beforehand he was an arrogant, scientifically-challenged blowhard. I didn't realize he was also a historically-challenged blowhard until I joined this thread. Perhaps he was emotionally abused as a child. A lot of bullies were.
****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Here's the real truth: in 1856 Southern Fire Eaters threatened secession if "Black Republican" John C. Fremont were elected president -- not because of tariffs or any other alleged nonsensical reason, but because of the threat Republicans represented to slavery. In 1856 Fremont lost, Democrat Buchanan won. In 1860 Fire Eaters again threatened secession if "Black Republican" Lincoln was elected, not because of tariffs or anything else, but because of the threat Republican Lincoln represented to slavery."
Actually, there were many causes; but the tariff issue was by far the most significant one. The secessionists didn't give a rat's behind about Lincoln's attempts to enshrine slavery into the Constitution as the 13th Amendment. They simply didn't want to be ruled by that disgusting crony-capitalist. Seventy years of Hamiltonian shenanigans were enough.
****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: "The day after Lincoln's election in November 1860, Fire Eaters began organizing secession, Confederacy, rebellion and war against the United States -- mainly because, they said, of Republicans' threat to slavery. "
That is partly true. War was off the table, until Lincoln put it there. The South simply wanted to be left alone to live their own lives and run their own economy.
Joey's posts are always deceptive.
Mr. Kalamata
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.