House drops Confederate Flag ban for veterans cemeteries

DiogenesLamp: "You do not want to answer this question because you know what the follow up question will be."

Nonsense.
But there's a dividing line between rational thought and irrational fantasies and you, FRiend, are on the wrong side of it.

But there's a dividing line between rational thought and irrational fantasies and you, FRiend, are on the wrong side of it.

Rush seems to believe that "The Establishment" is a cadre of people that influence and steer the government. Is this "fantasy" on his part? I've posted commentary from four other people, including Richard Fernandez.

Are all these people fantasizing about this group of influential people?

Ha! Now Rush is recommending people read that one article I already linked for you!

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/11/01/two_long_form_pieces_you_should_read

[BroJoeK]: rustbucket: "Northern [BroJoeK: anti-Republican, Democrat] newspapers were talking about how their Northern economy would be ruined by the Morrill Tariff that the North passed after much of the South had left."

[BroJoeK]: Right, Democrat papers.

Perhaps you are forgetting Republican papers.

The New York Evening Post, March 2, 1861 [from an old post by nolu chan]:

That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the port must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe. There will be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our navy afloat; nothing to pay the salaries of public officers; the present order of things must come to a dead stop.
* * *
What, then is left for our government? Shall we let the seceding states repeal the revenue laws for the whole Union in this manner? Or will the government choose to consider all foreign commerce destined for those ports where we have no custom-houses and no collectors as contraband, and stop it, when offering to enter the collection districts from which our authorities have been expelled?

The most thorough book about the press during the Civil War was, “Lincoln and the Press” by Robert S. Harper. He characterized the Evening Post as a Republican newspaper. The Philadelphia Press on March 6, 1861 also listed the Evening Post as a Republican paper.

Then there was the New York Times (certainly a Republican paper back then) on March 30, 1861 [my underline bold emphasis below]:

With the loss of our foreign trade, what is to become of our public works, conducted at the cost of many hundred millions of dollars, to turn into our harbor the products of the interior? They share in the common ruin. So do our manufacturers...Once at New Orleans, goods may be distributed over the whole country duty-free. The process is perfectly simple... The commercial bearing of the question has acted upon the North...

We now see clearly whither we are tending, and the policy we must adopt. With us it is no longer an abstract question---one of Constitutional construction, or of the reserved or delegated powers of the State or Federal government, but of material existence and moral position both at home and abroad.....We were divided and confused till our pockets were touched.

First of all, "protectionism" protected all industries, North, South or West.
Yes, in 1860 most manufacturing was Northern, but Southern & Western producers also received protection from US tariffs.

The key point you miss was that because the bulk of manufacturing was done in the North, the tariff protection of Northern industries resulted in Southerners paying a large amount each year for tariff-inflated prices on Northern goods. Northern manufacturers profited because of the tariff, and Northern workers got jobs. This was sectional aggrandizement at work.

But the 1861 Morrill tariff rates meant that when those exports disappeared, US tariff revenues fell only 26%.

Look at what happened at the Port of New York. The Morrill Tariff went into effect on April 1.

Month ... % change from 1860 to 1861 for each month
Jan ..... 23.5
Feb ..... -15.6
Mar ..... -22.8
Apr ..... -12.3
May ..... -11.5
Jun ..... -34.0
Jul ..... -40.0
Aug ..... -65.7
Sep ..... -55.1
Oct ..... -49.2
Nov ..... -37.5
Dec ..... -54.8

Averaging those percent reductions in tariff revenue for April through December gives a 40.0% loss in revenue after the Morrill Tariff went into effect. That is an approximate figure. To do it more exactly, I retrieved the monthly revenue figures from Appleton's. Using revenue for those nine months the Morrill Tariff was in force in 1861 resulted in a loss of tariff revenue during that nine month period of 41.4%. Even with the higher tariff, there was a significant loss in income. And I posted earlier the yearly totals of business failures in various port cities. Those darn Democrat papers were correct!

[BroJoeK]: rustbucket: "And by the way, despite your flame war style slur, Marx isn't my philosophical mother."

[BroJoeK]: Of course not, not regarding your Confederates' motives and reasons -- those in your own mind were all of the highest possible idealism.
But you degrade Northern thinking, and permit no other considerations, to the level of Marxist materialistic class warfare [rb: my bold that I will respond to such a claim below].
It is simply your own method of mocking and scorning Unionists

Now I am "mocking" Unionists? I'm just arguing a different interpretation of history than what you believe, and I provide information that supports my arguments.

You are forgetting that I said, "I believe that Lincoln did have the ultimate intention of freeing the slaves and that many Republican politicians wanted to do away with slavery in the country too." I acknowledged that antislavery moral choice of the Republicans.

However, I think the main thing driving Lincoln in March and April 1861 was the potential loss of tariff revenue caused by the two different tariffs. That is why I believe he chose to do something that his cabinet had told him would result in a shooting war. It did just that. With a war, he could impose a blockade on Southern ports and stop the lower Southern tariff from diverting imports away from Northern ports where the bulk of revenue was collected regardless of where in the country the imported items were going. Lincoln did think outside the box.

Let's look at your claims that I and others are using Marxist thinking by pointing out what Lincoln was doing behind the scene to initiate war. You are using a fallacious style of argument to make your claim of Marxist thinking. From the book, "An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments" by Ali Almossawi:

Guilt by Association

... some group of people is absolutely and categorically bad. Hence, sharing even a single attribute with that group would make one a member of it, which would then bestow on one all the evils associated with that group.

Marx was for freeing the slaves in the US. You obviously think that way too. Using your fallacious guilt by association argument, your being for freeing the slaves is pure Marxism. Obviously, you must be using Marxist thinking. (/sarc)

As you will note, I rejected that type of fallacious argument by pointing out in my previous post that although Marx praised Lincoln and the North for their intentions to free the slaves, that did not make Lincoln or the North Marxist. Nor you, nor me, of course.

As a last point, economic reasons caused wars long before Marx existed. There are other causes of war too, of course. Look at the wars of religion in Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries.

Thanks for your comments. I have been focused today on responding to our Northern poster’s reply to my earlier post and didn’t realize that you had posted to me also. I should have cc’d you on post 1,644.

DiogenesLamp: "Rush seems to believe that "The Establishment" is a cadre of people that influence and steer the government."

Sure, of course.
And it's often claimed they are both Republicans & Democrats, but I say 90% are really Democrats, regardless of what they claim to be.
Democrats rule and, with some exceptions, nearly always have.
It's part of what makes Republicans so meek & humble, brown-nosing *ss kissers over-eager to please their Democrat masters, even when Democrats are officially the minority!
Republicans are afraid of themselves and their own ideals.
They bend over backwards to make Democrats like them, and the result is what you'd expect.

But you, DiogenesLamp, want to localize it to a Washington-New York corridor, and that's just nuts, especially in this day & age when geography is less important than ever in history.
In truth, it has almost nothing to do with where people live, but lots to do with how they live.

rustbucket: "Perhaps you are forgetting Republican papers.
The New York Evening Post, March 2, 1861 [from an old post by nolu chan]:"

Sure, I "get" that you wish to confuse & conflate issues to make Northerners look bad, but fortunately it only takes a little work to unwrap the facts.

Fact #1: The Morrill Tariff was supported by Republicans, opposed by Democrats and only passed in 1861 after Southern Democrats left Congress.
Fact #2: Northern concerns over collecting tariffs in secession states were not related to Morrill, but to any Union tariff.
Fact #3: Lincoln himself, on March 3, 1861 addressed collecting tariffs this way:
So Lincoln intended from Day One to collect Union tariffs.
That may well be the reason pro-Confederate papers called Lincoln's Inaugural a declaration of war, but Lincoln himself did not consider it such.

rustbucket quoting New York Times: "We were divided and confused till our pockets were touched."

In fact, some New York Democrats wanted to join in secession and provide secessionists with whatever concessions might be necessary.
Just how secession might hurt them took some time for them to figure out.

rustbucket: "The key point you miss was that because the bulk of manufacturing was done in the North, the tariff protection of Northern industries resulted in Southerners paying a large amount each year for tariff-inflated prices on Northern goods."

The key point you miss is that not all manufacturing was done in the North and tariffs equally protected producers and wages in all regions.

rustbucket: "~~Northern~~ All manufacturers profited because of the tariff, and ~~Northern~~ all workers got jobs.
This was ~~sectional aggrandizement~~ national industrialization at work."

Fixed it for you. No problem, you're welcome.

rustbucket: "Averaging those percent reductions in tariff revenue for April through December gives a 40.0% loss in revenue after the Morrill Tariff went into effect.
That is an approximate figure."

Interesting to see the changes by month, and yet we should note the following:

These numbers reflect the loss of cotton exports in 1861, with the greatest reduction of 65% in August over August 1860.
That tells us how much at most cotton mattered to total US exports.
Other numbers posted on this thread show the overall average reduction in 1861 came to 26%, demonstrating that cotton was not necessarily the be-all & end-all of US commodity exports.

rustbucket: "Even with the higher tariff, there was a significant loss in income.
And I posted earlier the yearly totals of business failures in various port cities.
Those darn Democrat papers were correct!"

But the facts remain that, first, overall losses were not as severe as secessionists predicted and some Northerners might have feared, and second, the Northern economy quickly adjusted, adapted and continued to prosper.

rustbucket: "Now I am "mocking" Unionists?
I'm just arguing a different interpretation of history than what you believe, and I provide information that supports my arguments."

And I likewise argue that economics (slavery) motivated Deep South Fire Eaters to declare secession and Confederacy.
But here's the difference: I use their actual words in their official Declarations of Causes for Secession.
By contrast, you cannot quote official Union documents (or any others) saying, in effect: "we must start war to collect tariffs".
Such documents don't exist because that's not why they did what they did.

Sure, I "get" that you wish to confuse & conflate issues to make Northerners look bad ...

They don't need my help to do that.

1.Fact #1: The Morrill Tariff was supported by Republicans, opposed by Democrats and only passed in 1861 after Southern Democrats left Congress.

I've posted Senator Wigfall's December 1860 count of likely Senate votes on the tariff in the incoming Senate showing that it would pass even if all Southern Senators stayed. You disagreed.

2.Fact #2: Northern concerns over collecting tariffs in secession states were not related to Morrill, but to any Union tariff.

If so, why were a number of Republicans calling for the repeal of the Morrill Tariff or the blockade of the Southern ports?

3.Fact #3: Lincoln himself, on March 3, 1861 addressed collecting tariffs this way:

It sounds like you are using your error filled almanac again. Or perhaps Lincoln said that in his dry run on Sunday, March 3, the day before his inaugural speech on March 4.

So Lincoln intended from Day One to collect Union tariffs.

He was going to collect tariff revenue from states that had seceded. How could that be accomplished without resistance from the seceded states? The states had seceded consistent with Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison's statements that they could reassume/resume their powers of government. Those three founders were the authors of the Federalist Papers that explained what the Constitution meant.

The key point you miss is that not all manufacturing was done in the North and tariffs equally protected producers and wages in all regions.

That pales in comparison with the money spent by Southerners on Northern goods, whose prices were inflated by the tariff. Remember that December 1860 Chicago Times article I posted:

We have a tariff that protects our manufacturers from thirty to fifty percent, and enables us to consume large quantities of Southern cotton, and to compete in our whole home market with the skilled labor of Europe. This operates to compel the South to pay an indirect bounty to our skilled labor, of millions annually.

But the facts remain that, first, overall losses were not as severe as secessionists predicted and some Northerners might have feared, and second, the Northern economy quickly adjusted, adapted and continued to prosper.

Overall looses were not as severe as Northern newspapers had predicted because Lincoln blockaded Southern ports thereby stemming the flow of imported goods that would have gone directly to the South. Remember Lincoln's blockade proclamation, the proclamation that the Supreme Court said was the start of the Civil War.

Another way of looking at the import figures was that they tell how much of the imports were going to the North and how much (the missing part) had been going to the South. The actual volume of imports to the North dropped more than the 41.4% that the revenue decreased by because it took fewer imports to produce equivalent revenue at higher tariff rates than the volume of imports needed to produce that revenue in 1860.

But here's the difference: I use their actual words in their official Declarations of Causes for Secession.
By contrast, you cannot quote official Union documents (or any others) saying, in effect: "we must start war to collect tariffs".
Such documents don't exist because that's not why they did what they did.

Lincoln kept his intention for the Sumter expedition secret, but it leaked out anyway. Consider what Lincoln wrote Gustavus Fox on May 1, 1861. Fox was the guy who proposed, planned, and led the Sumter expedition.

"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Ft. Sumter, even if it had failed; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the results."

The result of the Sumter expedition was war.

Lincoln’s two wartime secretaries, Nicolay and Hay, put it this way after the war in their book about Lincoln:

President Lincoln in deciding the Sumter question had adopted a simple but effective policy. To use his own words, he determined to "send bread to Anderson"; if the rebels fired on that, they would not be able to convince the world that he had begun the civil war.

Some of us can see through Lincoln's ruse. Others on this thread cannot.

rustbucket: "I've posted Senator Wigfall's December 1860 count of likely Senate votes on the tariff in the incoming Senate showing that it would pass even if all Southern Senators stayed.
You disagreed."

Because,

First, Wigfall was a newcomer & knew little to nothing about the Senate,
Second, even if passed in the new Congress, a determined Southern opposition could have modified the bill more to their liking -- or less to their disliking, as the case may be, and
Third, Wigfall was a dedicated Fire Eater most interested in making the case for secession, not working out compromises with Unionists.

rustbucket: "If so, why were a number of Republicans calling for the repeal of the Morrill Tariff or the blockade of the Southern ports?"

First, most Republicans supported and most Democrats opposed Morrill, but there were a few of each on the other side and the bill was signed by Democrat President Buchanan.
Second, also remember, secession began five months before Morrill took effect (in April 1861), so the issue of Morrill is not what caused secession.
Third, calls for repeal of Morrill could only come after it was signed, in March 1861, at which time other factors (i.e., Fort Sumter) were already driving towards war.

rustbucket: "It sounds like you are using your error filled almanac again.
Or perhaps Lincoln said that in his dry run on Sunday, March 3, the day before his inaugural speech on March 4."

According to this site, that was the speech delivered on March 4, 1861.

rustbucket: "He was going to collect tariff revenue from states that had seceded.
How could that be accomplished without resistance from the seceded states?"

In early March, 1861 Lincoln believed it could be.
Events soon proved him mistaken in that idea.

rustbucket: "The states had seceded consistent with Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison's statements that they could reassume/resume their powers of government.
Those three founders were the authors of the Federalist Papers that explained what the Constitution meant."

In fact, by Madison's definition and others, Fire Eaters had declared their secessions "at pleasure", which was not considered legitimate.
In early 1861 Democrat ex-president Van Buren, Whig ex-president Fillmore and Democrat ex-president Pierce all opposed secession along with Democrat President Buchanan and Republican President-elect Lincoln.
All also believed that secession by itself was not justification for war.

When war came at Fort Sumter, former Presidents Van Buren, Fillmore and Buchanan supported it, while Pierce criticized war & Lincoln throughout.

rustbucket: "Remember that December 1860 Chicago Times article I posted:

'We have a tariff that protects our manufacturers from thirty to fifty percent, and enables us to consume large quantities of Southern cotton, and to compete in our whole home market with the skilled labor of Europe.
This operates to compel the South to pay an indirect bounty to our skilled labor, of millions annually.' "

Once again:

Tariffs protected all US manufacturing and while Southern & Western production was less than Northern, they were also growing rapidly, thanks to tariff protections.
Tariffs were paid for by exports from all regions, not just the South.
Deep South slave-grown cotton & rice covered about 50%, other regions paid the rest.

rustbucket: "Overall looses were not as severe as Northern newspapers had predicted because Lincoln blockaded Southern ports thereby stemming the flow of imported goods that would have gone directly to the South."

That argument has been shown bogus now several times on this thread.
The reasons are:

The original Confederate tariff was essentially the same as the old Union tariff of 1857.
No merchant would wish to pay tariffs twice on goods imported, for example, first in New Orleans then again in St. Louis.
So imports intended for Union citizens (about 80%) would go to northern ports and those for Confederates (about 20%) to Southern ports.
Even the new lower Confederate tariffs would still mean double payments for products shipped between both regions and so would not change the basic math.

rustbucket: "Remember Lincoln's blockade proclamation, the proclamation that the Supreme Court said was the start of the Civil War."

Constitutionally, the Supreme Court does not declare war, so that case strictly covered a civil suit regarding, iirc, pension payments.
It has no bearing on the fact that Jefferson Davis ordered war / rebellion to begin at Fort Sumter, April 12, 1861.
Fort Sumter was just as much a game-changer as Pearl Harbor eighty years later.

rustbucket: "Another way of looking at the import figures was that they tell how much of the imports were going to the North and how much (the missing part) had been going to the South.
The actual volume of imports to the North dropped more than the 41.4% that the revenue decreased by because it took fewer imports to produce equivalent revenue at higher tariff rates than the volume of imports needed to produce that revenue in 1860."

Again, I'll refer you to PeaRidge's post #1,540 and my response in post #1,553.
They clearly show that overall loss of revenues was only 26% in 1861, after which tariff revenues grew 19%, 37% and 51% in following years.
Such numbers demonstrate that loss of Confederate products was not the great economic catastrophe some have claimed.

rustbucket quoting Lincoln: " 'You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Ft. Sumter, even if it had failed; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the results.'

The result of the Sumter expedition was war."

But clearly, Lincoln here acknowledges his mission to Fort Sumter "failed".
His consolation is that, with war now started, he could take military actions to defeat the rebellion.
Lincoln's position here is nearly identical to that of President Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor.

rustbucket quoting: " 'President Lincoln in deciding the Sumter question had adopted a simple but effective policy.
To use his own words, he determined to "send bread to Anderson"; if the rebels fired on that, they would not be able to convince the world that he had begun the civil war.'

Some of us can see through Lincoln's ruse.
Others on this thread cannot."

No "ruse", just as FDR did not "ruse" the Japanese by sending the US fleet to Pearl Harbor.
In both cases, enemy military took advantage of perceived US weaknesses to start a war.
Wars both then lost.
Too bad about that.

1.First, Wigfall was a newcomer & knew little to nothing about the Senate,

Wigfall had been in the Senate for a year when he made his prediction of how the future Morrill vote would go.

2.Second, even if passed in the new Congress, a determined Southern opposition could have modified the bill more to their liking -- or less to their disliking, as the case may be,

The opposition had the votes to pass whatever they wanted.

3.Third, Wigfall was a dedicated Fire Eater most interested in making the case for secession, not working out compromises with Unionists.

That may be true, but there were folks on the other side just as determined not to compromise. And besides, the other side had the votes to pass whatever they wanted.

Speaking of those determined not to compromise, according to the following April 5, 1861 letter to Lincoln from one of his close supporters, Lincoln had told him that he (Lincoln) did not want to call a special session of Congress apparently as Congress might compromise with the South over issues. [Source: Carl Schurz letter to Lincoln found by poster southernsunshine, my emphasis below]:

Some time ago you told me, that you did not want to call an extra-session of Congress for fear of reopening the compromise-agitation. You were undoubtedly right then. But any vigorous act on the part of your Administration, any display of power and courage will remove that danger. If you first reinforce the forts and then call Congress together, the enthusiasm of the masses will be so great and overwhelming, that Congress will be obliged to give you any legislation you may ask for. You will be master of the situation, and supported by the confidence of the people, the government will be stronger than it ever was before. But on the other hand, if an undecided vacillating policy is followed, we shall be beaten in most of the Northern states at the fall-elections, and your administration will be at the mercy of democratic demagoguism--

Schurz had marked his letter "Confidential." So we are getting a peak at one of the confidential "emails" of the time that exposed what Lincoln was thinking.

This reminds me of Lincoln's March 28, 1861 reply to the Special Session of the Senate then in session when they asked him if he had anything of importance to convey to them before they adjourned. Here from the "Congressional Globe" on March 28, 1861, is documentation about the Senate checking with Lincoln and his reply:

Mr. Powell, from the committee appointed to wait on the President of the United States and notify him that unless he has some further communication to make, the Senate is ready to adjourn, reported that the committee had waited on the President, and had been informed by him that he had no further communication to make to the Senate.

That same day, March 28 [Klein, "Days of Defiance", page 358], Lincoln instructed Fox to prepare an order arranging for the things necessary for the Sumter expedition, an expedition that his military advisors and cabinet previously said would result in a shooting war. Lincoln waited until the Senate adjourned (the House had already adjourned) to plan his effort to provoke war. If Lincoln's expedition was simply a peaceful expedition to provide food for Fort Sumter, why not tell the Senate? Besides, until it became clear to the Confederacy in early April that an armed expedition was being prepared by Lincoln, Fort Sumter had been allowed to get food from Charleston.

Somehow a probable war was not important enough inform the Senate and keep them in session? Congress has the constitutional authority to declare war, not the President.

Lincoln kept Congress out of session until July 4. In the interim, he invaded the South, started the blockade, spent money he had no authorization to spend, enrolled troops for longer periods than allowed by law, ignored habeas corpus, jailed newspaper editors and writers opposing his actions. He did all this without having the normal checks and balances that the Congress would provide. He didn't want the Congress interfering with his plans. Jefferson Davis, on the other hand, reconvened his Congress about two weeks after Fort Sumter.

I'm out of pocket for a good while. More later.

And it's often claimed they are both Republicans & Democrats, but I say 90% are really Democrats, regardless of what they claim to be.

That is likely a reasonable surmise. I too believe the vast bulk of the Shadow government is made up of people who are registered Democrat.

Democrats rule and, with some exceptions, nearly always have.

Not in 1860 and the aftermath. It was the same group of people, they just called themselves "Republicans" in those days. They were the wealthy elite of the Washington Boston power corridor and they thought they were more enlightened and morally superior to everyone else at the time.

Same people, Same economic and social status, and same general geographic location, though they have expanded to Los Angeles and San Fransisco during this last century.

But you, DiogenesLamp, want to localize it to a Washington-New York corridor, and that's just nuts, especially in this day & age when geography is less important than ever in history.

It is not completely isolated to that region, that is just it's center of mass. San Fransisco and Los Angeles have become major players, as has Chicago, but still the core of this Shadow government are the power brokers who live in the region spanning from Washington DC to Boston.

In truth, it has almost nothing to do with where people live, but lots to do with how they live.

You are correct insofar as saying they don't have to live in the Boston DC power corridor, they can live anywhere and still have the same influence, it's just that inertia has kept them where they are, and it is more convenient for them to be near the US Capitol.

I think you recognize what I am getting at but simply don't want to admit it to yourself. The conditions that exist now regarding these people who wield amazing influence behind the scenes, began somewhere just before the middle of the 19th century, (say 1820-1850) and have persisted ever since.

At least you appear to recognize that this behind the scenes influence is one of the forces that we are fighting against, and I think you are aware that it's influence comes from mostly the Washington DC/Boston corridor.

The result of the Sumter expedition was war.

I don't think I saw an answer from BroJoeK regarding why Captain Porter thought he would possibly be sunk on his mission to Fort Pickens.

I believe I further asked him what he thinks would have happened if Captain Porter had completed his mission?

My point here is that the evidence indicates Lincoln had not one, but two plans to make certain a war started.

rustbucket: "Wigfall had been in the Senate for a year when he made his prediction of how the future Morrill vote would go."

Like I said, a newcomer who knew little to nothing about the Senate.

rustbucket: "The opposition had the votes to pass whatever they wanted."

A determined, experienced minority can always wheel, deal and negotiate better terms than would be available otherwise.

rustbucket: "That may be true, but there were folks on the other side just as determined not to compromise.
And besides, the other side had the votes to pass whatever they wanted."

Somebody famous once wrote a book called "The Art of the Deal", which I've not read, but am certain tells us that anyone can negotiate improved terms & conditions, if they'll make the effort and play their cards right.

rustbucket quoting Schurz to Lincoln: "Some time ago you told me, that you did not want to call an extra-session of Congress for fear of reopening the compromise-agitation.
You were undoubtedly right then.
But any vigorous act on the part of your Administration, any display of power and courage will remove that danger...."

The record shows many Republicans urging Lincoln not to compromise basic principles just to appease secessionists.
And the fact is that no compromise agitation ever resulted in favorable responses from secessionists, so such advice was sound.

rustbucket quoting: "...'the committee had waited on the President, and had been informed by him that he had no further communication to make to the Senate'...

rustbucket: "That same day, March 28 [Klein, "Days of Defiance", page 358], Lincoln instructed Fox to prepare an order arranging for the things necessary for the Sumter expedition, an expedition that his military advisors and cabinet previously said would result in a shooting war."

In fact, Lincoln was still hoping to negotiate a peaceful withdrawal from Fort Sumter -- "a fort for a state" was the deal he wanted -- and in the mean time, Major Anderson informed Washington that his food supplies would run out in two more weeks.
So preparations for resupply of Fort Sumter were both necessary and in normal order, not assuming they would lead to war.

In the end, secessionists refused Lincoln's offer of a fort for a state (Virginia), but peaceful resupply of Fort Sumter was still possible, at least in Lincoln's mind.
And if it failed (as it did), then open rebellion would justify Lincoln's use of military forces to defeat it.

rustbucket: "Lincoln waited until the Senate adjourned (the House had already adjourned) to plan his effort to provoke war.
If Lincoln's expedition was simply a peaceful expedition to provide food for Fort Sumter, why not tell the Senate?"

No peaceful resupply mission to US army forts was a matter for Congressional approval.
And by March 28, 1861 it was still entirely possible for successful discussions to produce peaceful results.
It appears that not until Lincoln's April 4 meeting with Virginian John B. Baldwin was his idea of "a fort for a state" abandoned.
Even then it was not certain in Lincoln's mind that resupplying Fort Sumter must necessarily lead to war, and without some agreement, he had no other choice than attempt it.

rustbucket: "Somehow a probable war was not important enough inform the Senate and keep them in session?
Congress has the constitutional authority to declare war, not the President."

A peaceful resupply mission has never required Congressional action.

rustbucket: "Lincoln kept Congress out of session until July 4."

No, Congress does not need a President to call it into session, it can convene whenever it wants.
So Lincoln called Congress back to Washington DC months earlier than it would have convened on its own.

Indeed to have convened Congress before July 1861 would have put it in extreme danger of an expected Confederate assault on Washington, DC.
Lincoln waited until there were enough troops defending Washington to promise Congress safety.

And, as it happened, Congress then fully supported everything Lincoln had done up to that point, including your litany of his allegedly nefarious actions.

rustbucket: "He did all this without having the normal checks and balances that the Congress would provide.
He didn't want the Congress interfering with his plans."

Nonsense.
When it convened in July, Congress did not "check" or "balance" Lincoln, but approved and supported his actions, all of them, and continued to do so throughout the Civil War.

DiogenesLamp: "Not in 1860 and the aftermath.
It was the same group of people, they just called themselves "Republicans" in those days.
They were the wealthy elite of the Washington Boston power corridor and they thought they were more enlightened and morally superior to everyone else at the time. "

Wrong again.
Then as now, most Republicans had small town businesses & rural farms.
Big City businesses were mostly Democrat allies of the Southern slave-power with whom they were closely linked economically.
These Big City business people opposed abolition and supported any efforts to appease secessionists.
They did not control Lincoln because Lincoln was not one of them, far from it.
Indeed, Lincoln was far more removed from that Eastern Democrat "establishment" than is, in our own time, somebody like, say, Mr. Trump.

No offense intended to either.

DiogenesLamp: "Same people, Same economic and social status, and same general geographic location, though they have expanded to Los Angeles and San Fransisco during this last century."

Within the USA there are several such metropolitan "corridors" where wealth & populations concentrate.
Washington to Boston is only one, the entire west coast is another, the mid-west's "rust belt", the I-10 from Texas east, and others.
All are not only internally dynamic, but also strongly linked together with the others via truck, rail, water & air connections.
There interests and voting patterns are quite different from the 90% of US territory which is more rural & small towns.

Major US metropolitan regions:

2012 voting patterns:

DiogenesLamp: "My point here is that the evidence indicates Lincoln had not one, but two plans to make certain a war started. "

No, Lincoln's plan was to resupply and reinforce if necessary US troops in Union forts.
The decision to use Lincoln's resupply missions to start Civil War was strictly Jefferson Davis'.

No, Lincoln's plan was to resupply and reinforce if necessary US troops in Union forts. The decision to use Lincoln's resupply missions to start Civil War was strictly Jefferson Davis'.

Then why did Captain Porter think he would be sunk? The statement that he might be sunk implies he was intending to engage in some belligerent act.

I am not referring to average metropolitan voters as "power brokers of the shadow government."

I am referring to major wealthy players in finance, shipping, industry and such. I am referring to the big monied social set that owns the media.

Let’s not delude ourselves. America is ruled by the Five Cities, Boston, New York, Washington, Chicago, and Hollywood. The rest of us just pay taxes. The heart of the beast is New York, the Ivies being its nursery and Washington its storefront.

So the statue of the treasonous, racist, anti-Catholic bigot who was the first Grand Wizard of the KKK still stands. Sad day.

If you don’t like it then all is well.

Comes the word from the sewers. So cousin, are you anti-Catholic too?