House drops Confederate Flag ban for veterans cemeteries

politico.com ^ | 6/23/16 | Matthew Nussbaum

[ColdOne]

A measure to bar confederate flags from cemeteries run by the Department of Veterans Affairs was removed from legislation passed by the House early Thursday.

The flag ban was added to the VA funding bill in May by a vote of 265-159, with most Republicans voting against the ban. But Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) both supported the measure. Ryan was commended for allowing a vote on the controversial measure, but has since limited what amendments can be offered on the floor.

[BroJoeK]

PeaRidge: "Others were claimed by the states themselves for the simple reason that they had rightful ownership of the properties."

Sure, by definition: if a state's militia simply occupied a state fort which had not previously been used, or claimed, by the Federal Government, then that fort was not "seized", and no provocation of war happened.
But that's not what we are told happened, and so, giving you credit for accuracy, I'll assume what you say is true at least in some cases.
The question then becomes: in how many?

Remember, the total inventory of Federal properties seized by secessionists was not only old forts.
It included ships -- i.e., revenue cutters -- arsenals where weapons were produced and stored, and US mints where gold & silver were stored to produce coins.

I have seen lists of what all was seized and, other than possibly some old state forts, cannot imagine anything else as other than Federal property.

[rockrr]

The rationalizing is incredible, isn’t it? It’s no different than going into your backyard and stealing your dirtbike. After all, you weren’t using it.

[DiogenesLamp]

The first "straw" part of your argument is your misrepresentation of a "Union launched... war against the South".

No. I'm not going to let you ignore the fact that the Union launched the invasion of another Nation's territory.

I'm also not going to accept your incorrect premise that Ft. Sumter belonged to Washington D.C. It was part of the land of South Carolina, and therefore it belonged to the people of South Carolina when they saw fit to remove themselves from the Union.

Washington D.C. had a claim to expenses, but not the land or occupation of it.

The second "straw" part is your notion that somehow war could "protect the pocketbooks of New England." It did no such thing, since cotton & other exports from Confederate states were cut off 100%.

But in 1861, no one knew how long the Southern States would remain independent. Most assumed the Union would whip them quickly, and business would be back to usual. People thought they would be dealing with short term losses, and thereafter long term resumption of the conditions extant prior to the conflict.

They were expecting to resume receiving all that wonderful import trade created through Southern production. They also realized that the Blockade (Militarily pointless, but economically critical) would prevent the creation and establishment of Southern trade with Europe.

And yet... and yet... somehow they survived economically, adjusted, found new business models and, by war's end, were prospering more than ever, but no thanks to Southern cotton.

But you are leaving out the part of what would have happened to them without the blockade. Take just a moment and try to find a rare bit of objectivity in your thinking, and consider what would have happened to Northern trade with Europe if Southern ports were allowed to remain open.

Assume 90% of European Trade went to Charleston and Savanna instead of New York. *THAT* is what they were facing in absence of the blockade. Now maybe at first it wouldn't have been 90%. But year after year, as incoming capital accumulated, Charleston would have expanded and improved it's port facilities, warehouses, and the region, spurred by capital infusion, would have bolstered it's own manufacturing and production.

Over time, it would take a serious bite out of New York's commerce.

You are thinking too short sighted. You are trying to analyze events in terms of what did happened, and you are avoiding what they would have looked like in the absence of conflict. In the absence of Conflict, New York would have taken a major financial hit. Conflict is what prevented New York from taking that hit. It kept Southern competition and capitalization in check.

Oh, and the Government was running on Debt in those years. Looks like Deficit Spending was pump priming much of their economy back in those days.

I wonder if the Government running massive deficits is another area in which we can thank the civil war for our current mess?

[PeaRidge]

Your comment: “Point is: for political as well as economic reasons, US tariffs went up & down, without causing major disruptions to either the economy or political alignments.”

Morril tariff doubled the percentages within 2 years.

Northern business interests saw it coming and visited Lincoln in March on 1861.

Remember his comment....” but what about my tariff?”.

He sent the warships south within a few weeks of his inauguration.

[DiogenesLamp]

I blame somebody else, of course, and that somebody is mainly Progressive President Woodrow Wilson... Though I will reluctantly admit the "progressive spirit" had infected both parties in those days, beginning with Teddy Roosevelt.

Beginning with Abraham Lincoln. FedZilla was created by Lincoln. There was no putting it back in the bottle after he let it out.

Notice all the corruption that occurred in the Grant Administration? My thinking is that the New York power brokers, having realized that if they can start a civil war to protect their finances, they could use their influence in government for all sorts of money making schemes.

I think it is no accident that the corruption swirling around the Grant administration is the consequence of the influence these same classes of people (New England Power Brokers) developed in the Lincoln Administration.

So where did all these Corrupt New England businessmen and officials get the idea they could influence government with bribes, schemes and kickbacks? They got this idea from Lincoln, who effectively did their bidding in launching that economic war against their competitors in the South.

[PeaRidge]

Brojoe comment: “Your suggestion that fear of Charleston replacing Northern cities like New York, Philadelphia, Boston or Baltimore as the “primary port” for European trade is beyond far-fetched.
Had it, in fact, been the number one concern, we would see that expressed far more frequently in, not just anti-Republican newspapers like the New York Herald, but also in pro-Republican papers, and yet we don't.”

You may not have, but it was there:

Northern businessmen feared the Southern Ports and the Mississippi

Northern financial interests and their legislators feared losing the commercial advantages they held to Southern states along the Mississippi.

In 1786, John Jay of New York had caused uproar in Congress among the Southern delegates with his attempt to give up rights to the Mississippi River to Spain in exchange for commercial advantages in Spanish ports for the Northern trading ports. Their great fear at the time was that their commerce would shift to the South. They exerted influence then to defeat Southern ports and trade on the Mississippi, and they continued for decades.

Many weeks before Lincoln’s inauguration, the New York Times had been running editorials of how the commerce of the North would be lost to New Orleans and to the rest of the South because of the low Southern tariff. Some Northerners admitted that their reasons for calling for war were not the result of differences in principles of constitutional law, but because their profits would be lost if the South was successful in becoming independent.

In his inauguration speech, Lincoln had said:

“The power confided in me, will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion – no using of force against, or among the people anywhere.... You can have no conflict, without being yourselves the aggressors.”

This was Lincoln's ultimatum to the South: pay tribute to the North or failure to do so will be interpreted as a declaration of war, by the South, against the North.

3/30/1861 New York Times editorial:

“The predicament in which both the government and the commerce of the country are placed, through the non-enforcement of our revenue laws, is now thoroughly understood the world over…If the manufacturer at Manchester (England) can send his goods into the Western States through New Orleans at a less cost than through New York, he is a fool for not availing himself of his advantage….

“If the importations of the country are made through Southern ports, its exports will go through the same channel.

“ The produce of the West, instead of coming to our own port by millions of tons, to be transported abroad by the same ships through which we received our importations, will seek other routes and other outlets. 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 power of the State or Federal Government, but of material existence ... We were divided and confused till our pockets were touched.”

In an earlier editorial, the New York Times complained about loss of revenue because the tariffs were no longer being collected in the Southern states. The article bemoaned the fact that new loans for the government were needed, but could not be guaranteed because the seceded states could not be forced to collect the “National” tariff.

There were a few early on who saw the possibility of a tariff war and its significance. In January of 1861 in a speech to New York merchants, Henry Raymond, who founded the New York Times, had said:

“there is no class of men in this country who have so large a stake in sustaining the government, whose prosperity depends so completely upon its being upheld…who have so much to lose…as the merchants of this city.”

That being said in January, by late March, the general merchants grasped the significance of Raymond’s remarks and were prepared to support strong action against the South and its tariff. Over one hundred leading commercial importers in New York, as well as a similar group in Boston, informed the US collectors of customs they would not pay duties on imported goods unless those same duties were also collected at Southern ports.

This threat was likely the proximate cause of the beginning of the war. It forced Lincoln and his administration to abandon the initial inclination to turn over Ft. Sumter to the Confederates.

[DiogenesLamp]

Our Founders demonstrated, twice, by their actions what they believed were legitimate and valid methods of secession:

In 1776 they declared independence from Britain, not "at pleasure", but of absolute necessity after a long list of "usurpations" and "abuses of power" by Brits, including the fact that England had already declared and launched war against Americans.

No. I refuse to accept the addition of the words "At Pleasure" to the debate.

The founders made it clear that people could leave for any reason they chose, and your attempts to make it conditional are an effort to add a lie to the discussion. No, the Declaration of Independence is not conditional. It does not require good reasons, it does not require any reasons, it simply states "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," .

The Union had lost the consent of the governed in the Southern States. NO OTHER CONSIDERATION IS NECESSARY.

But no Founder ever suggested that unilateral unapproved declarations of secession "at pleasure" were acceptable, lawful or constitutional.

Except for that DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE" thing, which says exactly that.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

[DiogenesLamp]

Economic reasons "slowly accumulating"?? Economics are the only kind of evidence Marxists recognize, they acknowledge no others.

So, will you 'fess up now and admit you're here to spread Marxism?

Name calling is not going to make your arguments correct.

[Pelham]

So in the alternate reality where Jeff Davis and the CSA wanted the Civil War, if Lincoln had stood pat and not called up his 75,000 man invasion force then old warmonger Davis would have been marching north with his army of conquest. Because after all, he’s the one who wanted war, unlike the entirely innocent Lincoln.

[DiogenesLamp]

Congress began work on the Articles of Confederation on July 12, 1776 -- before the ink was dry on the Declaration and before many signers had even signed it.
Pending formal ratification in 1781, Congress worked with a "beta copy" of the Articles as its operating system.

And so you are going to argue that they were operating under the authority of a "Governing Document" that hadn't yet been ratified?

Well if that's the standard, they should have written a stronger one with more power than the previous, because after all, if a non ratified document allows them to exercise power, then why not go full hog?

No, you're leaving out that "Consent of the Governed" aspect, the principle of which was strongly articulated by the Document that CREATED the U.S. Government:

The Declaration of Independence.

[PeaRidge]

The pure acts of aggression were committed by the Union. For example, Lt. Adam Slemmer, without orders moved his troops at Pensacola, and fired on Florida militia on January 9; days later the Joseph Whitney docked at Ft. Jefferson, on Garden Key in the Tortugas, with Maj. Arnold and his company of artillery setting up as reinforcements for Capt. Meigs.

President Buchanan approved and sent the the sloop-of-war Brooklyn with 90 men from Ft. Monroe, Hampton Roads, to reinforce Ft. Pickens. The Brooklyn, had also been sent days earlier to help the Star of the West, loaded with war materiel and soldiers, in her attempt to aid Ft. Sumter, another aggressive move.

Then, on January 27 the Union Navy Department dispatched to Ft. Pickens at Pensacola, Fla., more reinforcements. It was the warship Brooklyn that sailed from Norfolk, Va., under sealed orders, taking the companies of men from Fortress Monroe. A newspaper freely reported she was destined for Ft. Pickens.

March 11 .....newly inaugurated President Lincoln directed
that Ft. Pickens be reinforced and the man-o-war Mohawk left New York harbor that day with orders to Capt. I. Vodges, 1st U.S. Artillery, directing him to transfer immediately his two companies from the ship Brooklyn to Ft. Pickens.

At the end of that week, The federal fleet off Ft. Pickens included the Sabine (50 guns), the Brooklyn (25 guns), the St. Louis (20 guns), the Crusader (eight guns), the Wyandotte (five guns) and the Supply (two guns).

President Abraham Lincoln issued a direct order to Capt H. A. Adams of the Man-o-war Brooklyn, lying off Pensacola, to land troops from his vessel at Ft. Pickens.

So if it is predisposition to aggression, you have it with two US presidents.

[PeaRidge]

Brojoke, lets look at your post #510.

Your comment: "But 'specie' (data) is included in this 1960 National Bureau of Economic Research “Trends in the American Economy in the Nineteenth Century page 605."

Your statement is only partly correct and likely intended to mislead. “Specie” data is a part of the chart, but not included in the export data as you have been attempting to prove.

Even your own chart and report states flatly that the Treasury reports stopped combining specie with goods in 1821. And YOUR OWN report gives the reason for factoring out the specie data from merchandise: "The overwhelming importance of merchandise trade during this period makes accurate import and export values essential" pg.601

Specie was exported, i.e. shipped overseas but was not included in either export or import data for the purposes of studying and tracking the overall trade process.

You go on to say: “And there is no doubt that “specie” exports grew hugely from 1849, when gold was discovered in California through 1860."

That is nonsense. Specie export had nothing to do with "discovery" or mines in California. Specie was transferred for debt and partly a function of supply.

You said: “And far from being economically insignificant, as you suggest (which I did not, Brojoke), “specie” obviously had a huge effect on US balance of trade, and helped to pay for imports which our pro-Confederates always insist could only be bought from the earnings on Southern cotton, tobacco, hemp, sugar, etc.”

Brojoke, specie was not, I REPEAT NOT, part of the trade picture, and was not used to buy products. Here AGAIN from your own report is a brief explanation of the report on specie: "Interest and dividend payments to foreigners represent the largest single debit after imports, mainly for the interest charge upon state securities in the early period, with little for U.S. Bank stock and private securities." (583)

When you make wild statements like “had a huge effect on US balance of trade” you are making things up out of whole cloth.

You already said you don't understand it, so here goes: Specie was precious metals, partly owned by the US Treasury, partly by private interests, and partly by overseas entities. It was being sent overseas to pay Federal debt and interest payments. The Federal debt had grown immensely during the 1850s, and Treasury was paying the loans back.

There were also large investments in railbonds and banking stocks that were being paid back to overseas investors.

So that you will understand, here is a a quote from your own National Bureaus of Economic Research from page 627:

"The estimate of Ezra Seaman in Hunt's Merchants’ Magazine (December 1857, p. 664) is on top of a rough balance of payments estimate in which he has an aggregate indebtedness of $393.5 million in 1857. He goes on to say that U.S. debt was certainly not $450 million, maybe $425 million, but at least $400 million. He considered that over onethird of it was mercantile debt and almost two-thirds securities indebtedness which accounts for the figures of $150 million and $250 million respectively. Cleona Lewis's (p. 522) estimate of short-term indebtedness in 1857 at $155 million was discussed above.

Now I know that the paragraph is out of context, but given to you so that you could see the amount of debt and that YOUR own report shows specie being sent to Europe to pay DEBT, not product.

Then pulling out your whole cloth again, you say about your ill-conceived comments above: “Proof that pro-Confederate claims are not true came with the Civil War, which ended all Confederate states exports, but failed to end US foreign trade. Doubtless “specie” exports are one reason why.”

That is a class one non-sequitur and has nothing in your reference material to support that.

Then you credited me with telling you that: “And it is spelled specie”, while adding that: “I note that you enjoy nit-picking, so I'll be sure to leave plenty of nits around for you to pick. ;-).

That was mentioned to you to let you know that I realize that you are not reading any of your own sources. If you had read what you were quoting and from where you were drawing supercilious conclusions, you would have seen that word "specie" dozens of times and would have known how to spell it.

When you wax: “No, those figures, as you interpret them, are inaccurate and incomplete, as I've demonstrated.”, that is nuts.

What you demonstrated is that you think you are using data from a report you cite to refute what was given you.

What you fail to notice is that the data I gave you was from the exact same source as your paper....”The Statistical History of the United States”. If you will look at your own report, you will see the Statistical History cited and quoted in a dozen locations, INCLUDING YOUR FAVORITE CHART.

Brojoke, you are factually retarded, and gifted in posting canards.

[DiogenesLamp]

That being said in January, by late March, the general merchants grasped the significance of Raymond’s remarks and were prepared to support strong action against the South and its tariff. Over one hundred leading commercial importers in New York, as well as a similar group in Boston, informed the US collectors of customs they would not pay duties on imported goods unless those same duties were also collected at Southern ports.

This threat was likely the proximate cause of the beginning of the war. It forced Lincoln and his administration to abandon the initial inclination to turn over Ft. Sumter to the Confederates.

Money. The North fought the war against the South to protect their money. Indeed, I perceive that the Globalist Elite of New York (they grew beyond merely trade with Europe) are this very day, the threat we are currently seeing against us.

Still do they put their pocket books ahead of the interests of the majority in the country. New York, the "EMPIRE STATE" (That's a clue, folks) runs the media today, and thereby steers public opinion to support ideas and policies which they see as beneficial to them, but not necessarily so much in the interests of "Flyover Country."

The monster of Crony Capitalism opened it's eye in 1861, and has had us under it's baleful influence ever since.

It is the same today as it was then. The power flows from the Washington D.C./ New York oligarchy.

[rustbucket]

BroJoeK, you have a rare talent of being able to generate posts at a staggering rate. Unfortunately, they often contain a lot of your own version of history. It takes time to prepare a serious reply, and I don't have time to reply to all of your assertions, I suggest you send your posts to some gullible newbie instead of me.

I will reply to this post of yours in several individual posts, but thereafter, I may probably just ignore you. It makes no sense to keep answering the same basic assertions over and over. It's a waste of time. I won't convince you, and you won't convince me. Let's just make an honorable truce.

Here is my first reply to part of your post.

4.Further, by implication, states could "withdraw" from Union the same way they entered it: by application to, and approval of, Congress.

I wonder about your thinking processes. Sorry, BJK, I don't buy the "by implication" in your sentence above. You are basically making things up that are not in the Constitution. Hey, you would make a good liberal Justice on today's Supreme Court.

What your "by implication" would do is make a state that wanted to secede a captive of the vote of states (through their representatives and senators) that might be taking advantage of the seceding state or continually violating the Constitution themselves to the detriment of the seceding state.

If your "by implication" interpretation is correct, why did some Republicans in 1860 and 1861 propose amendments to the Constitution that would require something like what you propose? One of those proposed amendments was voted down after most of the Southern senators whose states had already seceded had withdrawn from the Senate.

As I have said before, the Constitution wasn't ratified by NY and VA until those reassume or resume the posers of governance statements were put in their ratification documents. During Virginia's ratification convention, Patrick Henry warned that there were more Northern states than Southern ones and worried what that might portend in the future. From the Richmond Dispatch of March 25, 1861 [Source; my paragraph breaks and my emphasis below]:

Tradition says of the men she elected to the Convention called to pass upon it, a majority were pledged to vote against its adoption. It is certain that a majority of the body did vote against the ratification at one time; and that not until a clause was inserted in the ordinance of ratification, protesting that Virginia would resume the powers granted when they should be perverted to her injury and oppression, was the small vote obtained in its favor, of 89 to 79.

Some of the most illustrious names in Virginia history are recorded in the negative: such as Patrick Henry, George Mason, Monroe, Tyler, and others — men who, with all their desire for the Union, distrusted the instrument which was to form its organic law.

No sooner was the Government organized, than the struggle at once began between the Virginians, under the lead of Jefferson, contending for a strict construction of the instrument, and the Massachusetts and New York politicians, under the lead of Adams and Hamilton, who endeavored to derive from it unlimited powers, or else to ignore it altogether.

For a time, the battle seemed to go against the Virginians; and when the elder Adams was elected to the Presidency, he at once began to exercise, with the aid of Congress, the most alarming powers. It was then that Virginia came forward, not merely through her brilliant statesmen, but in her sovereign person, to protest against the stretches of Executive power which were threatening the liberties of the people [rustbucket: such as the Sedition Act which was used to jail their political opponents and newspaper editors, tec.], and to announce in her celebrated Resolutions and Report of 1798 and '99, her fixed and unalterable views of the powers granted in the Constitution. Then, and since, she has always been able to cause these views to be at least respected by the North, rallying as she did, with few and occasional exceptions, the combined South on her side. But she has never been able to command for them any considerable and permanent support from the opposing section; which, as a section, has ever sternly repudiated her just and salutary doctrines.

Virginia has now lost the aid of her most gallant and efficient allies of the South in this constitutional battle. These have separated from the inflexible North, and have erected a government of their own upon a constitution precisely and minutely fashioned according to the political philosophy taught by Virginia.-- The North, on the other hand, have obtained unlimited control of the old Government, and is free to carry out its own principles of government. It has made haste to signalize its victory, and to give instance of its intentions, by enacting a tariff law odiously protective, odiously in conflict with the political teachings and principles of Virginia, odiously unconstitutional in every aspect in which Virginia has been wont to view the instrument of Federal compact. That section has grown so great in population, and so hostile in purpose, as to have elected a President by its own exclusive vote, pledged to doctrines opposed to those which have ever been cherished by Virginia as the apple of her eye; and that President comes to his capital, proclaiming on his way, as if in derision of Virginia and exultation over her political discomfiture, that a sovereign State of this Confederacy is but as a county in a Commonwealth.

Sorry my excerpt was so long, but hopefully it helps you understand what Virginians were thinking in 1861.

[rustbucket]

So our Founders did not plan for disunion, but they certainly did provide us with a perfectly acceptable method for accomplishing it: a Constitutional Convention of the states, just as they held in 1787, which could rewrite the entire Constitution, and provide for peaceful, lawful disunion, if necessary.

The Tenth Amendment gave the individual states the power to secede. They didn't need a Constitutional Convention with states that were already violating the written word of the Constitution. What good was the word of those Northern states? Fool me once, etc.

Plus, of course, there was the tariff situation. The old tariff was already extracting many millions of dollars annually from the South for the benefit of Northern manufacturers, Northern workers, and Northern port businesses involved in trade. The Warehousing Act resulted in concentrating import facilities in New York City where importers could store items tariff free in warehouses for two years until they were sold (from memory). Regardless of where in the country the imported goods ultimately went, the tariff on those goods arriving in New York was collected in New York.

An editorial in the daily Chicago Times newspaper comes to mind [December 1860]:

The South has furnished near three-fourths of the entire exports of the country. Last year she furnished seventy-two percent of the whole . . . 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.

The new Morrill Tariff was going to greatly increase that extraction of wealth from the South.

[rustbucket]

Naturally, negotiations with Congress over such matters as national debt, jointly owned property and foreign treaties could be time consuming, but our Founders were long accustomed to spending years, even decades, negotiating such important matters.

Which side was it that refused to negotiate? As I remember, South Carolina sent commissioners to negotiate with the US over the separation, and, in a second separate approach, offered to pay for the forts. Buchanan ignored them or turned them down. A delegation from the Confederacy went to DC in March to negotiate a fair separation, debts, etc. Lincoln totally ignored them, and through a intermediary, Seward subtly misled them about Fort Sumter.

A fair distribution of the territories meant that the South would have gotten a share of them. Certainly, Southern blood and money had gone into obtaining those territories. I don't think the North wanted to let them go -- too useful for Northern politicians to make land available to their constituents. Remember the Free Soil Party, many of whose members were later absorbed into the Republican Party?

I have seen it said, that if all the transfers of wealth from the South to the North over the years via tariffs were considered, the North would owe the South money. It is perhaps for these reasons that the North ignored Southern offers to negotiate.

[rustbucket]

But what neither Madison nor any other Founder ever legitimized was unilateral, unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure, meaning without material cause.

As I have posted before and now post again. Here is how Madison said the Constitution should be interpreted (Source: Madison's letter to M. L. Hurbert, May 1830, my emphasis below):

But whatever respect may be thought due to the intention of the Convention, which prepared & proposed the Constitution, as presumptive evidence of the general understanding at the time of the language used, it must be kept in mind that the only authoritative intentions were those of the people of the States, as expressed thro' the Conventions which ratified the Constitution.

Now let's look at an expression by a ratifying convention [my bold below]:

We, the delegates of the people of the state of New York, duly elected and met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the 17th day of September, in the year 1787, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia, in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, (a copy whereof precedes these presents,) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, — Do declare and make known, —

... That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness ...

... Under these impressions, and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution, and in confidence that the amendments which shall have been proposed to the said Constitution will receive an early and mature consideration, — We, the said delegates, in the name and in the behalf of the people of the state of New York, do, by these presents, assent to and ratify the said Constitution.

There was no mention of any restrictions on that reassume powers of government statement. But what did John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, signers of that ratification, know about the Constitution, eh? Sure, they wrote about what the Constitution meant in The Federalist Papers, but we are to trust BroJoeK instead of them?

Show me where New York's ratification was not accepted by other states.

[HangUpNow]

Hey! I get it, Truth hurts, and the more true the more it hurts.

No, I'm *really* still laughing at your premise.

In this particular example it is undeniable that Pearl Harbor and Fort Sumter were both opening attacks of what became the greatest, meaning most terrible, wars in American history.

MAD Magazine satire. AGAIN.

The parallels between Pearl and Sumter are numerous and uncanny, and what is inescapable is their identical effects on US public opinion and leadership decisions.

Yeah -- some "parallel:

One "attack" was the defense of an American Southern Fort by Northern aggressors that resulted in TWO deaths because TWO of Lincoln's martyred agitators accidentally died from some ammo exploding.

The other attack could be considered the greatest, most powerful naval sneak attack in history; It was a REAL attack by a vast naval armada and major air attack of a major American military outpost resulting in over 2,000 lives lost, several battle ships sunk and many aircraft destroyed. Maybe you've seen the dramatic film or photos? And gee -- I'm sorry those two Union enforcers died in the ammo accident, BUT, we're talking Major League, vs....a video game, son.

The ONLY area in which we agree is in how terrible both wars were -- ESPECIALLY that one war was waged by a hypocritical sitting NORTHERN American President of many slave-states upon SOUTHERN confederation of slave-states who collectively rejected a continued governance by a centralized coercive, corrupt tyrannical Union and its biased, unfair economic/tariff policies.

Abe Lincoln had NO right to invade then create a bloodbath of over 600,000 deaths. The South defended themselves from the coercive Northern onslaught as brother-fought-brother.

What right did Lincoln and his Northern economic slavemasters have to suppress MILLIONS of Southerners their *rightful* decision to independence? Especially as the feral gummint North continued to rig the economic system for the North while violating and disrespecting States and personal sovereignty?

Should the new regime march into YOUR neighborhood, take over YOUR home to give OTHER "less fortunate" Americans and refugees; remove you from your job to give to the SAME people, how quickly will you be to surrender? Or will you deem it unfair and defend your own sovereignty?

[PeaRidge]

Brojoke tells us that: "When Jefferson Davis ordered military assault on Fort Sumter"...started the war.

That is media hype from 1861 to inflame northern draftees, and you still fall for it 145 years later. Who fired first was not the determinant of war.

War did not follow after South Carolina seceded on December 20, 1860.

War did not follow after Major Anderson removed his troops from Ft. Moultrie to Ft. Sumter, and turned UNION guns on the city.

War did not follow after the Union garrison fired on Florida state troops in Barrancas Barracks in Pensacola Bay, late at night on the eighth of January (the day before the Star of the West would be fired on at Charleston).

War did not follow the next day when the Star of the West, rented by the Federal government to carry troops into Charleston Harbor for purposes of conflict, was fired upon and driven off the harbor.

War did not follow during the next three months while the seceded states reclaimed their property.

There are all sorts of examples throughout history of skirmishes and fire fights that did not bring all out war.

Specifically, in Charleston the Confederate garrison did not have the power to bring war. It had the power to defend the harbor, which is what it did.

War did not follow after the Confederate garrison repelled the Union fleet attempting to enter the harbor by reducing Ft. Sumter.

It was only after Lincoln called up the state militias, ordered the blockade of Southern ports, and prepared to send Union troops into Virginia that war began. The United States government formally determined this event as the beginning of the war.

[HangUpNow]

The only question here is: who do we blame? Do we blame "Ape" Lincoln and his "Black Republicans" or somebody else?

I blame somebody else, of course, and that somebody is mainly Progressive President Woodrow Wilson...

Well, I can see Beck has had your ear in the recent past.

Try defining with specificity "blame"...

Lincoln, like Wilson answered to and wound up enforcing the will of the economic elite. 600,000 lives worth (NOT including the maimed, the widowed, the orphaned, and the economic disastrous effect upon the South for 100 years.) But hey, no problem -- carpet-bagging lincoln-supporting Northerners swept into the South while the bodies were still warm and widows cryng and bought it up for Zimbabwe pennies on the dollar.

Btw, your "ape" comment is uncalled for and incendiary. But I guess that just your clumsy, un-clever way of implying those who opposed Lincoln's tyranny and monumental feral overreach disliked blacks and supported slavery.

Though I will reluctantly admit the "progressive spirit" had infected both parties in those days, beginning with Teddy Roosevelt.

Well gee -- that's mighty bourgeoisie of you. Are you sure you want that kind of secret leaking out to Buffy and Skippy? At least Teddy fought institutional corruption.

Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, LBJ, and 0blah-blah are ALL kindred political spirits.

Anyway, I'm here to defend Lincoln and basic Republican ideals against charges that they share paternity over some of today's governmental monstrosities.

You can defend the indefensible all you want.

Today we are still paying for the tyranny, social, and economic aftermath of Lincoln's template of dictatorship and feral overreach, fake reasons for the CW, and subsequent routine shredding of the USCON by Wilson, FDR, LBJ, 0blah-blah, and yes, Dubya Bush.