Replies

BJK: "nearly half of all Northerners were 'Dough-Faced' Democrats who supported the Slave-Power in all things "

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Then how did they support slavery?
By saying that the Federal government doesn’t have the right to legislate concerning it?
Because if that was how they “supported” it, then they were Constitutionally correct."

Rubbish, since you seem to know little or nothing about the history of Federal actions regarding free-states versus slave-states, here's a short summary:

Northwest Territories (Ohio through Minnesota) were designated by the general government in 1787 to be 100% free-states, no slavery allowed.
Missouri Compromise of 1820 permitted slavery in territories with latitudes below Missouri's southern border, and in Missouri itself.
Slave & free-state admission pairs were practiced until 1850.
Then, the Compromise of 1850 allowed California to enter the Union as a free-state, provided one of its senators was always pro-slavery.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 for the first time allowed territory voters to decide if a state was to be admitted free or slave.
The act was voted in by all Southern representatives plus Dough-faced Northern Democrats.
Northerners feared slavery would overrun Kansas, but that proved to be not the case, as new free-soil settlers overwhelmed the numbers of slave-holders.
So Kansas territory citizens overturned the bogus pro-slavery Lecompton Constitution in favor of free-soil Wyandotte Constitution by a vote of 2:1.
Supreme Court's 1857 Dred-Scott ruling in effect declared slavery lawful in all territories, and by implication in all states, a decision which drove many outraged Northerners to the "abolitionist" Black Republican party.
1857's Dred-Scott, plus the 1857 failure of the pro-slavery Lecompton Constitution in Kansas drove Southern Fire-Eaters to change sides, from pro-popular sovereignty to anti.
By 1860 Fire-Eaters made slavery in the territories their political casus belli in splitting their majority Democrat party, thus guaranteeing Black Republican political victory.

So my first point here is simple: since Day One of the Republic, and really since before Day One, the Federal Government wrote & enforced laws determining which territories would be free and which slave, and under what conditions they are admitted to the Union.
Therefore, your efforts to declare such actions "unconstitutional" are hereby declared: bogus to the max.

And my second point:

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "The Federal government doesn’t have the power to legislate on it.
But that hardly makes them 'slaves' to the 'slave power.' "

First, the word I used is "supporters" not "slaves".
So, what is that, a Freudian slip?

Second, of course the Federal government always did have from Day One, and it exercised: authority to determine "free versus slave" territories and new states.
Indeed, that 1854 novel idea of allowing territories to vote themselves slave or free was precisely the issue on which Southern Fire-Eaters objected and broke up their 1860 Democrat conventions.
Fire Eaters argued that, regardless of Kansas-Nebraska (which they had supported) and Senator Douglas's "popular sovereignty" proposal, Dred-Scott was the final word on slavery in territories, and so there could be no more "popular sovereignty" voting by territory citizens.
So, Fire Eaters broke up the Democrat conventions, split their party and effectively engineered victory for Black Republicans & Abraham Lincoln.
Then they used Lincoln's victory as their excuse to declare secession.

"James M. McPherson suggested in Battle Cry of Freedom that the "Fire-eater" program of breaking up the convention and running a rival ticket was deliberately intended to bring about the election of a Republican as President, and thus trigger secession declarations by the slave-owning states.
Whatever the "intent" of the fire-eaters may have been, doubtless many of them favored secession, and the logical, probable, and actual consequence of their actions was to fragment the Democratic party and thereby virtually ensure a Republican victory.[4]"

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "These Northern Democrats, being from a party that were for keeping the federal government within the bounds of the Constitution of course would not support Lincoln.
Does that prove that they were “slaves” to the South?
Of course not.
The very idea is ridiculous.
In holding that the Federal government had no constitutional power or right to prevent states from leaving the Union they were constitutionally correct.
They knew the Federal government’s war on self-determination was wrong, just like some Englishmen (Edmund Burke as an example) in the days of the American Revolution knew that their government was in the wrong and supported the colonists."

First of all, your phrase "slaves to the South" is just that, yours, not mine.
Northern Dough-faced Democrats were not political "slaves" to anybody, but they did love the Southern institution of slavery, and usually supported it in Congress.
So, it's extraordinarily important for us to notice the times when they split from their Southern Democrat Slave-Power brethren.

Second, to repeat: northern Dough-faced Democrats like out-going President Buchanan did not believe Fire-Eating secessionists had lawful or constitutional cause to declare independence, but he also believed the Federal Government could do nothing to stop them.
And that was also Lincoln's belief, at the time.
But Lincoln did oppose Confederate seizures of dozens of Federal properties, and wanted to maintain basic services.
This lead the Confederacy to first launch a military assault on Union troops in Fort Sumter, a clear, unequivocal act of war, and then a formal declaration of war on the United States, May 6, 1861.

Once the Confederacy had launched and declared war, then all debate -- all debate -- over the "legitimacy of secession" is null, void, mute & irrelevant.
At that point, the only thing which mattered was unconditional surrender and destruction of the Southern Slave-Power.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "On the contrary, the States paid taxes to the Federal government based on population.
In fact, regarding the 3/5 compromise, Hamilton said that 'representation and taxation go together.... Would it be just to impose a singular burden, without conferring some adequate advantage?' "

But it never actually happened -- never -- and for you to claim such is a lie, a Big Lie, so stop it.
The fact is that well over 90% of Federal Revenues came from tariffs on imports, of which over 90% went through such large Northern cities as Boston, New York and Philadelphia.
There was never direct a head-tax based on census counts.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis regarding congressional "gag rule" on slavery debates: "Since the Federal government has no right to ban slavery (it being a state issue), why should there be debates about it in Congress?
Simply a waste of time and a way to increase sectional strife."

No, since Day One, the Federal Government both had and exercised its right to allow or forbid slavery in the territories and the District of Columbia.
Yes, abolishing slavery in states would require a constitutional amendment (i.e., the 13th amendment), which could begin in Congress and would require debate, and that is what the Slave-Power's gag-rule was intended to prevent.

So the gag-rule demonstrates the Slave-Power's political prowess in Congress, preventing actions it didn't want.
And, it lasted just so long as their Northern Dough-faced allies supported the South.
But when northerners grew sick and tired of Southern arrogance & belligerence, they switched votes, and the gag-rule disappeared, in 1844.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Democrat party at that time was a national party.
You make it seem that the large number of Northerners who were democrats were simply toadys to the South, controlled by a “slave-power”, rather than free-thinking people.
If you had said that to the faces of those people they would undoubtedly have been fighting words."

Sorry, but you totally misunderstand the situation.
First of all, of course they were, in your word, "toadies", they knew it, and so did the Slave-Power.
Indeed, it was a Southerner, Virginia Representative John Randolf, circa 1820, who coined the words "Dough-face" as a term of disparagement, insulting those Northerners so eager to support him and his Slave-Power agenda.
And from the perspective of those Dough-facers, their objectives were to 1) preserve their majority political alliance and 2) in so doing, preserve the Union.

Second, your whole idea of "fighting words" is almost entirely a Southern construct, certainly in this political sense.
Thus, Abraham Lincoln called his Democrat rival, Stephen Douglas as "the worst doughface of them all", and both Democrat Presidents Pierce and Buchanan were often referred to, at the time, as "dough-faced".
None of these were considered "fighting words", or resulted in challenges for duels.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Btw, from the very beginning of the Union the South was paying a heavier share.
For instance, after the Revolution, the South soon paid off all its debts.
However, when Congress assumed the war debts, the Southern states had to pitch in on paying off the debts of their northern neighbors after having paid off their own."

Nonsense, in fact, under Jefferson's 1790 Compromise, Virginia paid $3.4 million to the Federal Government and received that same $3.4 million to finish paying off its war debts.
Virginia paid nothing for Northern war debts.
Further, all other debts were paid from import tariff revenues, of which over 90% came from northern ports like Boston, New York and Philadelphia.

Point is: the whole suggestion that the South paid more than it's "fair share" is strictly nonsensical propaganda.

And proof of it is: you can cite no independent sources to verify your ridiculous claims.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "They would have had every right to if they wanted that.
However if you examine history, those who participated in the secessionist Harford Convention and their supporters were relatively small in number, and did represent anywhere near a majority."

And yet President Madison was prepared to use military force to prevent Northern secession:

"In preparing for a worst-case scenario, Madison moved troops from the New York–Canadian border to Albany where they could quickly be sent to Massachusetts or Connecticut if needed to preserve federal authority.
Several New England regiments that had participated in the Niagara campaign were returned home where it was hoped that they could serve as a focal point for New Englanders opposed to disunion.[14]"

So, your suggestion that our Founders had a nonchalant "let 'em go" attitude towards secession is totally bogus to max, FRiend.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "By letting the South go peacefully, Buchannan wasn’t “dedicated to giving the Slave-power whatever it wanted.”
Rather, he was simply abiding by the Constitution, which gave him no power to deny self-determination."

No, it was much more, because Buchanan consistently ignored the Confederacy's unlawful seizures of dozens of Union properties, from Forts and ships to arsenals and mints.
Just like our current President O, President B refused to enforce Federal laws he didn't like.

Nor did President Lincoln use any military force against the Confederacy, until after it launched their military assault on Union troops in Fort Sumter, a clear, unequivocal act of war, and then formally declared war on the United States.
Therefore, the cause of Civil War was not secession, but rather the Confederacy's declared War of Aggression against the United States.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis on Slave-Power Fire-Eaters engineering Lincoln's election: "I have to admit that has got to be about the most ridiculous conspiracy theory I have ever heard."

No, it's a fact, as reported in James McPhearson's 1988 book, "Battle Cry of Freedom"

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "High tariffs are a liberal thing. “oh but he did that because of the war” Uh huh.
That was why he supported them BEFORE the war and campaigned on them, right?"

Once yet again: northern manufacturing (not "liberals", there warn't no sucha thang in 1860) historically supported higher protective tariffs, while Southern and Western agriculturalists generally (but not always) opposed them.
So the resulting tariffs were always a compromise amongst the interests, and by 1860 tariffs had reached a historical low of roughly 15%.
And through 1860, proposals to raise tariffs were effectively defeated by the Southern Slave-Power and its Northern Dough-faced Democrat allies.

But by splitting their majority Democrat party in half, Slave-Power Fire Eaters rendered themselves utterly impotent politically in Washington, creating the excuse they desired for secession, upon which Southern Representatives & Senators walked out of Congress.
Then, and only then, could the higher Morrill Tariff pass Congress, to be signed by Democrat President Buchanan -- not Lincoln!

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Most of the Founding Fathers were strongly opposed to the formation of a central banking system..."

No, not "most", only some, and those not strongly.
Hamilton's compromise creating the First Bank of the United States was supported by George Washington, John Adams and other Federalists.
After the First Bank's charter expired in 1812, a Second National Bank was chartered in 1816, thanks to the key support from South Carolina's Senator Calhoun, Kentucky Senator Henry Clay and Virginian President Madison.

So, once again, your ridiculous claims are ruled: bogus to the max.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "The Lincoln administration also gave us the Morril Land Grant Act, that authorized federal aid to establish government-controlled (public) colleges.
With the aid came increased government accountability and regulations."

Certainly not when first passed, in 1862 -- all that came later, much later.
Also, this is another case of bills which went nowhere as long as Southern representatives in Congress stopped them, or their Dough-faced President vetoed them.
Further, just as with the Morrill Tariff in 1860, the Land Grant Act of 1859 could not have passed without significant Northern Dough-face or Border-State Democrat support.
Finally, the act was constitutional based on Article 4 Section 3, giving the Federal Government power to "dispose of Federal lands".

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "As we see today, it really is NOT a good thing for the government to be controlling public education.
Author John Chodes noted that “the true objective [of the Morill Act] was to bring Northern perspective to the re-conquered areas of the South, to teach the rebel’s children ‘respect for national authority’—to break their rebellious spirit forever."

So here is proof that such words are utter nonsense:

The basic idea of state supported agricultural colleges came from the 1850 Michigan state constitution.
The first proposal for a national support of colleges came from Illinois' state legislature in 1853.
Morrill Land Grant act first passed Congress in 1859, but was vetoed by Dough-faced Democrat President Buchanan.

None of this had anything to do with suppression of "Southern Rebellious Spriit" (!!), but was simply a constitutional method to promote higher education.
Yes, of course, once the Confederacy had provoked, started and formally declared war on the United States, then Congress added that Land Grant colleges must also teach military tactics.

But those same "military tactics" -- today's ROTC -- are taught in Southern State Universities as in Northern, and indeed today there are likely proportionately more US military officers from the South than from any other region.

So, yet again, your ridiculous opinions are ruled: bogus to the max.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "As I pointed out earlier, the fact that Lincoln won the support of the communists and socialists in the country and promoted so many of them to high ranks proves that Lincoln was far from being a conservative.
Of course the main proof that Lincoln was not a conservative and a supporter of Constitutionally limited government was the fact that he waged a bloody war to ensure that government of the people, by the people and for the people not be allowed to exist in the South."

Sorry, FRiend, but the positive proof that you are no conservative is your constant stream of outrageous lies, fabricated, fantastical revisions to history, and constant projections of your own faults onto others.
Those all prove beyond reasonable doubt that you are, perhaps secretly, but certainly deep-down to the core, a lying Democrat.
Indeed, "lying for political effect" is a core-definition of what it means to be a Democrat, and nobody can begin to qualify as "conservative" until you begin to understand and tell the truth about all-things political.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "...the fact is, they had seen enough of Federal abuses and were not going to put up with any more.
The election of big-guv-lovin’ Lincoln was simply the last straw."

But the only "abusers" of Federal Power in 1860 were the Southern Democrat Slave-Power, which had forced the unconstitutional Compromise of 1850, requiring Federal officials to hunt down and return Fugitive Slaves in Northern States, as well as the 1857 Dred-Scott decision making slavery lawful in all territories, regardless of voters' intent.

But in 1860 the Slave Power had no real reasons to declare secession, because their own people still controlled the Federal Government -- neither Lincoln nor his Black Republicans had yet taken office.
So the Slave Power, lacking actual facts on which to declare secession, did so "at pleasure", in the same way that you might fire your employee who had done nothing wrong, but you suspected might do something wrong, in the future.
And that is the very definition of the term "at pleasure".

And "at pleasure" secession was not considered constitutional by any Founder.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Because if it doesn’t fit with your worldview it has to be fake."

Cite a source and full context.
Otherwise, it's fake.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "What utter rot.
For the thirty years from 1831 to 1860 the tariffs amounted to about eighty-four percent of federal revenues, but during the 1850s tariffs amounted to ninety percent of federal revenue."

Tariff income averaged over 90% of Federal revenues during the thirty years from 1792 to 1812, and again from 1840 to 1862.
The small balance of Federal revenues came from low excise taxes, essentially sales taxes, on such commodities as whiskey -- hence the 1792 "Whiskey Rebellion" in western Pennsylvania, suppressed under the military leadership of Virginia General "Light-Horse" Harry Lee, whose son Robert would also make a name for himself in military matters, though not, of course, by suppressing rebellion.
Those excise taxes produced so little revenue, and at such high political costs, that Congress eliminated them whenever fiscally possible.

My point here is: there never were taxes -- none, zero, nada -- levied "per capita" or by state under the new Constitution.

So, yet again, your ridiculous claims are ruled: bogus to the max.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "As the ports in the South had the most traffic, they paid seventy-five percent of all tariffs in 1859.
The Northern banner of "Preserve the Union," might have more accurately read "Preserve the Taxes"."

"75% of all tariffs paid by Southerners" is an utterly fantastic, unsourced, "pull it out of your b*tt" number with no proximity to actual truth.

Here is a 2013 article showing that 75% figure is totally bogus to the max.
In fact, two thirds of Federal Revenues came from just once city: New York.
Based on relative populations, another 20% came through Boston & Philadelphia.
Yes, perhaps 10% came through ports like Baltimore and New Orleans, but much or most of that was transshipped via rail or steamboat to Northern customers in Ohio, Indiana and Illinois.
That leaves maybe 5% to arrive directly through such Southern cities as Savannah, Charleston and Norfolk.

And proof of it is: the Federal Government had no trouble raising funds for the Civil War, despite receiving none from the Confederacy.

So, once yet again, your ridiculous claims are ruled: bogus to the max.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Lincoln could have avoided war by abandoning the fort to the South Carolina government..."

But the Confederacy's ultimatum to abandon Federal Fort Sumter was, by itself, another provocation for war, and their assault on Federal troops an act of war, soon followed by formal declaration of war.
So, obviously, the Confederacy wanted war, provoked war, started war, declared war and finally received war, which they doubtless expected to win, easily.
But they misjudged.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "Again about the bank.
I think you are forgetting the biggest problem with it.
The Constitution does not give the Federal government the right to create a National Bank. Period."

And yet, no Founder had a particular problem with it -- George Washington, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton and other Federalists strongly supported it, while Southern politicians like Thomas Jefferson were willing to bargain for it, to have the District of Columbia in the South.
And, when it came time to renew the charter in 1816, renewal was promoted by South Carolinian Calhoun, Kentucky's Clay and Virginian President Monroe.

Therefore, clearly a National Bank was considered by our Founders as being a normal, natural part of their intended government, and so, yet again, your ridiculous claims are ruled: bogus to the max.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "On the Income tax: Yes it was later repealed, but when Lincoln passed it he had no idea of it being temporary, which was why there was nothing to that effect in the wording of the act.
Also, you seem to forget that the Constitution says that Congress shall levy no direct tax.
Oh but the country was at war so it was ok to break the constitution now. Uh-huh."

Several points need to be made here:

First, Lincoln neither proposed, nor amended the Revenue Act of 1861.
Instead, it was strictly the work of Congress, which Lincoln agreed to and signed.
And, about that income tax portion of it, Pennsylvanian:
Second, when the income tax was first proposed under President Madison, during the War of 1812, it was not considered a "direct tax", nor did Republicans in 1861 consider it a "direct tax".
So the designation as a "direct tax" came from the Supreme Court in 1895 responding to the Democrats Wilson-Gorman tariff & peace-time income tax.
Third, that 1861 Revenue Act imposing a war-time income tax actually collected no income taxes -- none, zero, nada.
The reason is, it was poorly written and soon repealed and replaced by the 1862 Revenue Act, which did explicitly expire, in 1866, also approved and signed by President Lincoln.

And so, yet again, your ridiculous claims are ruled: bogus to the max.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "If Lincoln had turned the Federal forts over to the Confederacy there would have been no war.
After all, the forts were not “union property” as you try to claim.
The forts were on state land, land which the Federal government had permission to use only while the states were in the Union and had granted such permission.
Upon withdrawing this permission the Federal government had no legal right to maintain forts on land belonging to another country against said country’s permission."

The Confederacy had no more lawful claim on those forts & other properties than, for example, Communist Cuba has on the US Guantanamo Bay Naval Facility, period.
A change of government in no way changes property ownership within its territories, especially land belonging to another government, unless, of course the new government is eager for war, as indeed the Confederacy was.

Indeed, as I've mentioned several times on other threads, the British government maintained & resupplied several forts on United States Northwest territory from 1783 until the Treaty of Ghent in 1814 -- over thirty years, without it ever becoming a causus belli between Britain & US.
So the choice to rush into war was strictly the Confederacy's.
Lincoln merely responded as any President should.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "And btw, nobody is denying that the Confederacy declared war.
They did.
But not until after sending several peace delegations up north to negotiate (Lincoln refused to meet with them)."

First of all, there is no law, national, international or natural, which says that if "A" refuses to meet with "B", then "B" has legal justification to declare war on "A".

Second, Lincoln as President had no constitutional authority to meet with emissaries from states in rebellion.
Instead, they needed to meet with Congress, request Congress to pass laws authorizing their secession, and resolving any property, debt and other issues.
This those emissaries refused to do.

DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis: "It was only after he called up troops to suppress secession that the South finally declared war, and even then they waited two weeks after Lincoln’s call for troops."

In fact, before formally declaring war the Confederacy:

Unlawfully seized dozens of Federal properties -- forts, ships, arsenals, mints, etc.
Unlawfully threatened and fired on Federal officials, especially in and around Fort Sumter.
Totally unprovoked, called up a 100,000 man army to confront 16,000 total US Army troops, most scattered in small forts out west.
Launched a military assault on Fort Sumter, forcing its surrender.
Sent military aid to Confederate forces in Union states, especially Missouri.

All this happened before a single Confederate soldier was killed in battle with any Union force, and before any Union army invaded a single Confederate State.

So, clearly and obviously: the Confederacy wanted war, provoked war, started war and formally declared war, all without a shred of sufficient justification.