On this date in 1864 President Lincoln receives a Christmas gift.

[Bull Snipe]

"I beg to present you as a Christmas gift the City of Savannah, with one hundred and fifty heavy guns and plenty of ammunition and about twenty-five thousand bales of cotton." General William T. Sherman's "March to the Sea" was over. During the campaign General Sherman had made good on his promise d “to make Georgia howl”. Atlanta was a smoldering ruin, Savannah was in Union hands, closing one of the last large ports to Confederate blockade runners. Sherman’s Army wrecked 300 miles of railroad and numerous bridges and miles of telegraph lines. It seized 5,000 horses, 4,000 mules, and 13,000 head of cattle. It confiscated 9.5 million pounds of corn and 10.5 million pounds of fodder, and destroyed uncounted cotton gins and mills. In all, about 100 million dollars of damage was done to Georgia and the Confederate war effort.

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: "Lincoln made it crystal clear in his inaugural that he rejected the constitutional authority of the states to secede, thus craftily reframing any resistance by them into “insurrection” and “rebellion,” rather than recognizing them as sovereign states. I cannot say this enough: Lincoln was a tyrant."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "You can say that all you want -- like any Democrat propagandist you believe that repeating your lies often enough will somehow make them true -- but your lies are still lies regardless."

I am limited-government conservative, Joey. Lincolnites are the big-government progressives, unless they are LINO's (Lincolnites In Name Only,) which I used to be when I didn't know that Lincoln was a crony-capitalist.

***************

>>BroJoeK wrote: "Because, not only Lincoln, but also Democrat President Buchanan rejected secession's claim to constitutional legitimacy, as did many others in states outside the original Deep South Seven."

I am glad you brought that up, Joey. Have you ever heard of John Quincy Adams? He seemed to believe that peaceful secession was the right thing to do when there were unreconcilable differences.

"[T]he indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation, is after all, not in the right, but in the heart. If the day should ever come, (may Heaven avert it,) when the affections of the people of these states shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give away to cold indifference, or collisions of interest shall fester into hatred, the bands of political association will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states, to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint. Then will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect union, by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the centre." [Adams, John Quincy, "The Jubilee of the Constitution." Samuel Colman, 1839, p.69]

How about Abraham Lincoln and this masterful statement in support of the right to secede?

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,—a most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit." [Speech in United States House of Representatives: The War with Mexico, January 12, 1848, in Basler, Roy P., "The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln Vol 1." Rutgers University Press, 1953, p.438]

How about Timothy Pickering, who served as Secretary of State under Washington and John Adams, in this letter to George Cabot, who served in the 1791 U.S. Senate:

"The principles of our Revolution point to the remedy, —a separation. That this can be accomplished, and without spilling one drop of blood, I have little doubt… The people of the East cannot reconcile their habits, views, and interests with those of the South and West." [Letter from Timothy Pickering to George Cabot, City of Washington, Jan. 29, 1804, in Adams, Henry, "Documents Relating to New-England Federalism, 1800-1815." Little, Brown & Company, 1905, 339]

Pickering not only recognized the right to secede, he was all for it!

How about this letter by Pickering to Richard Peters, who served in the Continental Congress:

"Although the end of all our Revolutionary labors and expectations is disappointment, and our fond hopes of republican happiness are vanity, and the real patriots of '76 are overwhelmed by the modern pretenders to that character, I will not yet despair: I will rather anticipate a new confederacy, exempt from the corrupt and corrupting influence and oppression of the aristocratic Democrats of the South. There will be — and our children at farthest will see it— a separation. The white and black population will mark the boundary. The British Provinces, even with the assent of Britain, will become members of the Northern confederacy. A continued tyranny of the present ruling sect will precipitate that event. The patience of good citizens is now nearly exhausted. By open violations and pretended amendments they are shattering our political bark, which, with a few more similar repairs, must founder. Efforts, however, and laudable ones, are and will continue to be made to keep the timbers together." [Letter from Timothy Pickering to Richard Peters, City of Washington, Dec. 24, 1803, in Adams, Henry, p.338]

How about Roger Griswold, who served in the 4th U.S. Congress and as the 22nd Governor of Connecticut, in this letter to, Oliver Wolcott, was a signer of both the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation:

"I have no hesitation myself in saying, that there can be no safety to the Northern States without a separation from the confederacy. The balance of power under the present government is decidedly in favor of the Southern States; nor can that balance be changed or destroyed. The extent and increasing population of those States must for ever secure to them the preponderance which they now possess. Whatever changes, therefore, take place, they cannot permanently restore to the Northern States their influence in the government; and a temporary relief can be of no importance." [Letter from Roger Griswold to Oliver Wolcott, March 11, 1804, in Adams, Henry, p.356]

On another note, concerning state sovereignty, this is John Marshall at the Virginia Ratification Convention:

"With respect to disputes between a state and the citizens of another state, its jurisdiction has been decried with unusual vehemence. I hope that no gentleman will think that a state will be called at the bar of the federal court. Is there no such case at present? Are there not many cases in which the legislature of Virginia is a party, and yet the state is not sued? It is not rational to suppose that the sovereign power should be dragged before a court." [John Marshall, Virginia Ratification Debates, June 20, 1788, in Elliot, Jonathan, "The Debates in the Several State Conventions Vol III." 1888, p.555]

Of course, that may have occurred prior to Marshall converting to a big-government Hamiltonite.

This is Thomas Jefferson in 1801:

"[E]very difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We are all republicans – we are federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." [First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801, in Appleby & Ball, "Thomas Jefferson: Political Writings." Cambridge University Press, 1999, p.174]

Jefferson again in 1816:

"If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying,"let us separate." [Letter To William H. Crawford from Monticello, June 20, 1816 , in Jefferson, Thomas, "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson Vol 15." Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903, p.29]

During the 1787 Convention, a resolution was proposed that would give the federal government a power of force over the states -- a power to coerce them to obey the laws of the Union. The resolution was rejected, as explained by Madison:

"The last of the proposed Legislative powers was "to call forth the force of the Union agst. any member failing to fulfil its duty under the Articles of Union" The evident object of this provision was not to enlarge the powers of the proposed Govt. but to secure their efficiency. It was doubtless suggested by the inefficiency of the Confederate system, from the want of such a sanction; none such being expressed in its Articles; and if as Mr. Jefferson argued, necessarily implied, having never been actually employed. The proposition as offered by Mr. R. was in general terms. It might have been taken into Consideration, as a substitute for, or as a supplement to the ordinary mode of enforcing the laws by Civil process; or it might have been referred to cases of territorial or other controversies between States and a refusal of the defeated party to abide by the decision; leaving the alternative of a Coercive interposition by the Govt. of the Union, or a war between its members, and within its bowels. Neither of these readings nor any other, which the language wd. bear, could countenance a just charge on the Deputation or on Mr. Randolph, of contemplating a consolidated Govt. with unlimited powers." [Letter by James Madison to John Tyler, 1833, in Farrand, Max, "The Records Of The Federal Convention Of 1787 Vol 03." 1937, pp.527-528]

Earlier in the convention, during a debate on the resolution, Madison asked for a postponement:

"Mr. (Madison), observed that the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not individually. — , A Union of the States (containing such an ingredient) seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force agst. a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound. He hoped that such a system would be framed as might render this recourse unnecessary, and moved that the clause be postponed. This motion was agreed to nem. con." [Debates of May 31, 1787, in Farrand Vol 01." 1911, pp. 21, 52, 54]

Perhaps the Northerners, including Lincoln, were simply too historically-challenged to understand the concept of secession as understood by the Founding Fathers and other early Statesmen. Or, perhaps they were trying to forget.

Mr. Kalamata

[OIFVeteran]

You are conflating the natural right of revolution with secession. These are two different things. Like apples and oranges. Right of revolution is extra-legal, secession is a legal act. Usually agreed upon by all parties and or with a process written into the organic law of the organization(for example the EU).

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: “The bottom line is, the South was for peace, but Lincoln was for war.”
>>BroJoeK wrote: “Confederates began provoking war in December 1860, eventually seizing dozens of Federal properties — forts, ships, arsenals, mints, etc. — threatening Union officials and firing on Union ships. At the same time they began preparing to start war at Fort Sumter, in the event Maj. Anderson didn’t surrender soon enough.
Simultaneously, Jefferson Davis ordered Confederate General Bragg to start war at Fort Pickens, Pensacola.”

Show us your references, Joey, so we can examine them.

Please avoid anything from Wikipedia and leftist “historians,” so we don’t have burn the midnight oil wading through their ideological spin.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Bull Snipe wrote: “No, they are not veterans of the armed forces of the United States. They are entitled to a VA provided head stone, which is not the same head stone provided to U.S. veterans. In 1958, surviving widows of Confederate veterans became entitled to a pension based on their husbands service in the Confederate Army or Navy. Neither of these actions make Confederate soldiers U.S. Veterans.”

Are you saying that Confederate Army and Navy veterans are not U.S. military veterans, are not U.S. war veterans, are not U.S. Union veterans, are not U.S. Civil War veterans, are not U.S. veterans, or combinations of those five, or something else?

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>OIFVeteran wrote: “You are conflating the natural right of revolution with secession.”

The Declaration of Independence was a declaration of secession, which means it was a notice of withdrawal from the British Empire. A revolution is the act of overthrowing or usurping power from the current government. Castro was a revolutionary, as was Lincoln; the Founding Fathers and the Confederates were secessionists.

You can still call the war of 1776 a revolutionary war, if you like; but it was a war of secession, not revolution.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: “Lincoln knew exactly what he was doing. He was a greedy, power-hungry crony capitalist for his entire professional and political life.”
>>BroJoeK wrote: “Only according to the same insane Democrats who tell us the same sort of things about every real Republican president, including our current one!”

You are stuck on stupid, Joey. Let me help you out:

1. The Democrats of the pre-Civil War era were limited-government Jeffersonians who promoted a republican form of government. The name “democrat” was just a meaningless name. Modern-day conservative republicans are the same as Jeffersonian Democrats.

2. The Republicans of the pre-Civil War era were the big-government, crony-capitalist Whigs (Hamiltonians.) The name “republican” was just a meaningless name. Modern-day crony-capitalist RINO’s and Democrats are the same as 19th-century Republicans.

Along the way the names got switched, most likely because of Jesse Helms, who supposedly recommended conservatives abandon the Democrat Party because it had become too left-wing.

Mr. Kalamata

[rockrr]

Along the way the names got switched, most likely because of Jesse Helms, who supposedly recommended conservatives abandon the Democrat Party because it had become too left-wing.

And with that little gem the crazy-stupid circle is complete...

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: "Jefferson not only understood that fact, but enshrined the right of the states to secede from the Union in his legacy works and writings, many times."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Every Founding President, including Jefferson, faced threats of rebellion, insurrection, secession & treason. In President Jefferson's case, he had the secessionist (Aaron Burr) hunted down & arrested by the US Army and tried for treason."

I am at a loss to understand how you could come to the conclusion that Burr was a secessionist. Do you have a source, besides Wikipedia or a blog?

To my knowledge, Jefferson never disputed the right for Pickering et al and the New England states to secede. To the contrary, Jefferson expressed the right of states to secede in his 1st Inaugural, only a few years before the New England secession movement organized:

"[E]very difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We are all republicans – we are federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." [First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801, in Appleby & Ball, "Thomas Jefferson: Political Writings." Cambridge University Press, 1999, p.174]

*****************

>>BroJoeK wrote: "No Founder ever supported unilateral unapproved secession, at pleasure.

True. They said there should be a very good reason, such as a long train of abuses and usurpations, or decades of protective tariffs that favored Northern manufacturing over Southern agriculture; stuff like that.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote : "The legal document called the Constitution states, by omission, that when states exercise their constitutional authority to secede, they are no longer States or Territories of the Union, but sovereign states – or sovereign nations."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "And by that same spirit of "omission" the Constitution clearly states that Danny-child Kalamata and his fellow pro-Confederates are absolute blithering idiots! See... anybody can play that "omission" game, fool."

I am not pro-Confederate, Joey; I am anti-Lincoln. Try to keep up.

*****************

>>Kalamata wrote: "If the constructors of the Constitution had intended the states to lose their sovereignty upon ratification, it would have explicitly said so within the powers authorized to the general government in Article I, Section 8, or, negatively, in the prohibited powers of Article I, Section 9."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Rubbish. Our Founders in 1776 considered their Union "perpetual" and nothing in the 1787 Constitution changed that."

The time-frame of "perpetual" turned out to be only 7 or 8 years, Joey. I am going to make a wild guess that the Framers were hoping the Union would last more than 7 or 8 years.

But, the fact remains, if the Framers wanted the federal government to have the defined power to coerce, they would have approved the last clause of Resolution 6:

"Questions being taken separately on the foregoing clauses of the sixth resolution they were agreed to. It was then moved and seconded to postpone the consideration of the last clause of the sixth resolution, namely, "to call forth the force of the union against any member of the union, failing to fulfil it's duty under the articles thereof." on the question to postpone the consideration of the said clause it passed in the affirmative…"

"The (sixth Resolution) stating the cases in which the national Legislature ought to legislate was next taken into discussion… The (last) clause (of Resolution 6. authorizing) an exertion of the force of the whole agst. a delinquent State came next into consideration."

"Mr. (Madison), observed that the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice and the efficacy of it when applied to people collectively and not individually. — , A Union of the States (containing such an ingredient) seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force agst. a State, would look more like a declaration of war, than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound. He hoped that such a system would be framed as might render this recourse unnecessary, and moved that the clause be postponed. This motion was agreed to nem. con."

[Debates of May 31, 1787, in Max Farrand, "The Records Of The Federal Convention Of 1787 Vol 01." 1911, pp. 21, 52, 54]

The truth is, if that clause had been included in the Constitution, the Constitution would have not been ratified. The ratifiers were looking for more protection from the federal government, not less.

For example, the New York Ratification Document contained a long list of rights that they declared to be retained rights (e.g., constitutional;) and it contained a statement that the delegates of New York were awaiting a Bill of Rights before they would be completely on-board:

"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. In full confidence, nevertheless, that, until a convention shall be called and convened for proposing amendments to the said Constitution, the militia of this state will not be continued in service out of this state for a longer term than six weeks, without the consent of the legislature thereof; that the Congress will not make or alter any regulation in this state, respecting the times, places, and manner, of holding elections for senators or representatives, unless the legislature of this state shall neglect or refuse to make laws or regulations for the purpose, or from any circumstance be incapable of making the same; and that, in those cases, such power will only be exercised until the legislature of this state shall make provision in the premises; that no excise will be imposed on any article of the growth, production, or manufacture of the United States, or any of them, within this state, ardent spirits excepted; and the Congress will not lay direct taxes within this state, but when the moneys arising from the impost and excise shall be insufficient for the public exigencies, nor then, until Congress shall first have made a requisition upon this state to assess, levy, and pay, the amount of such requisition, made agreeably to the census fixed in the said Constitution, in such way and manner as the legislature of this state shall judge best; but that in such case, if the state shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion, pursuant to such requisition, then the Congress may assess and levy this state's proportion, together with interest, at the rate of six per centum per annum, from the time at which the same was required to be paid." ["New York Ratification Convention, July 26, 1788." Avalon Project, July 26, 1788]

Virginia had similar statements in their document.

Well, they got their Bill of Rights, which we now know as the first ten Amendments to the Constitution.

*****************

>>BroJoeK wrote: "So every Founder believed disunion could only come through mutual consent (as in 1787) or through necessity (as in 1776). No Founder ever supported unilateral declaration of secession at pleasure. The recognized Father of the Constitution, James Madison, explained exactly why, here."

That is true. Have you read the letter to Trist? Madison mentions the implied right to secede is a reserved right (aka, 10th Amendment;) and he mentions several times that a serious abuse of the compact by a party or parties is sufficient justification for the affected party or parties to secede:

"It is the nature & essence of a compact that it is equally obligatory on the parties to it, and of course that no one of them can be liberated therefrom without the consent of the others, or such a violation or abuse of it by the others, as will amount to a dissolution of the compact."

"Applying this view of the subject to a single community, it results, that the compact being between the individuals composing it, no individual or set of individuals can at pleasure, break off and set up for themselves, without such a violation of the compact as absolves them from its obligations. It follows at the same time that, in the event of such a violation, the suffering party rather than longer yield a passive obedience may justly shake off the yoke, and can only be restrained from the attempt by a want of physical strength for the purpose. The case of individuals expatriating themselves, that is leaving their country in its territorial as well as its social & political sense, may well be deemed a reasonable privilege, or rather as a right impliedly reserved. And even in this case equitable conditions have been annexed to the right which qualify the exercise of it."

"Applying a like view of the subject to the case of the U. S. it results, that the compact being among individuals as imbodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself. The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect. It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure."

[Letter to Nicholas P. Trist, February 15, 1830, in Gaillard Hunt, "The Writings of James Madison - Vol 09." 1910, pp.355-356]

Two plus years later his views had not changed:

"I have received yours of the 19th, inclosing some of the South Carolina papers. There are in one of them some interesting views of the doctrine of secession; one that had occurred to me, and which for the first time I have seen in print; namely that if one State can at will withdraw from the others, the others can at will withdraw from her, and turn her, nolentem, volentem, out of the union. Until of late, there is not a State that would have abhorred such a doctrine more than South Carolina, or more dreaded an application of it to herself. The same may be said of the doctrine of nullification, which she now preaches as the only faith by which the Union can be saved.

"I partake of the wonder that the men you name should view secession in the light mentioned. The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater right to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of —98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created.

[Ibid. Dec 23, 1832, pp.489-492]

Frankly, both Madison's and Jefferson's views about secession were consistent over the years.

Mr. Kalamata

[BroJoeK]

rustbucket: "Sounds like “domestic insurrections” to me."

Not to me, for two reasons:

1. The one example you cite, a Colonel Tye, black loyalist soldier, is clearly a military commander with title and up to 800 men.
   He was apparently supported by the Brits and given a guerilla mission -- to steal property and capture patriots.
   That is not "domestic insurrection".

2. But even if we admit that your point is at least arguable, here's what's not: the time frame beginning in 1779 puts Col. Tye three years after the Declaration, and therefore cannot be what the Declaration refers to in the past tense.

So, I'll repeat my argument: there were indeed many "domestic insurrections" beginning long before the Declaration in 1776.
These were not slave revolts, because there were none, but rather uprisings of British loyalists against patriots.
Indeed, the old estimate of loyalist numbers was about 1/3 of whites, or 750,000 a larger number even than America's 700,000 slaves, and the two combined about 1/2 the total population.
Now newer estimates of loyalists are about half that, or 400,000 but still a huge number and as it turned out, more dangerous to the Revolution than slave revolts.

Finally, Lord Dunmore did not offer slaves freedom in exchange for slave revolts, but rather in exchange for military service in the British Army.
The result was thousands of runaway slaves did serve the Brits, but there were no slave revolts -- aka "domestic insurrections" -- in 1776 or later.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Perhaps someone can cite an example where a nation were to war to deliberately damage their own long-term economic situation."

LOL!
Well... I'd suggest that Democrats would love to push President Trump into some war somewhere for just that reason -- damage the economy, elect more Democrats, what's not to like for them?
Except of course if he won the war, that would not be good.

Seriously, consider WWII -- the US did not go to war for economic reasons, we didn't even go to war, much as FDR wanted to, for geo-political reasons, in 1940 Americans were having none of that.
So Nazis marched over our friends in Europe, Japanese sailed into many Asian harbors -- Americans didn't care, it wasn't our business, we weren't going to get sucked into it.

We went to war in 1941 for the same reason we went to war in other years (ahem... 1861) because we were attacked, that's it.
And if you dispute this -- if you think it was some other reason -- then tell us all how, absent Pearl Harbor, FDR was going to reverse the poll numbers in summer 1941 from 80% opposed to war to even majority support, much less the overwhelming majority support needed to seriously win WWII.

[Bull Snipe]

Confederate veterans are not veterans of the Armed Forces of the United States.

[OIFVeteran]

The founding fathers disagree with you.
“As to the history of the revolution, my ideas may be peculiar perhaps singular. What do we mean by the revolution? The war? That was no part of the revolution; it was only an effect and consequence of it. The revolution was in the minds of the people, and this was effected from 1760 to 1775, in the course of fifteen years, before a drop of blood was shed at Lexington.”
— John Adams, Letter to Thomas Jefferson, August 24, 1815

“Objects of the most stupendous magnitude, and measure in which the lives and liberties of millions yet unborn are intimately interested, are now before us. We are in the very midst of a revolution the most complete, unexpected and remarkable of any in the history of nations.” - John Adams Letter to William Cushing, June 9, 1776

“The times that tried men’s souls are over-and the greatest and completest revolution the world ever knew, gloriously and happily accomplished.” - Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, No. 13, 1783

“Had no important step been taken by the leaders of the Revolution for which a precedent could not be discovered, no government established of which an exact model did not present itself, the people of the United States might, at this moment have been numbered among the melancholy victims of misguided councils, must at best have been laboring under the weight of some of those forms which have crushed the liberties of the rest of mankind. Happily for America, happily, we trust, for the whole human race, they pursued a new and more noble course. They accomplished a revolution which has no parallel in the annals of human society.” - James Madison, Federalist No. 14, November 20, 1787

[OIFVeteran]

None are as blind as those who will not see and you Kalamata are blind as a bat.

"Applying a like view of the subject to the case of the U. S. it results, that the compact being among individuals as imbodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself. The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect. It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure."

He gives two ways the constitution can be dissolved. By agreement of all the people or by usurpations or abuses. Now luckily the founding fathers gave us an example of what usurpations and abuses rise to the level of invoking the natural right to revolution, the revolutionary war.

The stamp act was passed in 1765 and it wasn't until 11 years later, after a long string of these usurpations and abuses, and the founding fathers pleading with England to recognize their rights as Englishman, in a government where they had no representation or voice, before they declared their independence and appealed to the force of arms.

Compare that to the southern rebels who rebelled because a party they disagreed with lost an election in a constitutional republic with a strong set of checks and balances. Some rebels began rebelling before the new party had even been sworn into office! I think it's safe to say that the founding fathers would have laughed at the southern rebels use of the right to revolution. Then George Washington himself would have taken charge of the United States Army and lead it into suppressing the rebellion. And good old George had a tendency to hang rebels, see Shay's rebellion.

[BroJoeK]

continuing from Kalamata's post #547, #4:

Kalamata: "Joey never ceases to amaze me at his inability to grasp simple economics.
This is another article from those trying times:"

Sadly, our Danny-child thinks he knows vastly more than he really does.
In this case he first claimed that Confederate "free trade" threatened Union economics.
I pointed out that's absurd, since there was no "free trade" ever contemplated by Confederates.
So now Dan-bo changes the subject to high Confederate import tariffs on Union "exports".

Kalamata quoting supposed Philadelphia press: "But now, since the Montgomery [Confederate] Congress has passed a new tariff, and duties are exacted upon Northern goods sent to ports in the Cotton States, the traffic between the two sections will be materially decreased.... "

Right, in 1860 "the South" imported about $200 million in goods from "the North".
That roughly equaled the value of cotton Southerners exported in 1860.
Confederates in 1861 hoped to tariff Union goods and return about $20 million per year to the Confederate treasury.
In fact nothing like that happened and I've seen no numbers on actual commerce, if any, between Union & Confederacy.
What we know for certain is that Confederate tariff revenues for the entire war were in the range of $3 million, total.

So in early 1861 the potential threat to Union economics was not "free trade", but rather Confederate tariffs on Union "exports" to the South.
But even the quote here doesn't say such trade will disappear, only that it will be more difficult than before.

Kalamata still quoting Phila Press: "The General Government,... to prevent the serious diminution of its revenues, will be compelled to blockade the Southern ports... and prevent the importation of foreign goods into them, or to put another expensive guard upon the frontiers to prevent smuggling into the Union States."

This quote has appeared on these threads before and each time somebody points out that, at best, it's taken out of context, with key words deleted.
At worst, and here Kalamata repeats the typical case, the quote's provenance is suspect.
Notice that where Kalamata is (thankfully) normally very specific in citing sources, in this case, as in others where we've seen the quote, he hides its provenance behind the words, "[Ibid. Philadelphia Press, p.69]"

No date, no author, no political-historical context, no link where we can confirm it.
But the bottom line on any Union blockade is that it was planned for many years as a response to rebellion.
Union General Scott didn't read a Philadelphia paper one morning and think, "oh, I should plan a blockade"!
No he simply dusted off and updated a plan prepared years earlier, likely under then Secretary of War Jefferson Davis.

Kalamata: "Blockading ports is considered an act of war."

Firing on Union troops in a Union fort, forcing their surrender, that's an act of war.
Rebellion is an act of war.

Kalamata: "The truth is, one way or another -- either by war or crony-capitalism -- the "republicans" would have plundered the South."

That's a typical Democrat hyperbolic lie.

Kalamata: "How simple-minded can one get?"

Union customs houses would have solved the problem identified in your quote.

Kalamata: "Lincoln was always a devout crony-capitalist, Joey, from the days of the $12 million "internal-improvements" boondoggle in 1837 (that saddled Illinois with "brilliant schemes" and a mountain of debt,) right up until his death.
Illinois amended its state constitution in 1848 to prohibit public financing of private industry, but too late to escape the graft and ambition of the "De Witt Clinton of Illinois," Abraham Lincoln."

So, like today's insane Democrats who think they can impeach the President by weaponizing the words "quid pro quo" and "personal benefit", the Danny-child thinks he can re-assassinate President Lincoln with the words, "crony capitalist" and "tyrant".
Repeat your magic words often enough and the whole world will bow down to you, right Dan-bo?

I don't think so.
The fact is that George Washington wanted Federal funds to help build canals across the mountains, it's one reason for the 1787 Constitution Convention.
Thomas Jefferson signed the law to build the first National Road over the mountains of western Maryland & Pennsylvania.
What we call "infrastructure" was part of our Founders' original intentions.

Now insane Democrats like Kalamata howl against Republican Lincoln's infrastructure projects, but when did Dan-bo ever complain about Democrat Jefferson Davis' "crony capitalism" as Secretary of War in supporting both the Gadsden Purchase and a Southern route for the transcontinental railroad which he, Davis, would personally profit from?
Right, so Republican devils are "crony capitalists", while Democrat angels are just... well... no big deal, nothing to see here....
Don't look at Democrat Bidens' corruption, only look at how Republican Trump wanted "quid pro quo" and "personal benefit" to investigate it!

The fact is that both Federal and states' governments supported "infrastructure" projects from the earliest days of the republic.
Lincoln was no more "corrupt", and arguably less (since he never gained personal wealth) than other politicians of his day.

Kalamata: "I can see how you might think that way, since you, like Lincoln, believe in a Living Constitution.
But it was common knowledge of those days, as well as common sense, that the Constitution was a barrier to the implementation of the Whig economic agenda, which was Lincoln's economic agenda.
Neely noticed:

"In the 1840s, Lincoln appeared to be marching steadily toward a position of gruff and belittling impatience with constitutional arguments against the beleaguered Whig program."
[Mark E. Neely Jr., "The Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties." Oxford University Press, 1992, p.212] "

My correct observation is that our new FRiend Kalamata is a living-breathing old-time Democrat, if not Dixiecrat.
One way we know this is because he lies constantly about, for example, me -- accusing me here of championing "a living constitution".
It's a nonsense charge that he pulls out of his bag of accusations whenever it seems convenient, thus proving his own identity as a fossilized Democrat at heart.

Next, typical Democrat, Kalamata changes the subject, from Lincoln's pre-war intentions regarding slavery, to the old Whig program of protective tariffs and infrastructure projects.
These he claims were unconstitutional, and cites Neely to support that.

But notice first that Neely is talking about "constitutional arguments" from Democrats like our own Dan-child, who claim in the same breath that:

1. Since the Constitution doesn't specifically authorize Federal infrastructure projects, therefore those are unconstitutional, and
2. Since the Constitution doesn't specifically authorize secession, therefore secession is constitutional!

So Dan-bo quotes Neely telling us that in the 1840s Lincoln was growing a "gruff and belittling impatience with..." such idiot Democrats!

Kalamata: "When the Whig party died, its economic was adopted by the Lincoln "republican" party.
Its progressive concept of "implied powers" (that is, "If I imply it," it magically becomes an authorized power) was pretty much enshrined into law by Lincoln's usurpations.
I am simply a voice crying in the wilderness, Joey."

Sorry, Danny-child, but I've heard the real voice in the wilderness, I've known it all my life, and you're not it.
The real voice says, build a highway for God, make the crooked roads straight and the rough roads smooth.
It's talking about infrastructure!
And you can hear him yourself, in Isaiah 40, or as beautifully put to music by Handel.

So Dan-bo, you are not that voice, you are just an old-time Democrat, meaning a Lying Sack of Schiff, born to lie, raised to lie, you just can't post without lying about something, especially about Republicans and most especially about the greatest Republican, Abraham Lincoln (no offense intended to Mr. Trump, who proudly proclaims we are the party of Lincoln).

Kalamata on Jefferson Davis' "war of extermination": "You are ignorant of, or avoiding, Lincoln's total war on civilians, Joey. "

Dan-bo, "War of extermination" was Davis' term, not Lincoln's, and what Davis meant by it, exactly, we don't know, but we do know Confederates did plenty of their own pillaging and burning in Union states & regions from Pennsylvania to Kansas.
See my post #814 for a listing of examples.

As for Lincoln's so-called "total war", Sherman's orders in Georgia were that no harm should come to people or homes which offered no resistance.
After the war Congress paid millions of dollars to thousands of Southern Unionists who suffered losses.
As for those anti-American Southern Democrats who murdered Republicans, well... they had a tougher go of it, for a few years.

Kalamata: "When Sherman and Sheridan were finished impoverishing and making homeless both white and black civilians in the South, for generations to come, they turned their "racial justice" on the Plains Indians to make room for another great, crony-capitalist boondoggle, the Transcontinental Railroad (more appropriately called the Zig-Zag Railroad.)"

It's true that former Confederates had a tough time post-war, for a few years, until 1876 when they were successful in throwing out the Union Army, nullifying the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments, and imposing their own "racial justice" on unfortunate former-slaves.
By that time cotton production was back to 1860 levels and growing, while Southern railroad miles doubled & doubled again by 1900.

It's generally agreed that Native Americans were mistreated in the 19th century with the result that courts and laws since have awarded them large settlements.
Today dozens of tribal areas total ~50,000 miles, an area larger than Pennsylvania or New York with a population of 5 million, about 1/4 of whom live on reservations.
As to whether Sherman is to blame for every bad thing that happened, well... that's at least debatable.

That's enough for now, more later...

[DoodleDawg]

It is not about winning or losing, Joey, but seeking the truth.

LOL!

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata's post #547 continued, #5.

Kalamata: "I am simply defending the Constitution, Joey, against progressives like you.
Speaking of insane, you have to be insane to believe a living constitution is worth more than wet toilet paper."

Nonsense, you are simply acting out your life-long Democrat training, lying or making false accusations whenever the mood strikes you.
In this case both the words "progressive" and "living constitution" are pure figments of your own imagination.
But you don't care, typical Democrat, it just feeeeeels to good to throw accusations at people, true or not.

Kalamata: "Your love affair with a blood-thirsty tyrant cannot be healthy, Child."

Danny-baby, we are the Party of Lincoln, whether you like it or not, regardless of how much dirt you throw at him, no matter how often you re-assassinate him with your words "blood-thirsty tyrant" or impeach him with "crony capitalist", or lie about his motives and deceive us about his actions, we're still his party and you should just come out and say, honestly, how much you hate Lincoln and Republicans, and you're just going to keep on being the Southern Democrat you were born to be -- in today's world a Lying Sack of Schiff, willing to say anything & do anything to defeat Republicans.

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata to OIFVeteran post #583: "I didn’t dodge anything, so quit being such an accusatory jackass."

Says Free Republic's dodgiest accusatory jackass.

Kalamata on Madison's letter to Hamilton: "He meant exactly what he said, which was, the ratification of the Constitution was “as is” — no amendments or alterations allowed.
AGAIN, that statement by Madison proves that state sovereignty and secession were part of the original Constitution, for these reasons:...
...3) Ratification by the three states demanding the right to secede, were accepted, without question.
I realize that is legalese, but think about it."

I think we can say Kalamata's arguments here are the heart & core of any "constitutional argument" for secession -- they claim, in sum that since three states included signing statements concerning disunion, that makes disunion a part of the original compact.
Does it?

First of all, in law, signing statements are not recognized as legally binding, though they may be consulted for informational purposes.

Second, our Lost Causers all present us these three signing statements as if they authorized what happened in 1860 -- they did no such thing.

In fact, those signing statements simply confirmed what all of our Founders believed, expressed and acted on, most clearly spelled out by Madison himself, here.
In a nut-shell all Founders believed and acted on their idea that disunion was legitimate under two, but only two, conditions:

1. Unilaterally and unapproved, from clear necessity, with a parade of horribles as spelled out in detail in their 1776 Declaration of Independence.

2. "At pleasure" only by mutual consent, as in their new 1787 Constitution, abolishing the old Articles of Confederation.

But no Founder, no signing statement, no document of any kind from them ever supported what happened in 1860 -- unilateral, unapproved declaration of secession at pleasure.
Indeed, every Founding President was faced with threats of rebellion, insurrection, secession and/or treason, and all acted decisively to defeat them.
See my post #526 for a listing of such events.

No Founding President, no president period, ever said what Union General Scott advised Lincoln as one alternative regarding Fort Sumter, to let them, "depart in peace, wayward sisters".

Yes, citizen Jefferson is sometimes quoted regarding New England, but when President Jefferson faced his own secession crisis, he had the chief secessionist arrested & tried for treason.
And despite citizen Jefferson's words, President Madison in 1814 moved US Army troops off the frontier with Canada and into position near Massachusetts, in case of rebellion.

So our Founders were never, ever, fooled by Kalamata-like "legalese".

[DiogenesLamp]

The court decides what the law says. You are free to express your opinion, but it does not have the weight of law in this country.

The court decides which direction the guns will be pointed, but they don't actually decide truth.

You dodged my question. Do you believe abortion on demand is valid law? Do you believe homosexual marriage is valid law?

[DiogenesLamp]

This country IS MY HOUSE and I’ll damned well go where I please.

Not when you're getting a divorce. The wife is entitled to her portion of the house.