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]

>>Bubba Ho-Tep wrote: “No, YOU imply that. The law says no such thing. In fact, the law draws a distinction between the two. It could have said, “Any person who served in the armed forces of either side during the Civil War shall be considered a United States veteran.” But it doesn’t.”

Then should we assume the Confederate military was a foreign military, and not a military of the United States?

Mr. Kalamata

[DoodleDawg]

Since you quoted me...

What does it have to do with anything, other than add carrying charges to the imported goods that are received in the North, and then transported to the South? [Carrying charges include the costs of storage (say, in warehouses,) and the conveying of those goods from storage to the destination.]

It begs the question that if all those goods were destined for Southern consumers then why were they shipped to New York, landed, taxed, reloaded, and shipped to the South? Why did they not go to the port nearest to the final consumer?

One of the biggest fears mentioned in Republican newspapers in those days was that shipping would go South, where there would be a smaller tariff.

Two questions. Why didn't it go there before the South seceded? And then the reverse: had the South been an independent country why would goods destined for Northern consumers go to Southern ports?

By mere supineness, the people of the South have permitted the Yankees to monopolize the carrying trade, with its immense profits. We have yielded to them the manufacturing business, in all its departments, without an effort, until recently, to become manufacturers ourselves. We have acquiesced in the claims of the North to do all the importing, and most of the exporting business, for the whole Union. Thus, the North has been aggrandised, in a most astonishing degree, at the expense of the South."

'Supineness' is a synonym for 'lazy' or 'indolent'. So if the South was too lazy, indolent, or just plain incompetent to take on their own transportation, their own insurance, their own banking, and the own brokering then how is that the North's fault that they stepped in and filled the breach?

[OIFVeteran]

I’m still waiting on those quotes from the founding fathers that they called their revolution a secession.

[DiogenesLamp]

You must have missed my response to you. I'll explain it again.

In 1776, Britain had no legal means to "secede" because their law required perpetual allegiance to the King. It was not possible to throw off British Subject status.

Therefore the word "secession" cannot apply. Only the word "Rebel" fits to describe the leaving of a nation that has no law which allows it.

The US however, adopted as it's foundation premise, that people *DO* have a right to throw off American citizenship en masse, and establish a government of their own that suits them.

This means that "secession" became legal since 1776.

Just as the word "subject" applied prior to 1776, so too did the word "Rebel" apply prior to 1776.

Since the adoption of the word "citizen" applied after 1776, so too did the word "secession" apply after 1776.

I hope this clarifies things for you.

[Kalamata]

>>BroJoeK wrote: “In this particular case, the English language provides us with two words for the same thing, but with an important distinction: Rebellion — “An act of violent or open resistance to an established government or ruler.” Revolution — “A forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favor of a new system.” Notice that both words are talking about the same thing, forceful resistance & overthrow of established government.”

Thanks for posting, Joey. According to those definitions, Abraham Lincoln was in rebellion against the United States of America, and performing an act of revolution against the same.

Mr. Kalamata

[OIFVeteran]

No, in 1776 the founders used the natural right of revolution to throw off the English government after a long string of abuses and usurpations. Never expecting or believing the English would just let them go.

The foundational premise of the revolution was “ We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The foundational premise was NOT that any people anytime for any reason can just change their government. If fact they warned against it- “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;”

Then they explained when the right of revolution should be used- “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government,”

And they gave us their example- 11 years of enduring increasing despotic measures, in a system of government they had no voice in, by England all the while sending representatives to the King and Parliament to recognize their right as Englishman.

What they did not do, what they would have laughed at, was a rebellion by a group of people because a party they disagreed with won an election in a constitutional republic with a system of check and balances.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Then should we assume the Confederate military was a foreign military, and not a military of the United States?

Maybe this is a controversial opinion, but I tend to believe that an army wearing a different uniform and under a different flag that's fighting against the army flying the United States flag and wearing the uniform of the United States army isn't the United States army.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

No more opinions, please. Show us clearly in the Law why Confederate military veterans are NOT U.S. military veterans, and I will concede.

Because the law clearly distinguishes between the two, saying only that they will receive the same treatment. If the law says that all dog owners will receive the same treatment as if they were cat owners, it doesn't mean that all dog owners are now officially cat owners. If they'd intended to say that all confederate veterans were now to be legally considered United States veterans, they could have said so. Instead they simply said they'd receive the same pension.

[OIFVeteran]

No, Abraham Lincoln was performing his constitutional duty of suppressing a rebellion. The same as George Washington did when he was President and suppressed the whiskey rebellion.

Presidents were delegated this authority by congress in the militia act of 1792(revised 1795). It states-

"Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, the same being notified to the President of the United States, by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session."

You can see from the part in bold that congress even foresaw the possibility that a rebellion might be so large(say an entire state?) That the entire state militia might not respond and in that case they gave the President the power to call militia from other states to help suppress it. In suppressing the rebellion President Lincoln was simply following the constitution and the law.

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: “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.”
>>BroJoeK wrote: “Every word of that is a lie, as usual. In fact: Jeffersonian Democrats began in 1788 as the anti-Constitution, anti-Federalists, opposed to ratification of our new Constitution.

That is more of Joey’s deception. Jefferson was anti-Federalist, not anti-federalism. He was vehemently opposed to a centralized, big-government consolidation of power, like that promoted by the Hamiltonians and his Federalist Party. On the other hand, Jefferson was a strong supporter of a federalism of sovereign states, with a general government acting as the agent of the sovereign states.

Lincoln was a big-government mercantilist, in the mold of Hamilton and Henry Clay, who promoted the pay-for-play, crony-capitalist system that we have today — the government that benefits the politically-connected — the government Jefferson despised.

Mr. Kalamata

[DiogenesLamp]

No, in 1776 the founders used the natural right of revolution...

You tried to sell this line before, but the Declaration of Independence says there is a natural right to Independence.

Revolution is a consequence of denying the natural right to Independence. Independence is the sought after goal, and revolution is the means to attain it if opposed. "Independence" is nothing more than freedom of a populace rather than freedom for an individual.

The foundational premise of the revolution was “ We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

This is factually wrong on two points. Firstly, they weren't seeking "Revolution" they were seeking "Independence", but they were going to give a "Revolution" if they did not get the Independence they wanted.

Secondly, to claim that sentence represents the essence of the Declaration is either great ignorance or a willful intent to deceive.

The Thesis sentence of the Declaration of Independence is this one.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --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.

Of all the sentences in that document, this is the only one that encapsulates it's purpose, which was to tell the King that they were separating from his government.

[BroJoeK]

OIFVeteran quoting: "The constitution must be adopted in toto and forever.” - James Madison

Thanks for that, and several similar quotes from Founders at that time.
It's a key point and one which Kalamata invariably brushes past, as if it doesn't mean what it says, or is of no importance.
Despite such quotes Kalamata firmly believes the Constitution really does contain a magical escape clause -- a secret constitutional trap door leading to a tunnel under the castle walls and out into the forest of secession.

Kalamata thinks it's just a matter of saying the right magic words, and the secret door will open and out he can scoot.
How can he be so certain?
Because that's what he learned as a child, and now nobody can tell him different.

In reality there is no secret door and no magic words.
There are only two ways to leave the Union, and those are the two ways by which it was originally formed: 1) from necessity caused by "a long train of abuses and usurpations" as in 1776, and 2) at pleasure, by mutual consent as in 1788.

Neither condition existed in 1860 and that's why Kalamata must resort to magic words and secret trap doors to justify unilateral unapproved secessions at pleasure.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp to Kalamata: "The more I learn of this period of history when Jackson killed the national bank, the more I realize that Jackson was a lot smarter than I had previously given him credit for being."

Like our current President, I'm a huge admirer of President Jackson, he was my kind of guy -- tough as nails, smart as a tack, a leader of men who put up with no BS from anybody -- and took bullets to prove it.
Frankly, I've never understood what was the big deal about a national bank -- banks are banks, no matter what name you put on them they all do the same things and one is as good as another.

Anyway, Jackson was the only president in our history to ever pay off -- not just pay down, pay off -- the national debt, and he did it by keeping in place that "Tariff of Abominations" much longer than his opponents wanted.
He made them howl with anger and then threatened them with war if they didn't pipe down.

Jackson set the example for dealing with secessionists that Lincoln followed.
My kind of guy.

By the way, if you wonder what happened to the national debt after Jackson, Democrat President Van Buren doubled spending and recreated a small national debt.
Whig Presidents Harrison/Tyler reduced spending back to Jackson levels and held the debt steady, then Democrat Polk's Mexican War tripled both Federal spending and national debt.
Whig Presidents Taylor/Fillmore let spending rise with rising revenues (from lower tariffs), reducing national debt by half, as did Democrat President Pierce.
But under Democrat President Buchanan both spending and debt went through the roof -- spending at four times Jackson's levels, raising the debt back to Mexican War levels.

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata: "The right to secede – to self-determination – in the minds of most patriots, came only after a "long train of abuses and usurpations," and is enshrined in the Constitution."

Oh my goodness -- the first part of your sentence here is exactly right, but at then you descend into gibberish -- "and is enshrined in the Constitution".
In fact, the Constitution says nothing about either secession or "self determination".

Our Founders had plenty to say about "a long train of abuses and usurpations", but the Constitution itself says nothing.

Kalamata quoting Jefferson: "Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding, and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense.
Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties, which may make anything mean everything or nothing, at pleasure.""

Exactly right, but metaphysics is what our pro-Confederates appeal to in order to justify 1860 unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure.

[BroJoeK]

OIFVeteran to Kalamata: "Luckily Lincoln wasn’t using the general welfare clause when he was suppressing the rebellion.
He was using the authority given to him by congress when they passed the militia act of 1792”

Kalamata: "Baloney."

And so we see the mind of a Democrat at work in Kalamata's response -- faced with an unbreakable argument he just handwaves it away as "baloney".
Nothing else is needed here, Democrats continue to pretend only their own fantasies matter.

By the way, the 1792 Militia Act, singed by President Washington and used in the Whiskey Rebellion, was enhanced in the 1807 Insurrection Act signed by President Jefferson and still in effect today.

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata to DoodleDawg: "Nothing Lincoln did was subject to judicial review."

DoodleDawg: "You really need to read up on the history of the rebellion some time.
The Supreme Court operated openly throughout and numerous Lincoln decisions were reviewed by the court.
In most cased those decisions were upheld.
In other cases the court struck them down.
Unlike the Confederacy."

Here is a listing of Civil War era Supreme Court cases, but it seems pretty thin -- might there be other cases which would give us a better picture of what was going on then?

[OIFVeteran]

I’m also a huge admirer of Andrew Jackson, one of our best presidents in my opinion. He was an SOB but he was our SOB. I especially liked his stance on the nulliffication/secession threat by South Carolina.

“If I can judge from the signs of the times Nullification, and secession, or in the language of truth, disunion, is gaining strength, we must be prepared to act with promptness, and crush the monster in its cradle before it matures to manhood.”
Andrew Jackson to Secretary of War Lewis Cass 1832

[Kalamata]

>>BroJoeK wrote: "By 1794 Jefferson's anti-Administration faction became what we call the Jeffersonian Democrat party."

Keep in mind that everything Joey writes is deceptive. As a promoter of pork-barrel-spending crony-capitalism, he has no choice but to deceive you, or admit his deception.

The party of Jefferson (and Madison to some extent) were the original Republicans, promoting a Representative Republic bound by the chains of the constitution, rather than a mobbish, majority-rule democracy. The name "Democrat party" was just a name in those days, and was the opposite in doctrine of the modern-day Democrat party – the crony party which is the true party and legacy of Lincoln. The Democrat Party of those days would be the equivalent of the modern-day Republican Party controlled by the doctrine of, say, Clarence Thomas, but without people "bound in service" to another. In other words, a conservative republican party would have similar doctrines to the Jeffersonian democrats of old, but without the slavery.

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

>>BroJoeK wrote: "Jeffersonian Democrats are recognizable by their behavior as modern Democrats, including: Out of power they opposed the 1791 First Bank of the United States. In power they authorized the 1816 Second Bank of the United States:"

As usual, Joey oversimplified. He forgot to tell you that Thomas Jefferson continuously opposed a national bank, as did the strict constructionists. According to this article, Madison reluctantly supported a bank to alleviate the sad state of finances caused by the war with Britain:

"Secretary Campbell and the Madison administration came to the realization that it would be impossible to fill the $25,000,000 loan and reluctantly decided to throw their support to the bank movement… Within a week after Congressman Grundy had offered his motion, a new batch of rumors began reaching the United States that Great Britain was willing to make peace. The Madison administration, never very enthusiastic about the bank project, withdrew support… [however, and later,] a sharp turn for the worse in the economic and military situation of the United States made a national bank a burning issue." [Raymond Walters Jr., "The Origins of the Second Bank of the United States." Journal of Political Economy, Vol.53, No.2; June, 1945, pp.119-120]

These are Madison's own words a few weeks after signing the national bank into law:

"With respect to our own Country, we are threatened with no immediate collisions, unless one should grow out of the questions with Spain, which we are taking measures to bring, if practicable, to an amicable termination. In our internal affairs, our difficulties arise from the state in which our finances were left by the war. The measures provided for by Congress will, I hope, alleviate, and, with help of time, gradually remove them. The principal of these measures are the establishment of a National Bank, and a continuance of a large portion of the war taxes. You will see, also, that a very important provision has been made for fostering our manufactures. This will have the double effect of enlarging our revenue for a time, and, by lessening our future importations, aid in rescuing our Commerce from that unfavorable balance which embarrasses all our monied Institutions and financial operations." [Letter to William Eustis, May 12, 1816, in James Madison, "Letters and other writings of James Madison Vol III." J. B. Lippencott & Co., 1867, p.4]

That said, a national bank was, and still is unconstitutional.

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

>>BroJoeK wrote: "Out of power they opposed the 1796 Alien & Sedition Acts. In power Jefferson used them to lock up his own political opponents."

I have never heard of such a statement as your second one. Please provide the details of how Jefferson used those laws to lock up his political opponents.

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

>>BroJoeK wrote: "Out of power they opposed Federal spending on "infrastructure" projects. In power Jefferson authorized the first National Road in western Maryland & Pennsylvania -- today's US-40."

Post roads are constitutional, Joey.

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

>>BroJoeK wrote: "Out of power they called for "strict construction" of the Constitution. In power Jefferson ignored "strict construction" in making the Louisiana Purchase for an amount ($15 million) that was triple Federal annual non-debt spending at the time."

That purchase was definitely unconstitutional, and Jefferson admitted that it was (he didn't try to hide it.)

Now, ask yourself the question, "did Jefferson personally benefit from it?" Did he benefit like the Hamiltonian crony-capitalists have benefitted with their so-called "internal improvement systems," which were as useful to the general welfare as Obama's $10 trillion 'infrastructure" spending. In those cases, the money mostly disappeared. But in Jefferson's case, the nation was doubled in size.

No matter, it was still unconstitutional.

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

>>BroJoeK wrote: "Out of power Jefferson concocted his "nullification" theory, and even seemingly suggested it might be OK for New England to secede."

Jefferson never wavered from the political concept of state sovereignty and the right to secede, that I am aware of.

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

>>BroJoeK wrote: "In power Jefferson arrested secessionist Aaron Burr and tried him for treason."

Aaron Burr was not a secessionist, but an insurrectionist. Only sovereign states are authorized by the Constitution to secede. People can stay or leave as they please (so far.)

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

>>BroJoeK wrote: "In power Jefferson strictly enforced his Embargo Act against objecting New Englanders, no talk of "nullification" then!"

I believe the Embargo Act was in response, at least in part, to the British hijacking of American ships. Congress passed the Embargo Act in 1807, and Jefferson signed it in to law. All of the New England states, plus Delaware, nullified the Embargo Act by labeling it an unconstitutional usurpation of power.

During the War of 1812, the New England states again defied the federal government by refusing to comply with Madison's request for the militias to enter the forts, and to remain there, in case they were needed for the war. This is part of Connecticut's resolution:

"On the fullest deliberation, your committee are not able to discover that the constitution of the United States justifies this claim."

"The people of this state were among the first to adopt that constitution. They have been among the most prompt to satisfy all its lawful demands, and to give facility to its fair operations they have enjoyed the benefits resulting from the union of the states; they have loved, and still love, and cherish that union, and will deeply regret, if any events shall occur to alienate their affection from it. They have a deep interest in its preservation, and are still disposed to yield a willing and prompt obedience to all the legitimate requirements of the constitution of the United States."

"But it must not be forgotten, that the state of Connecticut is a free sovereign and independent state; that the United States are a confederacy of states; that we are a confederated and not a consolidated republic. The governor of this state is under a high and solemn obligation, "to maintain the lawful rights and privileges thereof as a sovereign, free and independent state," as he is "to support the constitution of the United States," and the obligation to support the latter, imposes an additional obligation to support the former. The building cannot stand, if the pillars upon which it rests, are impaired or destroyed. The same constitution, which delegates powers to the general government, inhibits the exercise of powers, not delegated, and reserves those powers to the states respectively. The power to use the militia "to execute the laws, suppress insurrection and repel invasions," is granted to the general government. All other power over them is reserved to the states. And to add to their security, on the all important subject of their militia, the power of appointing their officers is expressly reserved. If then the administration of the general government demand the militia, when neither of the exigencies provided for by the constitution have occurred, or to be used for purposes not contemplated by that instrument, it would be not only the height of injustice to the militia, to be ordered into the service of the United States, to do such duty, but a violation of the constitution and laws of this state, and of the United States. Once employed in the service of the United States, the militia would become subject to the articles of war, and exposed to be punished with death, if they should leave a service, which by the constitution of their country, they are not bound to perform."

[Report and Resolutions of Connecticut on the Militia Question, August 25, 1812 in Herman Vandenburg Ames, "State Documents on Federal Relations: the States and the United States." 1970, pp.16-18]

Did you notice the part where Connecticut considered itself to be a "free sovereign and independent state"? Did you read the part where the 10th Amendment was exercised? The statement reads as if Connecticut was controlled by strict constructionists, like me! It also appears to be a fact that the Southern States were not the only states that considered theirs to be "sovereign and independent states."

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

>>BroJoeK wrote: "Out of power Jefferson criticized President Adams' Quazi-War against France, which was authorized by Congress. In power Jefferson sent the US fleet to attack Barbary Pirates without Congressional authorization.

How about some details on those two statements, Joey?

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote : "What does it have to do with anything, other than add carrying charges to the imported goods that are received in the North, and then transported to the South? [Carrying charges include the costs of storage (say, in warehouses,) and the conveying of those goods from storage to the destination.] >>DoodleDawg wrote: "It begs the question that if all those goods were destined for Southern consumers then why were they shipped to New York, landed, taxed, reloaded, and shipped to the South? Why did they not go to the port nearest to the final consumer?"

I don't know. I wasn't there. I can speculate that full orders would be shipped to the Southern ports, while partial orders would be received in Northern ports, split, and forwarded. But that is only speculation.

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

>>Kalamata wrote : "One of the biggest fears mentioned in Republican newspapers in those days was that shipping would go South, where there would be a smaller tariff. >>DoodleDawg wrote: "Two questions. Why didn't it go there before the South seceded? And then the reverse: had the South been an independent country why would goods destined for Northern consumers go to Southern ports?

I believe the Philadelphia editorial alluded to that: foreign ships would unload their cargo where the tariffs were much less, and then distributed, perhaps some via smuggling.

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

>>DoodleDawg wrote: "'Supineness' is a synonym for 'lazy' or 'indolent'. So if the South was too lazy, indolent, or just plain incompetent to take on their own transportation, their own insurance, their own banking, and the own brokering then how is that the North's fault that they stepped in and filled the breach?

The word "supineness," in this context means "failing to act." But I see your point: the South should have never trusted the Yankees. 🙂

It was not the "North's" fault -- it was crony-capitalists in government. If there has been a consistent and uniform tariff all along, as well as uniform support of infrastructure, it is doubtful there would have been a secession, even with the fugitive slave issue. However, Lincoln began (and ended) his career as a Whig crony-capitalist, and there was no way he was going to play fair with the little people.

This is the full editorial:

"Whilst this journal would by no means advocate the commercial independence of the South, as a distinctive measure, intended as an initiatory step for dissolving the Union; still, we are free to declare that, in our opinion, the South ought, without further delay, to commence a system of measures for her own protection. The Southern Conventions, as they are called, which have from time to time assembled, were not only abortive, but positively injurious. Those assemblages, indeed, were conceived in a spirit of Disunion, and were hot beds for the speedy propagation of fire-eating sentiments. Such being their character, this journal, of course, had no sympathies with them; nor did we ever expect any substantial good to spring from their deliberations. However, it is manifest to even a casual observer of ordinary intelligence, that the policy in trade and commerce uniformly pursued by the South is not only blind and simple, but absolutely suicidal to our pecuniary prosperity."

"By mere supineness, the people of the South have permitted the Yankees to monopolize the carrying trade, with its immense profits. We have yielded to them the manufacturing business, in all its departments, without an effort, until recently, to become manufacturers ourselves. We have acquiesced in the claims of the North to do all the importing, and most of the exporting business, for the whole Union. Thus, the North has been aggrandised, in a most astonishing degree, at the expense of the South. It is no wonder that their villages have grown into magnificent cities. It is not strange that they have "merchant princes," dwelling in gorgeous palaces and reveling in luxuries transcending the luxurious appliances of the East! How could it be otherwise? New York city, like a mighty queen of commerce, sits proudly upon her island throne, sparkling in jewels and waving an undisputed commercial scepter over the South. By means of her railways and navigable streams, she sends out her long arms to the extreme South; and, with an avidity rarely equaled, grasps our gains and transfers them to herself—taxing us at every step—and depleting us as extensively as possible without actually destroying us. Meantime, the South remains passive—in a state of torpidity—making cotton bales for the North to manufacture, and constantly exerting ourselves to increase the production as much as possible. We have no ships in the foreign carrying trade, or very few indeed. No vessels enter Southern harbors (comparatively speaking) laden with the rich "merchandise" of foreign climes directly imported from those distant countries. We extend but little encouragement to the various mechanical arts, but buy most of our farming implements from the Northern people. Although Mississippi has within her limits an extensive seaboard, affording capacious and secure harbors, capable almost of sheltering the shipping of the world, still the blue waters of our harbors are unbroken by a single keel, save the diminutive fishing smacks which frequent those waters. Although nature hath prepared for us most beautiful positions for commercial cities, and pointed, with her unerring finger, to the advantages spread before our blind eyes; still, we have no seaboard cities, except so far as they exist in imagination, or are delineated on paper, or are shadowed forth in pompous resolutions emanating from disunion conventions! Why is this? Why are we so far behind in the great march of improvement? Simply because we have failed to act in obedience to the dictates of sound policy. Simply because we have been almost criminally neglectful of our own pecuniary interests. What should we do? What remedy have we?"

"Why, in the first place, let us withdraw one-third, or even one-half of our capital from agricultural operations, and invest it in the establishment of manufactories of cotton. Thus, we will greatly reduce the production of the raw material; and, as a necessary consequence, greatly enhance the market price of our great staple. The business of manufacturing the common cotton fabrics can be as profitably conducted here in Mississippi as it can be in Massachusetts. This fact has been demonstrated by the humble history of the few manufactories already operating in our State. It has been proven that the business of making cotton goods in Mississippi pays from io to 12 per cent, profit per annum on the investment. Now, suppose we had extensive establishments for producing common fabrics of cotton in every county of Mississippi, created by Southern capital, and owned and worked by our own people; we could clothe ourselves at a small expense, comparatively, and sell the Yankees our surplus cloth, and thus realize a profit, instead of buying for ourselves. Consider the enhanced price of cotton, consequent upon the reduced supply; calculate the profits of manufacturing at home; refer to the opportunity we would thus have of becoming stock raisers, and producers of the small grains and fruits which our climate and soil are capable of maturing; and who does not see, at a glance, how eminently advantageous and profitable such a system would be. Connected with this policy, let us encourage the mechanical arts. Let us fabricate here all of our carriages and wagons; all of our farming implements; every article of furniture required by our people; and thus secure to ourselves an accession of valuable citizens, those multiplied thousands of industrious, honorable, moral artisans, who are producers, instead of consumers, and who are valuable, indeed, to any community that can secure their presence. Let us sedulously cultivate the sentiment, so true in itself, that labor is honorable and dignified. Lastly, let us at once begin the business of direct importation and direct exportation, and thus keep at home the millions of dollars which we annually pay to the North. The business of direct importation and direct exportation would, of course, build up, as if by the wand of a magician, splendid Southern cities of commercial grandeur and opulence; and thus we might become the most happy, prosperous, wealthy and intelligent people upon whom the sun has ever smiled. All this we should do—not in spitefulness— not in a spirit of envy—not with a view of breaking the ties of national Union—not with a design of engendering sectional animosity, but in obedience merely to the dictates of enlightened sectional policy, and in obedience to that universal principle, so well understood and acted upon by our Yankee friends, of consulting our own pecuniary interests, and adding to our general and individual pecuniary emoluments."

"This is a fruitful topic. It might be spoken of in volumes. We have but glanced at it in the foregoing observations. After all, what we have penned, so far from being original suggestions, is but the recapitulation of self-evident propositions, suggesting themselves to every intelligent mind. It remains to be seen whether the South will awake from her ignoble slumber, and act for herself, or whether she will indolently remain inactive, and continue to be mere "hewers of wood and drawers of water," for the merchant princes of the North."

[Vicksburg Daily Whig, January 18, 1860, in Dwight Lowell Dummond, "Southern Editorials on Secession." The Century Co., 1931, pp.13-16]

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: “Then should we assume the Confederate military was a foreign military, and not a military of the United States?”
>>Bubba Ho-Tep: “Maybe this is a controversial opinion, but I tend to believe that an army wearing a different uniform and under a different flag that’s fighting against the army flying the United States flag and wearing the uniform of the United States army isn’t the United States army.”

Personally, I agree. I was merely pointing out quirks in the law. I am convinced Lincoln unconstitutionally invaded a foreign nation called the Confederate States of America, while making war on the remaining states of the Union to intimidate them into silence and submission to his supreme will. He played God, and America paid the price (and we still are.)

Mr. Kalamata