Posted on 12/22/2019 4:23:47 AM PST by 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.
>>OIFVeteran wrote: “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.”
That is silly. Individuals rebel; states secede.
Mr. Kalamata.
>>OIFVeteran quoting: “The constitution must be adopted in toto and forever.” - James Madison”
>>BroJoeK wrote: “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.”
The Constitution WAS adopted in toto. Not a word has been changed since it was signed in convention. Check it out. Hamilton and the others settled for requesting a Bill of Rights (as Amendments,) and they got it.
The Bill of Rights simply restated the fact that the Federal Government’s powers are few and defined — they are specifically named and listed in the Constitution. All others, named or unnamed, belong to the states. One of those unnamed rights is the right to secede.
If you don’t understand that, read the 10th Amendment over and over again until you do.
Mr. Kalamata
No, insurrections can gain control of a state and rebel against the supreme law of the land, the constitution. That’s why in the militia act I posted, and you ignored, Congress gave the President the power to call out other state militias if the state that was in rebellions militia wouldn’t respond.
>>BroJoeK wrote: “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.”
Private banks are fine as long as they do not control our nation’s money supply, as does the PRIVATE bank that is deceitfully named the Federal Reserve.
****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: “Jackson set the example for dealing with secessionists that Lincoln followed. My kind of guy”
So, you enjoy killing women, children, old men, and slaves, while plundering, pillaging and burning down entire cities, and trampling down crops in between, Joey? Frankly, I an not surprised.
For the record, Jackson did NOT invade South Carolina over their threat to secede. He compromised. Therefore, the right to secede performed exactly as the Founding Fathers intended — as a check on an out-of-control government.
Lincoln cherished an out-of-control government, so he saw no need to compromise. A million deaths later, he got his chance to stand before the Lord and explain himself.
Mr. Kalamata
That is not true. The right to secede, and many others, are mentioned here.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
[Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People, in "Constitution of the United States and Amendments." 1787]
Joey, like all other progressives, believes in the concept of a "living constitution," which is, the federal government can do as it pleases in all cases whatsoever.
****************
>>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."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Exactly right, but metaphysics is what our pro-Confederates appeal to in order to justify 1860 unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure."
No, Joey. They simply looked in the Constitution to the section titled, "Powers of Congress," and didn't find secession listed there; then they looked to the section titled, "Powers prohibited of States," and didn't find it there, either. Therefore, they knew that the right and power to secede belongs to the states, by default.
That is such a simple concept, and the 10th Amendment clearly explains it; so I must assume you are either being deceitful to us, or you don't want to know the truth (which is being deceitful to yourself.)
Mr. Kalamata
>>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 wrote : “Baloney.”
>>BroJoeK wrote: “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.”
The living-constitution progressive, Joey, is being deceitful, again. I have been over this many times. States are sovereign, so there is no one above them to rebel against, except God.
****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: “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.”
The Whiskey Rebellion was a skirmish by a group of individuals. States cannot rebel, nor insurrect; they can only leave (secede.)
All attempts to conflate rebellion and insurrection with secession of an entire state and its government is deceitful, to be kind.
Mr. Kalamata
...and the federal government as per Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
Are you seriously arguing that Andrew “old hickory” Jackson would not have made good on his proclamation to suppress any secession? Because if you are your more delusional than i thought.
Heres what Jackson said when a south carolina visitor to the white house during the nullification crisis asked what message he should take back to the people of the state;
“Yes I have; please give my compliments to my friends in your State and say to them, that if a single drop of blood shall be shed there in opposition to the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man I can lay my hand on engaged in such treasonable conduct, upon the first tree I can reach.” Andrew Jackson
He also sent this to his Secretary of War;
“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
If South Carolina had seceded I have no doubt Andrew Jackson would have used the militia act and probably lead the army himself down to South Carolina and made Sherman’s March to the sea look like a picnic. And unlike Lincoln he would have hung all the rebels as traitors.
You don't know a whole lot, do you?
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.
If full orders were shipped to Southern ports then the tariffs would have been collected there once the goods landed, right? Yet in the year prior to the rebellion the busiest Southern port, New Orleans, recorded $2.1 million in tariff revenue while the busiest Northern port, New York, recorded over $35 million - seventeen times as much. If the vast bulk of the imports were destined for Southern consumers, as you claim, then why didn't they go to Southern ports? Why were they landed in New York?
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.
Have you stopped to think just how stupid that argument is? Thousands of tons of goods worth millions of dollars smuggled into the North how? Load it into wagons and send them up the interstate? In 1860 goods moved by ship or rail or they didn't move very far at all. It makes zero sense to believe that goods destined for Northern consumers would enter in through Southern ports just to be taxed twice. Doesn't it?
The word "supineness," in this context means "failing to act."
We will add 'rewriting the dictionary' to the long list of things you seem to consider yourself an expert at.
But I see your point: the South should have never trusted the Yankees.
Perhaps they did because they couldn't trust themselves to do the job properly or efficiently or cost-effectively?
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.
Oh please. Take away slavery and leave every other reason you care to name and the South doesn't secede. Leave slavery and take away every other reason and the South does. Any fool can see that.
This is the full editorial:
You use editorials as if the information in them was carved in stone and carried down from Mount Sinai. They are opinions, often with limited or highly biased basis in fact. I could, without much trouble, post a dozen of editorials basically stating Trump is the most corrupt leader since Nero and should be impeached and removed from office forthwith. That doesn't mean I accept the opinions that they offer as God's own truth and indisputable fact. I look to evidence, facts, figures, and what's true. You are swayed by anything that fits your agenda.
OIFVeteran wrote: “You seemed to have forgot the second part of that sentence; “The constitution must be adopted in toto and forever.”
It was. Where did you go to school?
Mr. Kalamata
>>Kalamata wrote: “The living-constitution progressive, Joey, is being deceitful, again. I have been over this many times. States are sovereign, so there is no one above them to rebel against, except God.”
>>rockrr wrote: “..and the federal government as per Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution.”
That is a meaningless drive-by-liberal misdirection.
Mr. Kalamata
I am pretty certain you are delusional. You don't understand the simple concept of “in toto” as applied to a document that contains a built-in Amendment process.
Yes, Andrew Jackson compromised. That is History.
****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: “Yes I have; please give my compliments to my friends in your State and say to them, that if a single drop of blood shall be shed there in opposition to the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man I can lay my hand on engaged in such treasonable conduct, upon the first tree I can reach.” Andrew Jackson
He also sent this to his Secretary of War; “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
That is meaningless. It is a historical fact that Jackson compromised.
****************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: “If South Carolina had seceded I have no doubt Andrew Jackson would have used the militia act and probably lead the army himself down to South Carolina and made Sherman’s March to the sea look like a picnic. And unlike Lincoln he would have hung all the rebels as traitors.”
You are one of the most blood-thirsty people I have encountered in my life, and I am an old man. You seem to enjoy the fact that Sherman was a mass-murderer and a war criminal, who literally relished in the fact that women, children, old men, and even slaves would starve or freeze to death after his plunderous rampage. He was a psychopath, as are all who honor him and/or cherish his memory.
Mr. Kalamata
Wow, you seriously do believe that Andrew Jackson would have just let South Carolina go. That is bats*&t crazy. That is flat earther claiming the earth is flat while looking at the earth from space level denial.
Please discontinue including me in any posts you make. I have no desire to have a discussion with someone so delusional.
I know at least one thing: I know I wasn't there.
Mr. Kalamata
>>OIFVeteran wrote: “Wow, you seriously do believe that Andrew Jackson would have just let South Carolina go. That is bats*&t crazy. That is flat earther claiming the earth is flat while looking at the earth from space level denial.”
I certainly do not believe Jackson was a blood-thirsty psycho, like you.
>>OIFVeteran wrote: “Please discontinue including me in any posts you make. I have no desire to have a discussion with someone so delusional.”
Very well. Consider you gone.
Mr. Kalamata
Well at least you know one thing.
I don’t blame you - he really is a dunce.
I have read quite a lot on Andrew Jackson and admirer him both as a man and as a President. He wasn’t perfect, no man is, but he was certainly one of our best Presidents. I certainly wouldn’t say I’m an expert but I would say I have a solid sense of his character. So I think in all probability if South Carolina would have fired on any federal troops or forts, as they did in 1861, his response would have been much harsher than Lincoln’s.
Unlike that spineless wimp Buchanan he sent more troops to forts inside South Carolina and had Winfield Scott draw up plans for an invasion. Now he did order that under no circumstances were US troops to fire the first shots.
I really like his quote when asked at the end of his Presidency what regrets he had;
After eight years as President I have only two regrets: that I have not shot Henry Clay or hanged John C. Calhoun.
I lived in New Orleans for two years as a kid. My mom dragged us all over town (there was so much history on display!) and my favorite was the statue of Andrew Jackson astride his horse in Jackson Square. It made quite an impression on me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.