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.

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata: "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."

Keep in mind that most of what the Dan-child posts are outright lies.
That's because he's a Democrat and the function of Democrats in life is to make ridiculous false accusations against Republicans.
They can't help it, they can't stop it, it's just their nature.
In this particular case, what Kalamata fantasizes as "pork barrel spending" and "crony capitalism" refers to nothing more than what we call "infrastructure".
Both Presidents Washington and Adams supported Federal infrastructure projects, and President Jefferson signed the first major one, the Cumberland or National Road, in 1806.
So by any criteria of Founders' original intent, infrastructure is on the list.

It's true that anti-Federalists, anti-Administration Jeffersonian Democrats usually opposed infrastructure projects, until one benefitted them, as the National Road illustrates.

Kalamata: "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. "

And still more deception from our Danny-decepticon king.
In fact, no political party in Jefferson's time favored "a mobbish, majority-rule democracy."
But of the two parties at the time, Jefferson's was in fact the more democratic, favoring expanded voter rolls by including all yeoman farmers and militiamen.
And during Jefferson's presidency, the number of voters nationwide more than doubled.

Despite his own wealth and educated aristocracy, Jefferson presented himself as a "man of the people" opposed to those evil monarchical John Adams Federalists.
Indeed, Jefferson's opposition to the Adams' Alien & Sedition Acts came in part from the fact that those "aliens" being disenfranchised were his Democrat voters!

By the time of Democrat President van Buren, the Democrat party was a permanent alliance of Southern slavers with Northern Big-City immigrant bosses (i.e., Tammany Hall).

Kalamata: "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."

Nonsense -- by "Democrats" they meant the party of the little man and then as now they represented a diverse alliance of political interests united by one overwhelming passion -- to defeat & destroy their more conservative opponents.

Kalamata: "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."

And yet more decepticon nonsense.
In fact, Jefferson himself was a big-spending Democrat who ignored the Constitution whenever it suited him -- the Louisiana Purchase, for example.
President Jefferson's average annual spending was 50% more than President Washington's and in 1804 Jefferson increased the national debt to its highest level ever, not exceeded until the War of 1812.

And speaking of slavery, the Jefferson's party of federally enforced slavery is now the party of federally funded abortions and welfare plantations.
So, the leopard doesn't change its spots, there's nothing new under the sun, and Democrats have always been Democrats.

After Jefferson, "Mr. Madison's War" doubled spending and tripled the national debt, which President Monroe reduced somewhat and President John Quincy Adams even more.
But it took Andrew Jackson to pay off the debt and he did it by maintaining very high levels of federal spending, most of which went for debt payments.

In their defense, before 1860 Federal spending remained constant, except for wars, at about 2% of GDP, and national debt went up & down based on revenues.
So Adams' Tariff of Abominations allowed President Jackson to eliminate the debt, while Buchanan's much lower Tariff of 1857 doubled the national debt in four years -- Democrat Buchanan was another Barack Obama.

Kalamata: "As usual, Joey oversimplified.
He forgot to tell you that Thomas Jefferson continuously opposed a national bank, as did the strict constructionists. "

Naw, it was nothing more than a political bargaining chip to get the nation's capital moved.
Hamilton got his bank, Jefferson got the capital built in Washington, DC -- the art of the deal.

Kalamata: "According to this article, Madison reluctantly supported a bank to alleviate the sad state of finances caused by the war with Britain:"

Demonstrating again that opposition to a National Bank was based on political more than practical considerations.
Madison considered the bank a "necessity" regardless of how "reluctant" he was.

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

"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]"

Notice yet again that our Founders understood & supported using protective tariffs to make America great by putting Americans first.

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

Imho, banks are banks and one is as good as another, regardless of what name they carry.
If you wish to call it a "national bank" that's fine, but if it's just some state bank, it does all the same things.
Sure, there may be some prestige value to the name "national bank" but in practical terms, any bank will do, I think.

Kalamata on Jefferson's opposition to the Sedition Law: "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."

Vice President Jefferson opposed the Alien & Sedition Acts, which helped elect him President in 1800 and he pardoned those arrested when he became President.
Years ago I read two startling items about this:

1. Vice President Jefferson did not oppose Alien & Sedition in the very beginning, when his opposition could have swayed President Adams to kill the bill in Congress.

2. In the Sedition law's final months before expiring, Jefferson used it to arrest his own political opponents.

The first is a matter of interpretation, the facts are not in dispute, Jefferson left town during the debate in Congress.
The second I found years ago in an article on the Sedition Act and have posted the link several times on threads like this.
Today I went back to reconfirm it, but it appears that page was taken over by Jeffersonians who emphasized his opposition and deleted any mention of using the law himself in 1801.
So, until I can find another source, I'll have to delete that item from my inventory.

Kalamata: "Post roads are constitutional, Joey."

Danny-child, it wasn't called a postal road, it is the Cumberland Road, or National Road.
Regardless, it's infrastructure, what you so mockingly call "pork barrel spending crony capitalism.", and it was advocated by every Founder, signed into law first by President Jefferson.

Kalamata: "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?" "

Right, you admit it was unconstitutional and Democrats ignore the Constitution when it suits their own purposes.
You ask, "did Jefferson benefit", but our insane Democrats today claim Trump "benefitted" politically by asking for Ukraine to investigate the Bidens -- benefitted personally enough to impeach him!
So, by their own standards, sure, Jefferson benefitted hugely from the Louisiana Purchase, it helped get him reelected.
There's your "crony capitalism", Democrats.

Kalamata: "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."

Now there again is your old Democrat brain hard at work -- nothing specific, just throwing out wild accusations, hoping something might stick.

Kalamata: "No matter, it was still unconstitutional."

Right, Democrats don't care about the Constitution when they're in charge, only when they can pin something on their opponents.

Kalamata: "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.)"

Nobody, no institution, is authorized by the Constitution to secede, period.
When Burr threatened to secede, Jefferson had him arrested & tried for treason.

Kalamata: "All of the New England states, plus Delaware, nullified the Embargo Act by labeling it an unconstitutional usurpation of power."

Jefferson never acknowledged New England's "right of nullification" and continued to enforce the Embargo until it was repealed by Congress.
Indeed, if the Embargo was an "unconstitutional usurpation of power", then it demonstrates yet again that Democrats ignore the Constitution when they're in power.

Kalamata: "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."

And at the height of their resistance, Democrat President Madison moved Federal troops off the frontier with Canada into position near New England in case of rebellion.

Kalamata quoting Connecticut: "...the United States are a confederacy of states; that we are a confederated and not a consolidated republic. "

Kalamata: "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."

I don't think any Founder considered their new Constitution as nothing more than the old Articles of Confederation, a "confederacy of states".
I think they believed it more like a nation, "we the people", a union.

Kalamata: "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.""

Maybe, but here's the difference -- when New England threatened to secede, Democrat President Madison took military action to prevent it, and when the threat collapsed, it also destroyed New England's Federalist Party.
That lead to effectively a one party nation which lasted until the rise of Jacksonian Democrats and anti-Jackson Whigs.
So threatened secession in 1814 destroyed the old Federalists, but not the 1860 secessionist Democrats

Kalamata on Adams' Quasi-War vs. Jefferson's Barbary War : "How about some details on those two statements, Joey?"

Adams' Quasi-War was approved by Congress and opposed by Francophile Jefferson, especially the part about Aliens & Sedition.
Jefferson's Barbary War was approved by nobody I can find reference to -- he did it strictly on his own authority.

Bottom line: from Day One, Democrats pretended to care a lot about "strict construction" when their opponents were in charge, but ignore the Constitution when they are in charge.

[Kalamata]

>>BroJoeK wrote: “Skipping forward to the 1850s we find Democrats like Secretary of War Jefferson Davis in full support of Federal spending for a transcontinental railroad, himself expecting to profit hugely from it, but only if it took a Southern route to California. Davis’ Gadsden Purchase for $10 million (only $5 million less than Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase) was then ~20% of total annual Federal spending.”

Do you have a source on how Davis would have profited from such a venture?

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: “By 1860 Democrats were so commonly recognized as corrupt “crony capitalists” that one Republican Party platform plank referred to it directly:
>>Kalamata quoting: “6.That the people justly view with alarm the reckless extravagance which pervades every department of the Federal Government; that a return to rigid economy and accountability is indispensable to arrest the systematic plunder of the public treasury by favored partisans; while the recent startling developments of frauds and corruptions at the Federal metropolis, show that an entire change of administration is imperatively demanded.”
By 1860 Democrats had for decades systematically plundered the Federal treasury for the benefit of favored partisans.
So, the Leopard doesn’t change his spots, there is nothing new under the sun and Democrats have always been Democrats.”

There is no doubt that the crony-capitalist Whigs-Under-A-New-Name (a.k.a., the “republicans”) were reponsible for the plunder of the South and federal resources for about half-century. Perhaps the “republican” party — the precurors to the modern-day Democrat Party — were up to the same trick of “Crying ‘Stop, thief!’ first,” that their modern equivalents resort to.

The question that needs to be answered is, “who were the accusers of Buchanan administration?”

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: “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.”
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “Total lies. Republicans began as the pro-Constitution Federalists, became the anti-corruption Whigs and then anti-slavery Republicans. Republicans have always favored Founders’ original intent as opposed to numerous Democrat efforts to corrupt & debauch it.”

That is truly a bizarre statement. The Federalists party gave us the Alien and Sedition Acts, the first bank, and the doctrine of their “inspirational leader,” Alexander Hamilton, which favored the few over the many. The Whigs, followed by the misnamed “republicans”, carried that crony-capitalist doctrine forward until the party morphed into the modern day liberal democrats, causing true conservatives, like Jesse Helms, to flee the democrat party

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: "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."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Keep in mind that most of what the Dan-child posts are outright lies."

Why would I lie about something that is easily researched, Joey? The historical literature is loaded with the pork-barrel shenanigans, including targeted protectionism, by the Federalists and their Whig successors. Their advocacy of a private bank controlling our money supply should at least raise a red flag.

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

>>Joey wrote: "That's because he's a Democrat and the function of Democrats in life is to make ridiculous false accusations against Republicans."

When Joey, the progressive, is not singing the praises of anti-God bigots and the ACLU (but I repeat myself,) he is promoting the party of crony-capitalism on steroids: the 19th century Republicans, and their legacy of lining the pockets of their supporters with one failed boondoggle after another, such as the Trans-continental Railroad, which conveniently began near Abe Lincolns' property at Council Bluffs. The narrative begins something like this:

"A year prior to his nomination to the presidency — to be exact, in August, 1859,—he had visited Council Bluffs, Iowa, to look after his real estate holdings there and incidentally see the country. A contemplated railroad to extend westward from the Missouri River to the Pacific Coast was a live but no new topic. For years such a possibility had been discussed, and in the first national campaign conducted by the Republican party in 1856, a Pacific railroad was made a rather prominent issue…"

"Shortly before his trip to Council Bluffs, Abraham Lincoln had purchased several town lots from his fellow railroad attorney, Norman B. Judd, who had acquired them from the Chicago and Rock Island Railroad. Council Bluffs at this time was a frontier town, containing about fifteen hundred people…"

[John William Starr, "Lincoln and the Railroads: a Biographical Study." Dodd, Mead and Company, 1927, pp.194-195]

As "fate" would have it, Lincoln was elected President, the Congress gave him the authority to choose the terminal, and he chose Council Bluffs, Iowa. Imagine that?

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote : "They can't help it, they can't stop it, it's just their nature."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "In this particular case, what Kalamata fantasizes as "pork barrel spending" and "crony capitalism" refers to nothing more than what we call "infrastructure". Both Presidents Washington and Adams supported Federal infrastructure projects, and President Jefferson signed the first major one, the Cumberland or National Road, in 1806. So by any criteria of Founders' original intent, infrastructure is on the list."

Post roads are constitutionally authorized infrastructure, Joey. Lining the pockets of crony supporters is not. These are the authorized powers of the Federal Government regarding infrastructure:

"Article I, Section 9: The Congress shall have Power To … To establish Post Offices and Post Roads... To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings." ["Constitution of the United States and Amendments." 1787]

That's it.

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

>>BroJoeK wrote: "It's true that anti-Federalists, anti-Administration Jeffersonian Democrats usually opposed infrastructure projects, until one benefitted them, as the National Road illustrates."

The National Road was built to benefit settlers in the Midwest.

For the record, this was President Jefferson's idea of infrastructure:

"We have an idea of running a path in a direct line from Knoxville to Natchez, believing it would save 200 miles in the carriage of our mail. The consent of the Indians will be necessary, and it will be very important to get individuals among them to take each a white man into partnership, and to establish at every nineteen miles a house of entertainment, and a farm for its support. The profits of this would soon reconcile the Indians to the practice, and extend it, and render the public use of the road as much an object of desire as it is now of fear; and such a horse-path would soon, with their consent, become a wagon-road. I have appointed Isaac Briggs of Maryland, surveyor of the lands south of Tennessee. He is a Quaker, a sound republican, and of a pure and unspotted character. In point of science, in astronomy, geometry and mathematics, he stands in a line with Mr. Ellicot, and second to no man in the United States." [To Governor W. C. C. Claiborne, from Washington, May 24, 1803, in Thomas Jefferson, "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson Vol 10." Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903, pp.394-395]

So, Jefferson appointed a [gasp!] republican as his surveyer! LOL! Jefferson was a republican, just not a Lincoln republican, which were Whigs in disguise.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "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. "
>>BroJoeK wrote: "And still more deception from our Danny-decepticon king. In fact, no political party in Jefferson's time favored "a mobbish, majority-rule democracy."

Not according to this editorialist:

"As the novelty and bustle of inaugurating the government will for some time keep the public mind in a heedless and unsettled state, let the press during this period be busy in propagating the doctrines of monarchy and aristocracy. For this purpose it will be particular useful to confound a mobbish democracy with a representative republic, that by exhibiting all the turbulent examples and enormities of the former, an odium may be thrown on the character of the latter. Review all the civil contests, convulsions, factions, broils, squabbles, bickering, black eyes, and bloody noses of ancient, middle, and modern ages; caricature them into the most frightful forms and colors that can be imagined, and unfold one scene of horrible tragedy after another till the people be made, if possible, to tremble at their own shadows. Let the discourses on Davila then contrast with these pictures of terror the quiet hereditary succession, the reverence claimed by birth and nobility, and the fascinating influence of stars, and ribands, and garters, cautiously suppressing all the bloody tragedies and unceasing oppressions which form the history of this species of government. No pains should be spared in this part of the undertaking, for the greatest will be wanted, it being extremely difficult, especially when a people have been taught to reason and feel their rights, to convince them that a king, who is always an enemy to the people, and a nobility, who are perhaps still more so, will take better care of the people than the people will take of themselves." [Philip Freneau, "Rules for Changing a Limited Republican Government into an Unlimited Hereditary One." National Gazette, 1792, Rule 5]

The National Gazette was a newspaper created by Jefferson and Madison to fight against the tendency of the Hamiltonian Federalists to pick the pockets of the common man. The "mobbish democracy" was in reference to the Hamiltonians.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Joey wrote : "But of the two parties at the time, Jefferson's was in fact the more democratic, favoring expanded voter rolls by including all yeoman farmers and militiamen. And during Jefferson's presidency, the number of voters nationwide more than doubled."

That is more deception. Joey is attempting to conflate the democratic process of voting with the Democrat Party, which is the legacy party of Lincoln, whose crony thugs harassed and arrested voters who didn't choose the correct color of ballot (I kid you not!):

"The secret ballot was not part of the electoral process in Maryland in 1861. Each party printed its own ballots with its own distinctive color. Many who attempted to vote the Peace ticket in Baltimore were arrested for carrying a ballot of the wrong color. The charge against these men was simply "polluting the ballot box." A number of men were arrested for this novel offense, and one of the judges of election was arrested for "failing to bar accused secessionists from voting."

"All through the morning the arrested persons streamed into the police stations and charges were lodged against them. About 11 a.m. a rumor began spreading in the city that the Peace Party candidates had withdrawn from the election and this, plus the wholesale arrests, discouraged many Peace Democrats from trying to vote. By the end of the day, about 170 Peace Democrats had been arrested and were being held in the station houses. As soon as the polls closed, the justices appeared and disposed of the cases. By early evening nearly all who had been arrested were released without bail, and the charges against them dropped."

[Dean Sprague, "Freedom under Lincoln." Houghton Mifflin Company, 1965, p.204]

That is one way to "get out the vote".

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: “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: “And yet more decepticon nonsense. In fact, Jefferson himself was a big-spending Democrat who ignored the Constitution whenever it suited him — the Louisiana Purchase, for example. President Jefferson’s average annual spending was 50% more than President Washington’s and in 1804 Jefferson increased the national debt to its highest level ever, not exceeded until the War of 1812.”

I cannot imagine anyone in their right mind who would label Thomas Jefferson as a big-spending Democrat, and thus far, no one in their right mind has.

For the record, Thomas Jefferson was a republican. Lincoln was a republican-in-name-only.

*****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: “And speaking of slavery, the Jefferson’s party of federally enforced slavery is now the party of federally funded abortions and welfare plantations. So, the leopard doesn’t change its spots, there’s nothing new under the sun, and Democrats have always been Democrats.”

The godless and blood-thirsty Abraham Lincoln, and his band of murdering marauders, who showed zero respect for the lives of women, children, and old men, including slaves, gave us the legacy of total war and an almost universal lack of respect for life in the world’s cultures. It was the work of Lincoln’s contemporary, Charles Darwin, another of Joey’s heroes, that precipitated the lack of respect for the unborn and disabled, and gave us the horrors of eugenics, abortion, and the Nazi death camps.

Mr. Kalamata

[jeffersondem]

“And speaking of slavery, the Jefferson’s party of federally enforced slavery is now the party of federally funded abortions and welfare plantations.”

That is an interesting comment.

Can you please publish the names of all the current Senate Republicans who are sponsoring the constitutional amendment to abolish abortion?

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: "As usual, Joey oversimplified. He forgot to tell you that Thomas Jefferson continuously opposed a national bank, as did the strict constructionists. "
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Naw, it was nothing more than a political bargaining chip to get the nation's capital moved. Hamilton got his bank, Jefferson got the capital built in Washington, DC -- the art of the deal."

Did you ever get the feeling that Joey (or, his handlers) makes stuff up out of thin air? Push him to provide references and see what happens.

Both Jefferson and Madison opposed Hamilton's funny-money banking scheme, and said so in their Newspaper:

"6. But the grand nostrum will be a public debt, provided enough of it can be got and it be medicated with the proper ingredients. If by good fortune a debt be ready at hand, the most is to be made of it. Stretch it and swell it to the utmost the items will bear. Allow as many extra claims as decency will permit. Assume all the debts of your neighbors - in a word, get as much debt as can be raked and scraped together, and when you have got all you can, "advertise" for more, and have the debt made as big as possible. This object being accomplished, the next will be to make it as perpetual as possible; and the next to that, to get it into as few hands as possible. The more effectually to bring this about, modify the debt, complicate it, divide it, subdivide it, subtract it, postpone it, let there be one-third of two-thirds, and two-thirds of one-third, and two-thirds of two-thirds; let there be 3 percents, and 4 percents, and 6 percents, and present 6 percents, and future 6 percents. To be brief, let the whole be such a mystery that a few only can understand it; and let all possible opportunities and informations fall in the way of these few to cinch their advantages over the many.

"7. It must not be forgotten that the members of the legislative body are to have a deep stake in the game. This is an essential point, and happily is attended with no difficulty. A sufficient number, properly disposed, can alternately legislate and speculate, and speculate and legislate, and buy and sell, and sell and buy, until a due portion of the property of their constituents has passed into their hands to give them an interest against their constituents, and to ensure the part they are to act. All this, however, must be carried on under the cover of the closest secrecy; and it is particularly lucky that dealings in paper admit of more secrecy that any other. Should a discovery take place, the whole plan may be blown up.

"8. The ways in which a great debt, so constituted and applied, will contribute to the ultimate end in view are both numerous and obvious. (1) The favorite few, thus possessed of it, whether within or without the government, will feel the staunchest fealty to it, and will go through thick and thin to support it in all its oppressions and usurpations. (2) Their money will give them consequence and influence, even among those who have been tricked out of it. (3) They will be the readiest materials that can be found for a hereditary aristocratic order, whenever matters are ripe for one. (4) A great debt will require great taxes; great taxes, many tax-gatherers and other officers; and all officers are auxiliaries of power. (5) Heavy taxes may produce discontents; these may threaten resistance; and in proportion to this danger will be the pretense for a standing army to repel it. (6) A standing army, in its turn, will increase the moral force of the government by means of its appointments, and give it physical force by means of the sword, thus doubly forwarding the main object.

"9. The management of a great funded debt and a extensive system of taxes will afford a plea, not to be neglected, for establishment of a great incorporated bank. The use of such a machine is well understood. If the Constitution, according to its fair meaning, should not authorize it, so much the better. Push it through by a forced meaning and you will get in the bargain an admirable precedent for future misconstructions. In fashioning the bank, remember that it is to be made particularly instrumental in enriching and aggrandizing the elect few, who are to be called in due season to the honors and felicities of the kingdom preparing for them, and who are the pillars that must support it. It will be easy to throw the benefit entirely into their hands, and to make it a solid addition of 50, or 60, or 70 percent to their former capitals of 800 percent, or 900 percent, without costing them a shilling; while it will be difficult to explain to the people that this gain of the few is at the cost of the many, that the contrary may be boldly and safely pretended. The bank will be pregnant with other important advantages. It will admit the same men to be, at the same time, members of the bank and members of the government. The two institutions will thus be soldered together, and each made stronger. Money will be put under the direction of the government, and government under the direction of money. To crown the whole, the bank will have a proper interest in swelling and perpetuating the public debt and public taxes, with all the blessings of both, because its agency and its profits will be extended in exact proportion."

[Freneau, Philip, "Rules for Changing a Limited Republican Government into an Unlimited Hereditary One." National Gazette, 1792]

That is exactly the way the scam works, and it has been working for centuries (If it ain't broke, don't fix it!)

You may not be aware of this, but Henry Clay and Daniel Webster were bank crony-crooks who enriched themselves with proceeds from the banks, in exchange for their support of the banks in the Congress. First, let's hear Henry's undercover legacy, while he was still pretending to be a Jeffersonian republican:

"[Clay's] relations with the [1816] institution were very close anyway. As soon as Congress issued the charter, he pressed for establishment of branch offices in Kentucky. With his encouragement, a group of his friends in Lexington traveled east to persuade [Bank President William] Jones their town ought to have a branch. They were successful, and a few months later Clay's intervention helped Louisville get one, too. "He frequently exerted influence upon appointment of directors at these places. Though usually satisfied with such selections, be once complained that most of his recommended list had been passed over, resulting in a board dominated by Federalists. [Democrat-]Republicans should make up the majority, he thought, with a few Federalists added. The bank should not be "a party institution," as its predecessor had been, he warned. It is difficult to understand how apportioning party distribution on the board to reflect the political character of the state, as he urged, would have kept the BUS [Bank of the United States] out of politics..."

"A significant expansion of credit did not occur until 1823, when the BUS presidency again changed hands. Nicholas Biddle, a scholarly aristocrat, began his long tenure in that position with modest financial experience, only as a director on the main board; but he displayed an amazing ability to operate what amounted to the nation's central bank. At once, he readjusted Cheves's approach to intricate credit and currency problems by a liberalized policy on note issue and exchange, producing badly needed capital for industry at this stage of recovery. Yet he was a cautious, sound-money person fundamentally. Clay and Biddle saw eye to eye on this and other things. The politician and the banker would maintain a satisfying collaboration for many years."

"Clay had another BUS connection, representing it as a lawyer. He had a particular reason for taking on this work: to pay off a heavy debt of about forty thousand dollars, much of it owed to the bank. Retiring from Congress for a term and returning to an extensive legal practice, he became chief counsel for the corporation's litigation in Kentucky and Ohio during the early twenties. He had his hands full, for there were hundreds of cases, mostly debt collections in these depression days. Besides appearing in court himself in a large portion of them, he oversaw other solicitors. His income from this business apparently amounted to what he needed: three thousand dollars a year from the bank as chief counsel; more for appearing in specific cases; and a sizable amount of real estate in Ohio and Kentucky in addition to the cash. Enough, at least, so that when he resigned to become secretary of state in 1825, he was pleased not only with a high rate of favorable judgments but with his compensation." [No kidding! That would be compensation of about a million dollars in today's money!]

[Maurice G. Baxter, "Henry Clay and the American System." University of Kentucky Press, 1995, pp.38-39]

Now, to Daniel's shenanigans, with a little help from another Hamiltonian crook, John Marshall:

"Turning to the question of Maryland's right to tax the bank, [Chief Justice John] Marshall picked up on Webster's argument. "The power to tax involves the power to destroy," he held. If a state can tax the Bank, it can tax other agencies created by the federal government, and that would defeat the ends to which the people had created a government in the first place. Thus the Maryland tax was null and void, and the ruling of the lower court overturned."

"This was such a broad and sweeping interpretation of the powers of the national government that almost nothing seemed beyond federal control and involvement unless specifically prohibited by the Constitution. Many, including Jefferson and Madison, objected to it, and Andrew Jackson later denied that Marshall's decision ended the argument about the Bank's right to exist."

"Webster of course thoroughly approved all of Marshall's arguments. "The opinion in the Bank cause," he remarked to Justice [Joseph] Story, "is universally praised. Indeed I think it admirable. Great things have been done this Session." And Webster shared personally in the glory and benefit from those great things. The BUS [Bank of the United States] was so delighted with his work that its president wrote and congratulated him. "I have been directed by the Directors of the Bank of the United States to present to you their respectful thanks for your very able and successful exertions on the part of the Bank... and ask your acceptance of an additional fee of Fifteen Hundred Dollars which the Cashier of the Office at Boston has been directed to pay."

"Initially the BUS had given Webster a five-hundred-dollar retainer. This additional money helped the young lawyer overcome some of the reservations he had held about the Bank when its charter had been first argued in Congress. Already a stockholder in the Bank, he was to increase his holdings in succeeding years and enjoy an excellent relationship with Nicholas Biddle when that distinguished gentleman assumed the presidency of the BUS in 1823, after [Langdon] Cheves resigned. Webster regularly received a retainer from the Bank following the McCulloch decision and later served on its board of directors. Webster was anxious to return to Boston at the conclusion of the February term. "A month is as long as Washington wears well," he advised Mason. Pleading before the Supreme Court increased his fame, but pleading before the courts in and around Boston swelled his purse, and he always had need to attend to that worthy effort…"

"With the adjournment of Congress in early May, Webster also delayed his departure for home to attend to some legal matters. It meant suffering the heat and humidity that had started to rise in the capital, but he had no choice. He usually argued five cases before the High Court during its February session, although this term he argued seven. He also had business dealings with the Bank of the United States. Nicholas Biddle, the president of the BUS, had engaged him as a consultant and attorney and later arranged his election as a director of the Bank." By 1825 Webster's income had taken a decided climb upward. Even so, his youthful apprehension about money never subsided. He was especially conscious of anyone who might try to take advantage of him. "Several persons have written me to be concerned in their causes," he informed his associate Alexander Bliss, "whom I have referred to you, telling them that I am retained when I am retained. I do not learn whether any of them have deposited the needful." Depositing the "needful" was expected of both the high and low, and more than once he had to remind Nicholas Biddle that his retainer needed to be "renewed or refreshed as usual."

[Robert Vincent Remini, "Daniel Webster: the man and his time." W. W. Norton & Company, 1997, pp.167-168, 261-262]

Now you know how federally-endorsed crony-crooks operate.

Mr. Kalamata

[DoodleDawg]

>>DoodleDawg wrote: “Total lies. Republicans began as the pro-Constitution Federalists, became the anti-corruption Whigs and then anti-slavery Republicans. Republicans have always favored Founders’ original intent as opposed to numerous Democrat efforts to corrupt & debauch it.”

I don't know how bizarre that statement is, but I'm not the one who posted it.

[BroJoeK]

In his post #618 to OIFVeteran, Kalamata presents us with his inventory of Founders' secession-justifying quotes, a dozen in all.
These he tells us are all the justification needed for 1860 unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure.
Suppose we look at them.

1. Does any of them say exactly what Kalamata claims?
   No, but he says that if you combine several together, then they can be interpreted like he says.

2. Does any of them mention disunion?
   Yes, the Virginia, New York and Rhode Island signing statements.
   In each case disunion is tied to necessity, as from powers "perverted to their injury or oppression", like in 1776.
   None says or implies unilateral secession at pleasure.

3. From Federalist 81 Kalamata quotes Hamilton explaining the nature of sovereignty prevents citizens from suing their states for payment of debts.
   This Kalamata fantasizes somehow makes states immune from their obligations under the US Constitution.
   It doesn't.

4. The Constitution itself contains language regarding delegated rights of Federal government versus retained rights of states & citizens.
   Kalamata tells us this must include an unlimited "right of secession" -- does the Constitution itself, or any Founder ever say that?
   No, Founders said the opposite, but Kalamata finds such a "right" in the, ahem (as Justice Douglas said): "penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give [the Constitution] life and substance"!

   Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!!

5. From Federalist 39 Kalamata quotes Madison cogently saying: "Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.
   In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution."

   Those are important words, "a federal not a national constitution," do they imply that each state has an unlimited "right of secession" at pleasure?
   Not according to any Founder at the time, as Madison himself explained, many years later:

   "Nothing can be more clear than that the Constitution of the U. S. has created a Government, in as strict a sense of the term, as the Governments of the States created by their respective Constitutions."

   The Constitution makes Federal government as valid as any state government.

   "In forming this compound scheme of Government it was impossible to lose sight of the question, what was to be done in the event of controversies which could not fail to occur, concerning the partition line, between the powers belonging to the Federal and to the State Govts."

   Next Madison lists methods for resolving such issues:

   "The provision immediately and ordinarily relied on, is manifestly the Supreme Court of the U. S., clothed as it is, with a Jurisdiction "in controversies to which the U. S. shall be a party;" the Court itself being so constituted as to render it independent & impartial in its decisions; [see Federalist, no. 39] whilst other and ulterior resorts would remain in the elective process, in the hands of the people themselves the joint constituents of the parties; and in the provision made by the Constitution for amending itself.
   All other resorts are extra & ultra constitutional, corresponding to the Ultima Ratio [last resort] of nations renouncing the ordinary relations of peace."

   So read that again: going outside Constitutional provisions means war.

   "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 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."

   Sure, Madison's words here were written long afterwards, but the fact is that no words by any Founder ever directly contradict him, at least none that I've ever seen.

Kalamata to OIFVeteran: "Don't forget.
Lincoln approved the secession of West Virginia from Virginia, which destroyed that union.
So, he was also a hypocrite."

Nonsense, because West Virginia met both of our Founders' criteria for lawful disunion:

1. Absolute necessity caused by Virginia's unlawful secession and declared war against the United States.

2. Mutual consent by both the Virginia legislature and the US Congress.

By stark contrast, neither necessity nor mutual consent to secession existed in 1860.
It's also significant that Virginians themselves recognize the validity of West Virginia's independence.

Kalamata: "You have again taken Madison' statement completely out of context.
If your interpretation was correct, we would not have the Bill of Rights."

And that's just a flat-out lie, Kalamata demonstrating yet again that he was born with the mind of a Democrat, born to lie he resorts to lies whenever his own weak, weak arguments collapse.

Kalamata: "That same fellow, Alexander Hamilton, approved the New York Ratification document that stated:

"That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness."

The key word there is "necessary", "necessity" being the opposite of "at pleasure".
"Necessary" is the word our Founders used in their 1776 Declaration as justifying disunion, with a two-dozen strong parade of horribles to illustrate what "necessity" means.
No Founder ever suggested or supported an unlimited "right of secession" at pleasure.

Kalamata on Pinckney's anti-disunion quote: "He doesn't say what you say he said.
You spun his words from being a proposal into a done-deal.
You are not being a straight shooter."

And yet again, faced with the truth from Founder Pinckney, Kalamata simply lies about it -- a Democrat doing what Democrats naturally do.

Kalamata to OIFVeteran: "Why are you so desperate for our government to be all powerful?
Don't you realize how dangerous that is?
Besides, I thought you supported the Constitution?"

And now, having first lied his way through the facts, our Democrat Kalamata's grand finale is a barrage of false accusations.
Can anybody doubt that having a Democrat brain is a form of political mental illness?

[BroJoeK]

In his post #597 Kalamata lights into SCOTUS Chief Justice John Marshall (from 1801 to 1835), claiming:

Kalamata to OIFVeteran: "...an arrogant, power-hungry person like John Marshall is the last person you should be praising.
Marshall was an oligarchist who believed the ultimate authority belonged in the hands of five politically-appointed lawyers on the Supreme Court -- NOT in the people.
Prior to Lincoln ramming Nazi-style central planning down our throats, the Supreme Court did not have such awesome power."

Setting aside Kalamata's use of the N-word (Nazi), let's focus on his main point: Marshall the devil.
This is extraordinarily important for everyone to grasp, because it clearly, unequivocally identifies just who our new FRiend Kalamata is.
So let's start with: who was Chief Justice Marshall?

As a young man John Marshall served in the Revolutionary War and the Virginia legislature where, in 1788, he allied with James Madison in helping ratify the new US Constitution.
After ratification, Marshall allied with Hamilton and other Federalists, was appointed to positions by both Presidents Washington and Adams, eventually as Adams' Secretary of State before confirmation as SCOTUS Chief Justice.

In short, John Marshall well qualifies as a Federalist, ally of other Federalists, pro-Constitution Founding Father.
As such Marshall's ideas & opinions help us define the term, "Founders' Original Intent", from which all truly conservative ideas develop.

And now that we know who Marshall was, we also know, exactly, who is Kalamata.
Kalamata is on the opposite side, the opposition to the 1787 Constitution, the anti-Federalists, anti-Founders who became (under President Washington) the anti-Administration faction and eventually our Jeffersonian Democrats.
Democrats, originally opposed to the Constitution have, ever since, looked for ways to confound & defeat it, most recently in the absurdly ridiculous impeachment trial of Republican President Trump.

Oh, sure, just like Kalamata, Democrats talk the talk, especially when they're out of power, hoping to weaponize the Constitution against their opponents.
But as President Jefferson was the first to illustrate, once in power, they ignore as much of the Constitution as doesn't suit them.
That's our FRiend Kalamata:

1. Opposing the Constitution since Day One.
   
2. Misinterpreting, confounding & confusing the Constitution from the beginning -- i.e., nullification, secession & now impeachment.
   
3. Weaponizing their own version of the Constitution against political opponents.
   
4. Ignoring the Constitution when they are in power.

Of course, Kalamata claims to be a conservative, indeed a super-conservative, a real conservative, the only true conservative in a sea of Hamiltonian central-planning "crony capitalist" sharks!
But what, exactly, does he wish to conserve?
Not the Constitution of our true Founders, like Madison, Hamilton & John Marshall, but rather the ideas of anti-Constitution, anti-Federalist anti-Founders, in short, Jeffersonian Democrats.

Kalamata on Charles Pinckney: "Pinckney was was merely seeking ratification of document that scared the daylights out of Americans who had just fought a horrible war against a central planner -- the King.
They most certainly were not going to turn their hard-fought freedom over to the control of another central planner -- not without a fight.
Lincoln realized that, so he was for war."

Well, first, the 1860 election of Lincoln had nothing to do with "central planning" and everything to do with the power-hungry corruption of Democrats, then as now.

And second, the truth is, in 1787 Americans were far more scared by their too-weak Articles of Confederation government, it's inability to deal with Shay's Rebellion, or honor our Revolutionary War debts, or standardize taxes, or make "internal improvements," etc.
Of course they wanted no king, but they did want a government more adequate for its responsibilities and so they ratified their new Constitution against opposition from Kalamata's heroes, the anti-Federalist anti-Founders, who became Democrats.

[BroJoeK]

In his post #590 OIFVeteran quotes a Founding Father, South Carolina's Charles Pinckney:

"Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."

The question was raised, is this was the elder or younger Pinckney cousin, both of whom were strong Federalists in 1788 and the elder Pinckney went on to head the Federalist presidential ticket in 1804 and 1808?
The younger Pinckney eventually became a Jeffersonian Democrat, and so the suggestion was that this quote must be from the elder, known as Charles Cotesworth Pinckney.

I can't personally verify either the quote or it's provenance, but, assuming it is indeed legitimate, I'd guess it's from the younger Pinckney because:

1. When they mean the elder Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, they usually include his middle name.

2. The younger Pinckney was much more active in the 1787 Constitutional convention, contributing important elements to the Constitution, and therefore likely more committed to it, perhaps less tolerant of opposition.

It would be interesting to learn which Pinckney made the quote and what, exactly, was the context.

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata mistakenly said that DoodleDawg wrote: “Total lies. Republicans began as the pro-Constitution Federalists, became the anti-corruption Whigs and then anti-slavery Republicans. Republicans have always favored Founders’ original intent as opposed to numerous Democrat efforts to corrupt & debauch it.”
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “I don’t know how bizarre that statement is, but I’m not the one who posted it.”

My mistake. BroJoeK wrote that truly bizarre and dishonest statement.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>BroJoeK wrote: “In his post #618 to OIFVeteran, Kalamata presents us with his inventory of Founders’ secession-justifying quotes, a dozen in all. These he tells us are all the justification needed for 1860 unilateral unapproved declarations of secession at pleasure. Suppose we look at them. Does any of them say exactly what Kalamata claims?
No, but he says that if you combine several together, then they can be interpreted like he says. Does any of them mention disunion? Yes, the Virginia, New York and Rhode Island signing statements. In each case disunion is tied to necessity, as from powers “perverted to their injury or oppression”, like in 1776. None says or implies unilateral secession at pleasure.”

That ranks up there as one of your most deceptive statements, Joey. You are insinuating those states did not believe they had the right to seceed at any time. I would say, “shame on you,” but you have no shame.

For the rest of you, this is the link to #618. Read it for yourself:

https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3802793/posts?page=618#618

Madison asserts in the 4th reference, pointing to Federalist No. 31, that the states are “invested with complete sovereignty.” In Federalist No. 40 Madison asserts the states are “independent sovereigns.”

Joey is insinuating Madison didn’t understand what he wrote. I, personally, believe James Madison had a better understanding of the Constitution than Joey. What do you think?

As soon as you realize that everything Joey writes is deceptive, he is more easily dismissed as the charlatan that he truly is.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>BroJoeK wrote: “From Federalist 81 Kalamata quotes Hamilton explaining the nature of sovereignty prevents citizens from suing their states for payment of debts. This Kalamata fantasizes somehow makes states immune from their obligations under the US Constitution. It doesn’t.”

Joey fantasizes that the 10th Amendment doesn’t exist, and that Lincoln’s power-grab was somehow constitutional. It wasn’t. Dishonest Abe’s power-grab was a clear case of tyranny.

****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: “The Constitution itself contains language regarding delegated rights of Federal government versus retained rights of states & citizens. Kalamata tells us this must include an unlimited “right of secession” — does the Constitution itself, or any Founder ever say that?”

That is typical Joey misdirection. The question to ask is, “Did the states, via the the Constitution, give the Federal government the power to stop secession?”

The crystal clear answer is, No. Therefore, any federal interference in state secession is tyranny.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>BroJoeK wrote: “From Federalist 39 Kalamata quotes Madison cogently saying: “Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution.”
>>BroJoeK wrote: “Those are important words, “a federal not a national constitution,” do they imply that each state has an unlimited “right of secession” at pleasure? Not according to any Founder at the time, as Madison himself explained, many years later”
>>BroJoeK quoting: “Nothing can be more clear than that the Constitution of the U. S. has created a Government, in as strict a sense of the term, as the Governments of the States created by their respective Constitutions.”
>>BroJoeK wrote: “The Constitution makes Federal government as valid as any state government.”

From a Constitutional perspective, that means that each state government is as valid as the federal government. Of course! The important distinctions are the authorized powers. The federal government’s powers are few and defined. Acting within that limited authority, the federal government is a valid government. Acting outside its authority (like Lincoln did) it is a tyranny — NOT VALID!.

****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: “Next Madison lists methods for resolving such issues: “The provision immediately and ordinarily relied on, is manifestly the Supreme Court of the U. S., clothed as it is, with a Jurisdiction “in controversies to which the U. S. shall be a party;” the Court itself being so constituted as to render it independent & impartial in its decisions; [see Federalist, no. 39] whilst other and ulterior resorts would remain in the elective process, in the hands of the people themselves the joint constituents of the parties; and in the provision made by the Constitution for amending itself. All other resorts are extra & ultra constitutional, corresponding to the Ultima Ratio [last resort] of nations renouncing the ordinary relations of peace.”
>>BroJoeK wrote: “So read that again: going outside Constitutional provisions means war.”

That is not what he said, but I will agree that sometimes war is necessary to maintain a Free Republic. It is sad that the several states remaining in the Union did not wrest the usurped, extra-constitutional powers away from that madman named Lincoln before a third of a million of their young men were slaughtered on a foreign battlefield called the Confederacy.

****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: “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.”

That is correct. If there is a violation or abuse by other states or the general government, the states have a right to secede, even a duty.

****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: “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.”

Madison left the States a lot of wiggle room with the words “at pleasure.”

You will notice if you study the history of that period, from the early 1800’s under the Jefferson administration until the Lincoln administration, that no state threatened secession “at pleasure.” There were some serious constitutional violations by the federal government in each case.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: “Lincoln approved the secession of West Virginia from Virginia, which destroyed that union.
So, he was also a hypocrite.”
>>BroJoeK wrote: “Nonsense, because West Virginia met both of our Founders’ criteria for lawful disunion: absolute necessity caused by Virginia’s unlawful secession and declared war against the United States. Mutual consent by both the Virginia legislature and the US Congress.

First, Virginia’s secession was Constitutional. Lincoln’s interference in their secession was tyranny.

Second, I have read that Union troops were camped out at polling booths in the seceeding counties to keep Confederate sympathizers away. How were they able to separate the Confederates from the Unionists? Perhaps they used colored ballots, like in Maryland; or perhaps the troops would simply throw the ballots away if they contained the “wrong” vote.

Third, I find it odd that the panhandle counties were included in the split, even though they supported the Confederacy. Could that be due to the railroad running through those counties was vital for the movement of Union troops. Something sounds fishy!

Fourth, from what I have read, the original state of Virginia never authorized the split, as the Constitution requires. Do you have a source for your assertion about “mutual consent”?

Frankly, Joey, it appears you are blowing smoke, again.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: "You have again taken Madison' statement completely out of context. If your interpretation was correct, we would not have the Bill of Rights."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "And that's just a flat-out lie, Kalamata demonstrating yet again that he was born with the mind of a Democrat, born to lie he resorts to lies whenever his own weak, weak arguments collapse."

Don't be silly, Joey. Madison's phrase, "in toto," was intended to mean ONLY that the original document (the words of the Constitution itself ) could not be altered. As for changes and "updates," the Constitution provides this method:

"Article. V. – Amendment: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." [Law, "Constitution of the United States and Amendments." 1787]

There have been 27 Amendments to the Constitution; but the document itself remains exactly it was adopted in 1787, in toto.

Mr. Kalamata