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.

[central_va]

You would have revolution rather than a peaceful separation of states? You appear to be even more demented and dangerous than I thought.

[jeffersondem]

” . . . I’ve never read anyone claiming there is such a natural right (to Independence).”

Read it here, for the first time: “ . . . by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States . . .”

[OIFVeteran]

It is not saying their is a right to independence. It is saying after those long trains of usurpations and abuses that it is the right thing for the colonies, through the authority of the people, to be free and independent states.

Right-morally good, justified, or acceptable

Natural Right-a right considered to be conferred by natural law.

But I suspect you know and understand the difference and are just using your same tactic of obfuscation and misdirection.

[jeffersondem]

“I never said the founding fathers had no right to declare independence. I said there is no natural right to independence . . .”

This sounds like double-talk to me. Please explain.

[DiogenesLamp]

I think the point was to create the illusion that this rag tag bunch of colonies were a more formidable foe than they really were.

E Pluribus Unum.

[OIFVeteran]

I thought I did in the last post but will try again. But first I have to ask you to clarify something. Are you saying the natural right to revolution is the same as a natural right of independence? i have never seen anyone in political philosophy claim their is a natural right of independence or call the natural right of revolution a natural right of independence.

i would surmise because the very phrase natural right of independence seems to imply that the government you are declaring independence from should just allow you to leave.

The natural right of revolution does not imply this, it actually explicitly doesn’t say that. It is only a right of revolution not a right to win your revolution.

[jeffersondem]

“I thought I did in the last post but will try again. But first I have to ask you to clarify something. Are you saying the natural right to revolution is the same as a natural right of independence?”

I write mostly about the Declaration of Independence and not the Declaration of Revolution. I don’t know much about the Declaration of Revolution.

I don’t believe - and this is just a school boy talking - that the signers of the DOI believed they were rebelling, or revolting, or committing treason.

Once again, please explain what you meant when you posted: “I never said the founding fathers had no right to declare independence. I said there is no natural right to independence . . .”

[Kalamata]

>>jeffersondem wrote: “From the point of view of the Lincolnian caucus I suppose that makes sense.”

It is always good to invoke a qualifier when debating those who are hell-bent on remaining ideologically-complacent, the nation be damned. They seem to believe
the Founding Fathers were so stupid that they transferred their respective states’ sovereignties, without recourse, to a central government that is allowed to make any law it pleases, as long as five unelected, politically-appointed-for-life judges agree that the law is, in fact, “constitutional.” Now, because of that complacency, the fate of the nation rests precariously on the next Supreme Court justice appointment.

Mr. Kalamata

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata to OIFVeteran, post #649: "There were many anti-federalists who didn't believe the Constitution provided enough protection from big-government tyrants (such as Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln turned out to be.)
The framers never envisioned a usurper could navigate past so many barriers, particularly when the powers of the federal government were distinctly listed and defined.
But slick rhetoricians, who can also act out the part of sincerity (like Clay and Lincoln,) can easily fool the masses."

Kalamata's repeated insane attacks on Kentucky Senator Henry Clay (1777 - 1852), normally called "the Great Compromiser," but Dan-bo calling Clay everything from "tyrant" to "slick rhetorician" -- what in the world is that all about?

From 1803 until his death in 1852 Clay was many things -- speaker of the US House of Representatives and diplomat to France under President Madison, Secretary of State under President John Quincy Adams, originally a Jeffersonian Democrat Clay became a Whig in opposition to Andrew Jackson, several times candidate for President and influential US Senator whose work earned him the sobriquet "the Great Compromiser" -- but never President.

Young Abraham Lincoln admired Clay, calling him, "my ideal of a great man."
Many historians agree, ranking Clay among the most influential Americans never elected President.

How then does such a man merit insane hatred from Kalamata, with labels like "tyrant" and "slick rhetorician"?
Well... apparently because of what Clay called his "American System", which we can boil down to the seven words which even today drive our Democrats stark raving mad: make America great by putting Americans first.

Clay's "American System" was based on Hamilton's ideas and included three main features:

1. Protective tariffs to encourage American manufacturing.
   
2. A national bank to stabilize the economy.
   
3. "Internal improvements" (roads, canals, harbors, etc.) to help bind the nation together economically.

While Clay was Speaker of the US House of Representatives, President Madison adopted the first two of his ideas.
The third, "internal improvements" had already been accepted in 1806 by President Jefferson, in funding the Cumberland Road, roughly today's US-40, which Clay continued to fund.
And although President Madison vetoed SC Senator Calhoun's 1817 Bonus Bill (for roads, canals & navigation improvements), on grounds of strict construction, President Monroe approved Clay's 1824 Rivers and Harbors bill.

Jefferson's 1808 Plan for Internal Improvements

And let's back up enough here to notice that every Founder, without exception wanted and supported "internal improvements", beginning with President Washington.
In 1787 Federal authority for internal improvements was proposed at the Constitution Convention, but was defeated as likely to generate too much opposition to the Constitution itself.
That's because every project (then as now) creates both supporters and opponents -- for example, a new bridge puts ferry-boat operators out of business.
So the 1787 Convention thought it best to leave such decisions to states.
But every President requested Federal money for internal improvements, including Jefferson -- ironically, after Jefferson himself had opposed Federalists projects on grounds of "strict construction", President Jefferson's own projects were opposed by Federalists on those same grounds!
Frustrated, President Jefferson proposed a constitutional amendment to authorize Federal internal improvement projects.
Jefferson's amendment was killed by Old Republican "Quid", John Randolph (who you may remember coined the term "Doughfaced northerners").

Anyway, for Madison in 1817 the issue was not just strict construction, but also "corruption," what Democrats like Kalamata decry as "crony capitalism".
But notice that all the actors then -- Calhoun, Madison & Clay -- were Democrats, and so corruption had nothing to do with party affiliation.

We should also notice that during these decades Federal government spent many millions of dollars building dozens/hundreds of forts, lighthouses, post offices, naval ships & facilities, arsenals, mints, postal roads, military cannon, hand weapons, ammunition & endless other supplies.
In all that time we can expect that everyone involved clearly understood the difference between legitimate versus illegal practices and all were subject to law enforcement.

So there is no reason for us to think that Kalamata's charge of alleged "crony capitalism" would be more or less a problem with "internal improvement" projects than with any of those others.
In short, such claims are a red herring.
And name-calling Henry Clay a "tyrant" is sheer hyperbolic nonsenses.

[jeffersondem]

“They seem to believe the Founding Fathers were so stupid that they transferred their respective states’ sovereignties, without recourse, to a central government that is allowed to make any law it pleases, as long as five unelected, politically-appointed-for-life judges agree that the law is, in fact, “constitutional.””

Worse, judges frequently vote to pass a new law of their own.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "I don’t believe - and this is just a school boy talking - that the signers of the DOI believed they were rebelling, or revolting, or committing treason."

Nonsense, because by July 1776 they were not just de facto at war against the King, they had long since been formally declared in rebellion.

August 23, 1775, "Proclamation for Suppressing Rebellion and Sedition".

That's why Benjamin Franklin's quip to other Declaration signers was just as truthful as it was funny:

"Gentlemen, now we must all hang together, or we will most assuredly hang separately."

[OIFVeteran]

The signers, and other founding fathers of the revolutionary period, knew they were rebelling. The following quotes will prove this point.

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

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

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

“It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it [the Constitution] a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution.” - James Madison, Federalist No. 37, January 11, 1788

The Declaration of Independence is the way they declared to the world that they were using the natural right of revolution to become free because of the long train of abuses and usurpations of England.

In political philosophy, the right of revolution (or right of rebellion) is the right or duty of the people of a nation to overthrow a government that acts against their common interests and/or threatens the safety of the people without cause. Stated throughout history in one form or another, the belief in this right has been used to justify various revolutions, including the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and the Iranian Revolution.

Again, I have never read of any natural right of independence ever being mentioned in natural rights philosophy.

I hope this clears things up.

[BroJoeK]

In his post #650 Kalamata takes another detour off-topic, this time to defend his, ahem, unusual opinions on evolution.
To save time & space I think we can compress his arguments down to one key point:

Kalamata: " I have been a Christian for most of my life, but I was also an evolutionist until about 8, maybe 9 years ago (after I retired,) when a friend asked me to take a look at the geologic column.
If you understand fluid mechanics, and sedimentology generally, you cannot miss the FACT that those sedimentary layers were deposited rapidly.
I had no reason to doubt the text books and literature, until I saw contrary evidence for myself."

This story does not sound to me like the workings of a mind with any kind of real scientific education.
How does a true scientist reach his seventh decade without ever having studied a geological column, or understood how it's layers are dated, or noted the evidence of prehistoric plate tectonics, or even considered the evidence used to estimate astronomical distances?
Only if such knowledge were totally blank could someone even entertain the notion that sedimentary layers were deposited "rapidly", or more importantly all at the same time, in one global flood event?

Now, back to the Civil War...

[BroJoeK]

DoodleDawg to Diogeneslamp: "True, though I will say that the difference between recent days and the past is that Kalamata's ignorance of the history of the period is truly staggering while the same cannot be said of you.
We may disagree completely on your opinions and your conclusions, as well as your eccentric economic theories, but you do know the history of the times."

Both DiogenesLamp and Kalamata know exactly as much about our history as they can fit into their own Lost Cause, anti-Federalist ideological template.
Everything else they ignore, distort and/or deny.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp to Doodledawg: "Your claim would have Lincoln as Davis' puppet. I think he was not. I think Davis was his."

This claim conforms to the old explanation that clever Lincoln somehow "tricked" simple Davis into starting war at Fort Sumter.
One problem with it is that Davis himself never admitted such a thing, and indeed his own words long before Fort Sumter tell us he intended to start war at both Forts Sumter and Pickens.

Another is that by very far, Davis was the more highly trained and experienced political & military leader, a West Pointer, war veteran with decades of political experience by contrast with whom Lincoln was a simple & poor country bumpkin.

I think it's unfair to call either the other's "puppet".

[DoodleDawg]

Not surprisingly the geologic column is a term I’ve found only on creationist websites and not in any actual scientific source.

[Reily]

Look in any freshman geology text!

[BroJoeK]

In his post #655, central_va weighs in on the value of import tariffs:

central_va: "The situation is DYNAMIC and not STATIC.
What happens after the price goes up is more domestic suppliers come on line because the profit margin is now artificially high.
So the price pressure is now downward after the tariff with more Americans working/producing for a living and paying taxes. "

This is a (perhaps rare) case where I not only agree with central_va, but agree because he took the time some years ago to explain it on a thread like this one.
More important, if I understand correctly, both of us agree with President Trump, while Kalamata and DiogenesLamp, as usual, are here arguing the globalist Democrat position.

Note Southern Whigs (brown) victory in 1840

And this is a good time to remember that in decades before 1860 the South was not solidly Democrat, that there were many anti-Democrats eager to vote for a viable opposition candidate.
These Southern anti-Democrats elected Whig Presidents Harrison and Taylor, and as late as 1860 they gave John Bell's Constitutional Union more electoral votes than Steven Douglas Democrats.

In Kalamata's mind Whigs were as bad as Republicans, at least in their support for protective tariffs, a national bank and "internal improvements".
On the subject of tariffs, as a young man I was taught tariffs are bad (i.e., Smoot Hawley), that "free trade" will bring more prosperity, and the great test of that idea was to be NAFTA.

At the time of NAFTA, Ross Perot was squawking something about a "giant sucking sound" and I thought at the time: no, that's not how it's supposed to work, instead we should actually gain more than we lose.
Well, Perot proved more correct, and Trump was able to make the case in 2016, win the election and quickly turn it around.
Trump sold the idea that "free trade" must also be fair trade and "fair" can indeed mean substantial tariffs.

This puts Donald Trump squarely in the line of succession from Federalists George Washington & James Madison, to Whig Henry Clay, to Republicans Lincoln & Coolidge.

[OIFVeteran]

At the risk of having this thread go more off topic than it already has I’m gong to comment on this. I have been against free trade since high school. I vividly remember an honors government class I took in high school in the late 80s talking about this subject. My first thought was how can our workers fairly compete against people that work in a country where they can live on a dollar a day wage?

Either the others countries wages will go up, ours will go down, or both will happen. I realized in 2 of those 3 scenarios American workers get screwed. This is one of those times were I really wish I wasnt right.

[DiogenesLamp]

Only if such knowledge were totally blank could someone even entertain the notion that sedimentary layers were deposited "rapidly", or more importantly all at the same time, in one global flood event?

Wait. Whut? You don't believe in a global flood event? And you think you are scientific?

What rock have you been living under not to be aware of all the evidence demonstrating a global flood?

Are you aware that during the last ice sage, the ice sheet above Kansas was a mile thick?

What do you suppose happened to all that water?