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.

[DiogenesLamp]

This claim conforms to the old explanation that clever Lincoln somehow "tricked" simple Davis into starting war at Fort Sumter.

Sending five warships, a troop carrier with munitions and at least 200 riflemen, and give them orders to attack if they are resisted, isn't much of a trick. That's pretty sure to start a war with anyone.

The "trick" was ordering the ships to follow the command ship, and then secretly sending the command ship down to Florida to start a war there if the Confeds don't take the bait at Charleston.

[jeffersondem]

“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”". (See your post 1351.)

In response to my statement that the signers of the DOI did not believe they were rebelling, or revolting, or committing treason you cite a proclamation by the King of England saying they were guilty of rebellion, sedition, and treason.

It is not really surprising that you, the titular head of the Lincolnian caucus, would instinctively rely on the King's proclamation to rebut the theory of independent states enshrined in the unanimous Declaration of the 13 united States of America. That is not a rebuke; just an observation.

Why would the founding fathers state plainly, or even imply in their declaration, that they (the founders) were embracing rebellion and treason? They would not and did not.

What you do see in the declaration - and this will surprise you when you read it - is that the founders repeatedly charged the King with gross usurpation of power disqualifying the King from being the ruler of a free people. It was the King, the colonists contended, that had rebelled against the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.

The colonists wrote - and I agree - that, “In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.” Brother Joe you may disagree with the colonists but this is how they explained the situation on the ground at the time.

Look at what they wrote here: “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.”

And here: “He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.”

And here: “For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States.”

The rough draft of the declaration included this charge: He (King) has incited treasonable insurrections of our fellow citizens with the allurements of forfeiture & confiscation of our property”

This particular charge - which verbalized treason by the King - did not survive the editing process but the implication remained in the declaration - the King's misconduct amounted to treason against the compact between the King and the people.

Rebelling, revolting, and committing treason is not something the founding fathers sought to be identified with - it was something they tagged the King with in their declaration.

Others have noted some of the founding fathers did embrace the word “revolution.” But they did not do it in their declaration.

And if they embraced the word revolution, so what? I see avid Trump supporters wearing shirts proclaiming they are “Deplorables.” This does not mean they actually believe they are deserving of censure or contempt; it is, rather, a clap-back at political opponents who tried, and failed, to intimidate them by name calling. A term of derision sometimes is worn as a badge of honor by the intended victim.

As for Brother Franklin's little joke: gallows humor.

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: “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.”
>>BroJoeK wrote: “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?”

Clay was a filthy, greedy, protectionist, crony-capitalist Hamiltonian, who was corrupt to the core. It is nothing personal.

****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: “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.”

Joey’s words are always deceptive, when they are not astonishly ignorant. Clay was certainly Lincoln’s “kind of guy.” The Hamiltonian so-called “American System,” that Clay promoted, was, in fact, the crony-capitalist “British Mercantilist System,” renamed to fool the masses. The King had used the mercantilist system to keep the colonies suppressed under his economic thumb. The politically-connected in American have used it to enrich themselves at the expense of the taxpayer and raw-material exporters; of late, at the expense of the taxpayer and his g-g-g grandchildren. To give you an idea of how economically awful the mercantilist system is, John Maynard Keynes embraced it, while Adam Smith and Milton Freicman rejected it, as have all of the Austrians.

****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: “Clay’s “American System” was based on Hamilton’s ideas and included three main features: Protective tariffs to encourage American manufacturing. A national bank to stabilize the economy. “Internal improvements” (roads, canals, harbors, etc.) to help bind the nation together economically.”

Those are the talking points, but they are far from reality. It was just another crooked scheme to transfer the wealth of those who are not politically-connected, into the pockets of those who are. However, it has the appearance of making a nation prosperous due to the debt it accumulates. Imagine a spendthrift with a pocket full of credit cards, blank checks, and lots of friends to share his “wealth” with, and you will understand the so-called “American System.”

****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: “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.”

Joey is conflating valid internal expenditures with crony-capitalist boondoggles and power grabs. Compare those items he listed above, with those in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution.

Make note that Monroe vetoed an 1822 bill (which Clay promoted) to turn the National Road into a Toll Road, asserting a national toll system would usurp sovereignty and jurisdiction from the states. Clay eventually abandoned his support for the National Road.

Madison also made it clear that any road that crossed multiple states, such as the National Road, even though they were of great national purpose, required an authorizing amendment to the Constitution to become a lawful federal project (although the National Road could reasonably be considered a Post Road.)

****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: “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!”

You simply cannot trust politicians to follow the law.

****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: “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.”

Clay was no 19-century “democrat” (e.g, he was not a Jeffersonian Republican.) He was more like the democrats of today.

****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: “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.”

All of those are authorized federal powers by Article I, section 9 of the Constitution, as ratified by the several states. All other “internal improvements” are usurpations.

Again, you simply cannot trust politicians to follow the law. Some usurp for altruistic purposes (Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase,) and others do it line their pockets and the pockets of their political allies (federally-funded boondoggles.) But it is a rare politician who does not usurp power from the people from time to time.

****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: “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.”

It is okay to label a tryant, “a tyrant,” Joey.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>jeffersondem wrote: “Worse, judges frequently vote to pass a new law of their own.”

Thanks for the reminder.

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: "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."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "This story does not sound to me like the workings of a mind with any kind of real scientific education."

In Joey's scientifically-challenged mind, if you do not believe you evolved from an ape, and the earth is a gazillion years old, you cannot be a scientist. LOL!

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

>>BroJoeK wrote: "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?"

Let me take a wild guess: those scientists who did not work or study in any of those fields, and had no reason to challenge their professors, or the propaganda?

Again, that is just a wild guess.

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

>>BroJoeK wrote: "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?"

Only a scientifically-challenged dunderhead could believe a mile, or so, of thick, homogeneous, sedimentary rock layers, most containing almost no erosion or bioturbation, and many loaded with marine fossils (even the top layers,) were deposited gradually over half-a-billion years. Earth scientists, such as geologists and hydraulic engineers, would have to be severely brainwashed to believe such nonsense, after seeing the evidence.

It gets worse for the evolutionist. The following photo of the Grand Canyon points to 100+ million years of missing sedimentary rock:

Why is that a problem for the evolutionist? Imagine rock layers sitting there for over 100 million years without experiencing any erosion in, or organisms boring into, the top of the layer. It remained flat until another layer formed on top of it more than 100 million years later. That is impossible. The only possibility is, both layers were deposited by hydrological sorting via a huge flood.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>BroJoeK wrote: "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."

For someone who pretends to be a historian, you certainly are ignorant of the term Federalist. Federalism is a system of government in which there is a distribution or division of power between a central government and a series of smaller governments. Alexander Hamilton hijacked the term "federalist" to enhance his rhetorical influence over the masses; but he was, in fact, anti-federalist, or more accurately, a nationalist supporting an all-powerful central government—the antithesis of federalism.

For that reason, one of Hamilton's first acts was an attempt to undermine federalism. Hamilton said this when he, Madison and Jay were trying to "sell" the Constitution to a bunch of very cautious sovereign States:

"An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States. This exclusive delegation, or rather this alienation, of State sovereignty, would only exist in three cases: where the Constitution in express terms granted an exclusive authority to the Union; where it granted in one instance an authority to the Union, and in another prohibited the States from exercising the like authority; and where it granted an authority to the Union, to which a similar authority in the States would be absolutely and totally contradictory and repugnant."

[Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 32, in Bill Bailey, "The Complete Federalist Papers." The New Federalist Papers Project, p.145]

Hamilton clearly recognized state sovereignty, as well as the proper distribution of powers. However, once in power, in the Washington administration, Hamilton said this:

"It is, therefore, of necessity, left to the discretion of the National Legislature to pronounce upon the objects which concern the general welfare, and for which, under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt, that whatever concerns the general interests of learning, of agriculture, of manufactures, and of commerce, are within the sphere of the national councils, as far as regards an application of money." "The only qualification of the generality of the phrase in question, which seems to be admissible,is this: That the object, to which an appropriation of money is to be made, be general, and not local; its operation extending, in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot." "No objection ought to arise to this construction, from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the general welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude, which is granted, too, in express terms, would not carry a power to do any other thing not authorized in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication."

[Report on Manufactures. Communicated to the House of Representatives, December 5, 1791, in Henry Cabot Lodge, "The Works of Alexander Hamilton Vol 04." G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1903, pp.151-152]

Everything underlined in that statement is a lie! The instant Hamilton introduced an unauthorized power – the power over agriculture – he rejected federalism, and the Constitution.

I am not hair-splitting. Hamilton himself said the power over agriculture belonged to the states, back when he was in his "sell mode":

"Allowing the utmost latitude to the love of power which any reasonable man can require, I confess I am at a loss to discover what temptation the persons intrusted with the administration of the general government could ever feel to divest the States of the authorities of that description. The regulation of the mere domestic police of a State appears to me to hold out slender allurements to ambition. Commerce, finance, negotiation, and war seem to comprehend all the objects which have charms for minds governed by that passion; and all the powers necessary to those objects ought, in the first instance, to be lodged in the national depository. The administration of private justice between the citizens of the same State, the supervision of agriculture and of other concerns of a similar nature, all those things, in short, which are proper to be provided for by local legislation, can never be desirable cares of a general jurisdiction. It is therefore improbable that there should exist a disposition in the federal councils to usurp the powers with which they are connected; because the attempt to exercise those powers would be as troublesome as it would be nugatory; and the possession of them, for that reason, would contribute nothing to the dignity, to the importance, or to the splendor of the national government."

[Ibid. Bailey, Federalist No. 17, p.83]

What a weasel . . .

Mr. Kalamata

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "And if they embraced the word revolution, so what?
I see avid Trump supporters wearing shirts proclaiming they are “Deplorables.”
This does not mean they actually believe they are deserving of censure or contempt; it is, rather, a clap-back at political opponents who tried, and failed, to intimidate them by name calling.
A term of derision sometimes is worn as a badge of honor by the intended victim.
As for Brother Franklin's little joke: gallows humor."

I agree that the King's "long train of abuses and usurpations" rendered his authority illegitimate and the 1776 Declaration necessary.

I don't agree that Founders were in any way delusional regarding a "natural right" which entitled them to independence at pleasure or without the most serious of violent consequences.
Franklin's gallows humor fully acknowledges their dire situation.

[OIFVeteran]

I literally provided you with quotes from the founding fathers were they called it a revolution! If they didn’t think they were committing treason then why did Benjamin Franklin day “We must all hang together or we will, most assuredly, all hang apart. It’s actually called the revolutionary war or the American revolution.

[BroJoeK]

It's estimated that, all told, about 70,000 books have been written on the US Civil War, 15,000 on Lincoln alone.
Of those, in his post #665 Kalamata regales us with quotes from three.
Looking those three up, we can find basic information on them:

1. James Randall, "Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln" -- 1926 (Revisionist School)
   "Randall argued in Civil War and Reconstruction that the war "could have been avoided, supposing of course that something more of statesmanship, moderation, and understanding, and something less of professional patrioteering, slogan-making, face-saving, political clamoring, and propaganda, had existed on both sides."
   But such had not been the case.
   In Randall's view, extremists in both sections emerged as villains, the abolitionist radicals worst of all.
   "Reforming zeal, in those individual leaders in whom it became most vociferous and vocal, was often unrelieved by wisdom, toleration, tact, and the sense of human values.... It was a major cause of the conflict itself."
   That is, minority elements inflamed sectional passions to a point where compromise, which might have been brought about by sensible and responsible men, became impossible. "

   

2. Clinton Rossiter, "Constitutional Dictatorship: Crisis Government in the Modern Democracies" -- 1948 (Revisionist)
   "In particular, following the events of 9/11, Rossiter's first book, the 1948 Constitutional Dictatorship: Crisis Government in the Modern Democracies (reissued in 1963 with a new preface), was reprinted for the first time in nearly forty years.
   In that germinal study, Rossiter argued that constitutional democracies had to learn the lesson of the Roman Republic to adopt and use emergency procedures that would empower governments to deal with crises beyond the ordinary capacities of democratic constitutional governance but to ensure that such crisis procedures were themselves subject to constitutional controls and codified temporal limits."

3. Edmund Wilson, "Patriotic Gore: studies in the literature of the American Civil War" -- 1962 (literature, Lost Causer)

   

   "The book begins with a controversial 23-page introduction in which Wilson presents his own understanding of the Civil War -- and of all modern wars -- as well as of Abraham Lincoln.
   Even though he was born and raised in New Jersey, Wilson saw the Civil War as an imperialistic war of conquest on the part of the North, hypocritically justified by the "rabble-rousing moral issue" of slavery.
   In his view, Lincoln was an "uncompromising dictator" comparable to Lenin and Bismarck."

With help from these scholars, Kalamata claims that Lincoln was a dictator and tyrant.
Beginning with Clinton Rossiter, who in 1948 argued positively that "Constitutional Democracies" must in emergencies act like the ancient Roman Republic and appoint dictators to rule temporarily.
He cites Lincoln as his example.
The problem for both Rossiter and Kalamata is that Lincoln's actions were not those of a "dictator", but rather were built into the President's job description by the Constitution (i.e., habeas corpus), Federal Laws (i.e, 1792 Militia Act, 1807 Insurrection Act) and Founders' historical precedents against rebellion, secession & treason, etc.

1926 classical Revisionist (meaning blames "hot heads" on both sides) James Randall gets quoted by Kalamata complaining that Lincoln refused in 1861 to even recognize or negotiate with Jefferson Davis' Confederate emissaries.
Even at Hampton Roads in 1865, Lincoln offered Confederates only surrender terms, never independence.
But that Randall quote does not mention Democrat President Buchanan, who also refused to recognize or negotiate with Confederate envoys.
And, it doesn't report that Lincoln believed Congress is constitutionally assigned disposition of Federal properties.
Indeed, this is yet another example where all those who claim "Lincoln the dictator" ignored the Constitution, in this case they want Lincoln to have ignored Congress's Constitutional authority over Federal properties.

Finally, Kalamata quotes from Edmund Wilson's (d. 1972) 1962 Lost Cause literary compilation.
Edmund Wilson was a Big Deal in the world of literature -- editor of Vogue and New Republic, a prolific author and critic of other writers:

• On Hemmingway: "But for reasons I cannot attempt to explain, something dreadful seems to happen to Hemingway as soon as he begins to write in the first person."[8] "

• On H. L. Mencken: "The striking thing about Mencken's mind is its ruthlessness and rigidity... Though one of the fairest of critics, he is the least pliant..."[14]

• On Tolkien: The Lord of the Rings, which Wilson referred to as "juvenile trash", saying "Dr. Tolkien has little skill at narrative and no instinct for literary form."[5]

Wilson was big into Marx & Freud, an anti-Cold Warrior, he was fined by the IRS and rewarded by President Kennedy.
Wilson's book, Patriotic Gore:

"Wilson almost entirely ignores writers who are African-American, with Forten as an exception, notably lacking mention of Frederick Douglass.[2]
The book's analysis of the Civil War borrows heavily from now-discredited Lost Cause ideology, using "language no diehard Lost Cause advocate of the turn of the 20th century nor neo-Confederate of the early 21st could improve upon," and that "Wilson simply took no interest in black literature, and seemed completely unaware of slave narratives" reveals almost as "much about Wilson’s own moral blindness [as] about the state of knowledge in elite white circles of African-American history and letters in the 1950s and even early 1960s."[3] "

Wilson was a leftwing racist.

[central_va]

Another reason why the agrarian CSA wanted to disconnect from a rapidly industrializing North. In a way there’s is anther lesson: as the USA (stupidly IMO) morphs into agrarian, service info economy that depends on imports to survive the Chinese are industrializing. I look at industry as “masculine” and service, info, agrarian as “feminine”. So the USA is now morphing into a feminine economy and China has of late a more “masculine” economy. Sadly industrial countries always beat the import dependent country in a war Always.

[OIFVeteran]

I find it ironic that the group that was in the moral right, the abolitionist, are the ones most maligned by historians up until the late 20th century. Shows you how deep racism was in the entire country up till that time.

[OIFVeteran]

The only reason the southern rebels rebelled was because of the perceived threat the "black" republican posed to slavery. This view can be seen in a letter Senator Toombs of Georgia to Alexander Stephens months before Lincoln was nominated as the Republican Presidential candidate.

"In view of such effects and consequences here from the mere possession of one branch of Congress we ought not to shut our eyes to the effects of the possession of the government in all of its departments by any Black Republican. It would abolitionize Maryland in a year, raise a powerful abolition party in Va., Kentucky, and Missouri in two years, and foster and rear up a free labour party in [the] whole South in four years. Thus the strife will be transferred from the North to our own friends. Then security and peace in our borders is gone forever. Therefore I deeply lament that any portion of our people shall hug to their bosoms the delusive idea that we should wait for some "overt act." I shall consider our ruin already accomplished when we submit to a party whose every principle, whose daily declarations and acts are an open proclamation of war against us, and the insidious effects of whose policy I see around me every day. For one I would raise an insurrection, if I could not carry a revolution, to save my countrymen, and endeavor to save them in spite of themselves."

Letter from Senator Robert Toombs to Alexander Stephens-February 10,1860

[central_va]

The threat was to the economy. Slavery just being a mechanism or tool of the 19th century factory farm..

[BroJoeK]

Still in Kalamata's post #665 we find these:

1. Kalamata: "Lincoln was the aggressor and self-appointed dictator."

   Unlike Jefferson Davis, Lincoln was elected and served constitutionally.

2. "Lincoln arrested most everyone who disagreed with him.
   That is not exactly republicanism."

   Jefferson Davis arrested proportionately as many pro-Union Confederates as Lincoln arrested pro-Confederate Union citizens.

3. "You are pretending the Constitution actually existed at the time of the secession.
   It didn't. Otherwise, the legacy of Lincoln, his merry gang of thugs, and the rubber-stamp Congress, would have been: "They hung by ropes until dead." "

   That is a complete lunatic lie.

4. "A survivor would have been Chief Justice Taney, who ruled against Lincoln's tyranny regarding habeas corpus"

   Judge Crazy Roger Taney expressed his lunatic opinion in a lower court.
   The US Supreme Court never agreed with him.

5. "Lincoln would not even recognize them.
   He couldn't recognize them and maintain his LIE about the the Confederacy being an insurrection:"

   In fact, Lincoln never called secession an "insurrection" until after Fort Sumter.

6. "However, the dictator Lincoln was in "fashionable" company in those days"

   Leftist racist Edmund Wilson in 1962 comparing Lincoln with Bismarck & Lenin.

7. "But, ironically, both Lincoln and Bismarck pretended to be republicans, the complete opposite political theory to statism."

   Young Bismarck was a royalist, a politically reactionary, who believed the Kaiser had a divine right to rule.
   Older Bismarck was appointed Chancellor by the Kaiser, and dominated both the Reichstag (House) and Bundesrat (Senate) due to the strength of his personality and successes of his policies.

8. "Both Hitler and Lincoln had dictator-speak down to a science.
   Face it. Lincoln, your hero, was a power-hungry psychopath who despised the constitution and liberty."

   All of that is just insane ranting, illustrating that our new FRiend Kalamata is mentally one sick little SOB.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "And yet, the CSA was only the second most powerful slave nation in North America."

Doodledawg: "Depends on how you define "most powerful".
It was the largest, most powerful economy in North America completely dependent on slave labor."

In 1861 the Confederacy had roughly 5.5 million whites and about 3.5 million slaves = 9 million total.
The Union had 22 million whites and 1/2 million slaves.
By war's end in April 1865 both sides actual slaves were reduced to a relative handful before being legally abolished under the 13th Amendment, December 1865.

Our pro-Confederates like DiogenesLamp want us to think that not only Southern economy, but also the entire US 1860 GDP of $4.4 billion was "dependent" on slave labor.
Was it?
Well, clearly $200 million in cotton exports was, but we should remember that the Constitution's counting ratio of 3/5 of slaves was also, perhaps coincidentally, the generally accepted estimate, at the time, of productive outputs of slave versus freed-labor.
By that estimate then, 4 million slaves would produce as much GDP as 2.4 million freedmen, meaning that in a total population of 31 million, slaves produced under 10% of GDP.
My estimate is around $350 million of the $4.4 billion gross.

[OIFVeteran]

If your saying economy=slavery then I agree with you. From what I’ve read slaves were worth upwards of 2-3 billion dollars in 1860. So it is understandable why the slavocracy revolted at even the possibility of a threat to their peculiar institution. I maybe could even muster a little bit of sympathy for them, if it wasn’t slavery.

It’s a shame the founders couldn’t have definitively dealt with slavery when the constitution was written. However, from what I’ve read of the constitutional convention we would have lost Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina if the hardline anti-slavery founders had pushed the issue. And the founders were more concerned about a fractured America fighting amongst itself or being influenced or taken over by foreign powers. So they kicked the can down the road.

[OIFVeteran]

I can’t comprehend how anyone can hold the views that Kalamata and DiogenesLamp have on the civil war and still love this country, or call themselves Americans.

[x]

Slavery just being a mechanism or tool of the 19th century factory farm.

Some tool ...

Some mechanism ...

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem to DoodleDawg: "What Lincoln needed was the predicted crisis - real or imagined. And his navy found that crisis in the Gulf of Tonkin Incident.
I meant to say the Fort Sumter Incident."

The better analogy is Pearl Harbor, since both Pearl Harbor and Fort Sumter aroused Americans in the conviction that war was the only answer.
And both events were the deliberate choice of the military power which attacked the United States.

[BroJoeK]

OIFVeteran post #691: "The South: We’re seceding because you elected a guy who doesn’t like slavery..."

Excellent summary.