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]

OIFVeteran to DiogenesLamp: "For all of our disagreements I do believe you are arguing from good intentions.
Unlike many people I have discuss/argued this topic with who, when you scratch the surface, it really boils down to racism on the part of the person arguing for the lost cause.
I know it is hard to judge people from just their writings but I have never gotten the feeling/sense/vibe from your postings that racism has anything to do with that."

DiogenesLamp: "I don't think many, if any, who argue that Southern secession was legal are motivated by racism.
I think most argue from other perspectives."

Nobody on Free Republic defends slavery or racism, period.
But neither do we condemn people who, in all good faith, followed the law as they understood it and tried to live good lives according to moral values they learned in church.
The debates here -- even when heated & personal -- are always on a higher plain: what did those old laws say, what did our Founders' really intend?
And the fact that we focus here on our different understandings should never obscure the much larger fact that we are in nearly unanimous agreement on today's politics, beginning with our deep appreciation for President Trump.

DiogenesLamp: "Speaking for myself, I never used to think about this issue until I saw California and New York getting crazier and crazier, and this has led me to feel like a member of a chain gang that is chained to a batsh*t crazy psychopath.
California frightens me.
New York frightens me.
They have great economic power coupled with batsh*t crazy ideas, not the least of which is unapologetic support for socialism."

First, see my post #1,415 showing the US largest megalopolis regions -- number one is the Great Lakes region.
Today I live in central Pennsylvania, but I largely grew up in California, one of my daughters lives there now, and I lived many years in upstate New York -- Jack Kemp was my congressman.
Some of my daughters lived for years in New York City, were there on 9/11, helped with the recovery.
I've also lived near Washington, DC, as a young man I worked as a guard at the Library of Congress, and one of my daughters worked near the Pentagon on 9/11.
All of those places are full of many good people -- for example the California I remember elected Ronald Reagan governor and helped elect him president.

Of course, things are different now, but not that different, and most Americans can still respond to good leadership, which thankfully we do seem to have.

DiogenesLamp: "On what basis is the claim made that states don't have a right to secede?
Did not the Declaration of Independence guarantee exactly this right?
So my thinking has gone.
I know not how many others argue for secession on the basis of crazy states motivating them to want free, but I would say a lot of people might be motivated by being descendant from the States or people being discussed.
I think others, such as Ohioan, are deep natural law thinkers, and see the conflict from a more objective perspective."

DiogenesLamp's problem here, as elsewhere, is that pure wishful thinking has convinced him of a Big Lie -- that our Founders were not just champions of liberty, but also of libertarianism and were libertines on the subject of "secession".
They were nothing of the sort.
And one proof of it is that whenever any Founder (i.e., Aaron Burr) tried to apply DiogenesLamp's "unlimited right of secession", the others came together to defeat him.

Some of our thought-leaders (i.e., Mark Levin) have advocated a new Constitutional Convention to address many issues, but most people shy away on the solid grounds that such a convention is only likely to unleash the political forces of national & international socialistic totalitarianism -- no thanks!
Better to fight it out day by day in the political trenches, WWI style, rather than seek out a grand end-run Constitutional maneuver which could just as well leave us, like (to pick one example) 1914 Germans -- just short of their goal (Paris) and so doomed to ultimate defeat.

DiogenesLamp: "With the slave states remaining part of England, England would most assuredly not have abolished slavery in 1833."

This hypothetical assumes slave-states with representation and votes in Britain's Parliament, but if so they would be a small minority, much smaller than in the US Congress and so allied with other parties.
Such alliances may have delayed abolition, or cut it up into small steps over time, but abolition would not have destroyed the US economy any more in 1833 than it did after 1865.
People would adjust and go on with life.

[DiogenesLamp]

The Antifederalist Paper #29 you quoted also predicted Lincoln:

"A standing army in the hands of a government placed so independent of the people, may be made a fatal instrument to overturn the public liberties; it may be employed to enforce the collection of the most oppressive taxes; and to carry into execution the most arbitrary measures. An ambitious man who may have the army at his devotion, may step up into the throne, and seize upon absolute power."

Yup. Over the years i've come to realize that many of the arguments of the Anti-Federalists did indeed come to pass, while many of the assurances of the Federalists were shown to be so much fluff.

[jeffersondem]

“It’s a shame the founders couldn’t have definitively dealt with slavery when the constitution was written.”

Why not shame and blame slavery on Moses instead?

In that way you could diminish all of Judeo-Christian history. The left has been trending that direction for some time you know.

[DiogenesLamp]

In short, Confederates represented an existential economic, political and military threat to the United States,

Not a military threat, but definitely an economic and political threat. They would have eventually taken away New York's wealth and power, and the Empire City of the Empire state was never going to allow that to happen.

That is why the Empire City of the Empire state is still running Washington DC to this very day.

[DiogenesLamp]

Sure, just as Lincoln did in 1861, our 1787 Founders put Union first, abolition second.

Given that the vast majority of the States were still slave states in 1787, had they tried to do abolition, there would have been no further Union.

[DiogenesLamp]

What they said in their 1776 Declaration was that necessity from "a long train of abuses and usurpation" drove them "to dissolve the political bonds".

You are both taking it out of context, and wrong about it being a "necessity." They called it a necessity, but the British people (corresponding to the Northern people in 1861) did not agree with them that their gripes were actual "necessities." They regarded them as "at pleasure" opinions.

Regarding your taking it out of context, they claimed their gripes made it necessary to leave, but their central premise was that people had a right to leave just from dissatisfaction, and "necessity" wasn't required, though they did caution against leaving " for light and transient causes, but this was a suggestion, not a requirement.

[DiogenesLamp]

They say, don't look at the beam in Confederate eyes, nothing to see there, move along, only look at the splinter in Lincoln's eye.

It is the man who sent the sons of his people into other people's lands to conquer them that has to justify what he did. The defenders have much more moral leeway in stopping subjugation than does the aggressor in attempting it.

Saying "Davis was just as bad" is not a justification for Lincoln's doings. Lincoln's doings must be judged on their own merits, and not in comparison to someone else.

[DiogenesLamp]

Of course, no Founding document ever said what DiogenesLamp likes to pretend they said.

You have to lie to yourself to believe that. The words are in English and they are clear, and if you remember your old English classes and how to diagram sentences, and how to identify thesis statements, you can pretty much demonstrate that the document objectively says exactly what I tell you it says.

Again, pick out the thesis sentence in the document. I'll await your choice.

[DiogenesLamp]

Does not matter. He made the decision based on his situation. That was within his authority to do so.

You are making excuses for what Anderson did, so that you can justify what followed as having the imprimatur of legitimacy.

Washington DC did not send him to Sumter. He decided to do that himself for tactical, not strategic reasons. The Fort was of no value to the Union other than as a bone of contention. It had no significant purpose to the defense of the Union.

"The plan succeeded. They attacked Sumter – it fell, and thus, did more service than it otherwise could."

[DiogenesLamp]

"And the fact that we focus here on our different understandings should never obscure the much larger fact that we are in nearly unanimous agreement on today's politics, beginning with our deep appreciation for President Trump."

Amen. He is almost singlehandedly fighting the corrupt Washington DC "Deep State" and the New York crony capitalists, and we should support him in whatever way we can.

:)

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

From 1876 to 1897, Fort Sumter was used only as an unmanned lighthouse station.

So it was active military post for over 3/4 of its history.

Yeah, they put in some new guns during the Spanish American war, but it was still useless and never saw combat.

None of the scores of coastal forts built by the United States saw combat. Of course, neither has our nuclear missile force. So I guess we should just give that away if someone demands it.

[Bull Snipe]

No excuses. Anderson had the authority to move to Sumter.
His decision was a tactical decision to provide a more easily defended position then the open pit batteries at Fort Moultrie. Maybe Floyd should have ordered him out of Sumter.

[DiogenesLamp]

So it was active military post for over 3/4 of its history.

How did you get that out of "From 1876 to 1897, Fort Sumter was used only as an unmanned lighthouse station." ?

Does not compute.

[DiogenesLamp]

No excuses. Anderson had the authority to move to Sumter.

He had the "authority" to do anything he D@mn well pleased, but Washington DC and his chain of command did not place him in Sumter. *HE* placed himself in Sumter.

His decision was a tactical decision to provide a more easily defended position then the open pit batteries at Fort Moultrie.

It wasn't defensible at all. It was an illusion that a military outpost can exist among any people without being backed up by a huge force that can enforce it. It was rather wrong headed thinking, to believe you could hold such a position against the forces that were likely to be brought against you if you antagonized them.

Lincoln's generals told him before he sent his war fleet that it would take a force of 20,000 men to take and hold that fort, and it was simply not worth it.

Also his war fleet would have been sunk had they carried out their orders.

[OIFVeteran]

Your assertion that it was a suggestion is just your opinion and not supported by the writing and the actions of both the revolutionary war era and constitutional era founding fathers.

I have been re-reading the notes on the constitutional convention and the federalists and anti-federalist papers. I would not characterize the federalists arguments as fluff but they certainly downplayed the fears of the anti-federalists.

I completely agree with you that the anti-federalist were right about a lot of things and am glad their push for amendments was successful, but also glad they failed in stopping the ratification of the constitution. One of the leading Anti-federalist, Patrick Henry, gave a speech at the Virginia ratification convention arguing against adoption of the constitution. In it he states the constitution will do exactly what you and the rest of the lost cause brigade claim it didn’t do. Take away the states sovereignty.

“I rose yesterday to ask a question which arose in my own mind. When I asked that question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious. The fate of this question and of America may depend on this. Have they said, We, the states? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing — the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America. I need not take much pains to show that the principles of this system are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Is this a monarchy, like England — a compact between prince and people, with checks on the former to secure the liberty of the latter? Is this a confederacy, like Holland — an association of a number of independent states, each of which retains its individual sovereignty? It is not a democracy, wherein the people retain all their rights securely. Had these principles been adhered to, we should not have been brought to this alarming transition, from a confederacy to a consolidated government. We have no detail of these great consideration, which, in my opinion, ought to have abounded before we should recur to a government of this kind. Here is a resolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: and cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case?The rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press, all your immunities and franchises, all pretensions to human rights and privileges, are rendered insecure, if not lost, by this change, so loudly talked of by some, and inconsiderately by others. Is this tame relinquishment of rights worthy of freemen? Is it worthy of that manly fortitude that ought to characterize republicans? It is said eight states have adopted this plan. I declare that if twelve states and a half had adopted it, I would, with manly firmness, and in spite of an erring world, reject it. You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your government.

[Bull Snipe]

It was more defensible than Moultrie.

“Also his war fleet would have been sunk had they carried out their orders.”

His “war fleet” carried out their orders. Since they were not fired on by the Charleston batteries, they did not fire on them.

[DiogenesLamp]

It was more defensible than Moultrie.

Neither was defensible from a motivated populace surrounding it.

His “war fleet” carried out their orders.

Well, considering their orders were to wait for Captain Mercer to take command of the task force and then reinforce Sumter, then yes, they did follow those orders, but everyone on the Confederate side believed that his showing up was just a formality and that these ships would soon be attacking the shore emplacements.

The force presented a credible threat, but unbeknownst to the Confederates, Lincoln had secretly left the pin in that hand grenade he threw at them.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

How did you get that out of "From 1876 to 1897, Fort Sumter was used only as an unmanned lighthouse station." ?

Does not compute.

1861-1876:Active military outpost (15 years)
1876-1897--Unmanned lighthouse station (21 years)
1897-1947--Active military outpost (50 years)

So, 65 years as an active military outpost. 21 years as an unmanned lighthouse station

[Bull Snipe]

Unless you can cite orders to the contrary. The mission was to resupply Sumter. The ships were not authorized to use force (i.e. start shooting) unless Charleston authorities resisted (i.e. opened fire) on the resupply effort. The Navy ships did not have carte blanche orders to attack Charleston or the Confederate forces present.

“but unbeknownst to the Confederates, Lincoln had secretly left the pin in that hand grenade he threw at them.”
You mean Seward. He is the person that failed to mention, in Porter’s recall order, that it was by direction of the President. Hoping that Porter would ignore it and continue on to Pensicola as Seward had planned.

[Kalamata]

>>DiogenesLamp wrote: "Once the New York based coalition couldn't control the economics of trade with Europe, first the border states would move to the stronger economic horse, and then the midwest would move there too. With a successful independence, the South would have found numerous other states coming into their sphere of influence due to the economic advantages of doing so. The only people who would have been hurt were the wealthy Northern manufacturers, shippers and so forth. The very people backing Lincoln and his efforts to stop direct Southern trade with Europe. If left alone, the Nation would have come to look like this relatively quickly."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Much of what DiogenesLamp posts on these threads is pure fantasy of his own concocting, but in this case at least, his fantasies do reflect an underlying reality: Confederate extreme economic and political aggressiveness."

Everything Joey posts is deceptive. Where are your sources, Joey? More left-wing Wikipedia? Leftist "historians"? LOL!

The truth is, the crony-capitalist Northern merchants had been AGGRESSIVELY plotting against and financially plundering the South since 1824, perhaps even before. Once the tables were about to be turned, and the government-supported (Southern-tribute-supported) financial House of Cards was about to crumble, the Northern merchants and their media propagandists panicked:

"It does not require extraordinary sagacity to perceive that trade is perhaps the controlling motive operating to prevent the return of the seceding states to the Union which they have abandoned. Alleged grievances in regard to slavery were originally the causes for the separation of the cotton states; but the mask has been thrown off, and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports. The merchants of New Orleans, Charleston and Savannah are possessed with the idea that New York, Boston, and Philadelphia may be shorn, in the future, of their mercantile greatness, by a revenue system verging on free trade. If the Southern Confederation is allowed to carry out a policy by which only a nominal duty is laid upon imports, no doubt the business of the chief Northern cities will be seriously injured thereby."

"The difference is so great between the tariff of the Union and that of the Confederate States that the entire Northwest must find it to their advantage to purchase their imported goods at New Orleans rather than New York. In addition to this, the manufacturing interests of the country will suffer from the increased importation resulting from low duties.... The [government] would be false to its obligations if this state of things were not provided against."

[Boston Transcript, March 18, 1861, in Kenneth M. Stampp, "The Causes of the Civil War." 1986, p.69]

They were warned about their greed:

"You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers for northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions.... We do not intend that you shall reduce us to such a condition. But I can tell you what your folly and injustice will compel us to do. It will compel us to be free from your domination, and more self-reliant than we have been. It will compel us to manufacture for ourselves, to build up our own commerce, our own great cities, our own railroads and canals; and to use the tribute money we now pay you for these things for the support of a government which will be friendly to all our interests, hostile to none of them."

[Speech of Representative John H. Reagan of Texas, January 15, 1861, Congressional Globe, 36 Congress, 2 Session, I, p. 391, in Kenneth M. Stampp, "The Causes of the Civil War." 1986, p.66]

The greed of the Northern antebellum merchant class and their government cronies, correlates well with that of the modern Chamber of Commerce and their government cronies.

Mr. Kalamata