Posted on 12/22/2019 4:23:47 AM PST by Bull Snipe
"I beg to present you as a Christmas gift the City of Savannah, with one hundred and fifty heavy guns and plenty of ammunition and about twenty-five thousand bales of cotton." General William T. Sherman's "March to the Sea" was over. During the campaign General Sherman had made good on his promise d “to make Georgia howl”. Atlanta was a smoldering ruin, Savannah was in Union hands, closing one of the last large ports to Confederate blockade runners. Sherman’s Army wrecked 300 miles of railroad and numerous bridges and miles of telegraph lines. It seized 5,000 horses, 4,000 mules, and 13,000 head of cattle. It confiscated 9.5 million pounds of corn and 10.5 million pounds of fodder, and destroyed uncounted cotton gins and mills. In all, about 100 million dollars of damage was done to Georgia and the Confederate war effort.
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “People say a lot of things - 300 newspapers closed, tens of thousands of political prisoners - and you accept that unquestioningly.”
No, that is what you do when a claim fits your ideology.
Mr. Kalamata
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “I wrote it, not BroJoeK,”
I see that now. My apologies.
******************
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “and as a YEC the idea that you trust any of them is ridiculous.”
I trust all scientific data, either to confirm or dismiss. That is the way science works. Perhaps you have confused science with consensus and/or great story-telling. Bad move.
Mr. Kalamata
>>Who is John Galt wrote: “[E]rroneous or fraudulent research is a real problem (for example, see https://retractionwatch.com ). A doctor of my acquaintance confided in me recently, that he tries to stay current (again, ‘science’ changes daily), but he doesn’t know what published research is real, and what is fraudulent.”
No doubt there is a lot of bad science out there.
Mr. Kalamata
And theology passing as science.
Brother Joe, who is somewhat of an authority in these matters, in his post 349 summed-up the egregiously distortive propaganda charge thusly: “Fake news, 1860s style.”
That's that. About the only unanswered question is how Brother OIFVeteran was duped into breaking the hate ceiling. As an officer he must have drilled into his reports the importance of not picking up and marketing red herrings found flopping on the pavement.
Although Brother OIFVeteran and I have not always seen eye-to-eye he comes across as a straight shooter. I now must reevaluate the wisdom of continuing to accept everything he says at face-value.
I would say the primary reason was "the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States."
South Carolina, and other agricultural states, had been fighting a tariff war against the industrial states for decades; but by 1860 the North had grown in size, and had enough power to plunder the South with a protectionist tariff, if not before the election, then afterward; and they wasted no time in presenting it for a vote. It passed overwhelmingly in the House, but was delayed in the Democrat-controlled Senate. By the time it came up for vote in the Senate, several Southern states had already seceded and the Republicans were in control.
Unequal taxation was heavily emphasized in the S.C. Convention:
"And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of sub-serving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue— to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.
"There is another evil, in the condition of the Southern towards the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear towards Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them, were expended amongst them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them, would have been expended in other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy, was one of the motives which drove them on to Revolution. Yet this British policy, has been fully realized towards the Southern States, by the Northern States."
["The Address of the People of South Carolina Assembled in Convention, to the People of the Slaveholding States of the United States." Evans & Cogswell, Dec 25, 1860, pp.6-7]
For most of my long life I too believed the war was fought over slavery.
Mr. Kalamata
“Clearly without secession & war those Amendments could not have been ratified.”
The founders expected all amendments to be ratified without war.
Please explain why these amendments could not have been ratified without war.
For some, science passing for theology is a risk as well. As has been noted for millennia (and I believe it's quite true ;^), "every man's way is right in his own eyes"...
>>Kalamata wrote: “No doubt there is a lot of bad science out there.”
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “And theology passing as science.”
In particular, the theology of the religion of evolutionism is presented as science.
You are aware that evolutionism is a religion, are you not?
Mr. Kalamata
And you wonder why no one takes you seriously...
I believe you are correct. Thanks for the info.
I had read that Lincoln promoted the Amendment, and may have even introduced it behind the scenes. I only assumed that was his signature. This is a good summary of what I found:
"Curiously, the amendment's namesake – Ohio Rep. Thomas Corwin – was neither its originator nor even its primary sponsor. He inherited the proposal as the Republican chairman of the 'Committee of Thirty Three,' a hastily-convened ad hoc legislative committee in the House that handled compromise proposals to avert the secession crisis. Its original House sponsor was committee member Charles Francis Adams, and even he received the text from the Senate version introduced by Lincoln's soon-to-be Secretary of State William H. Seward. How Seward came to propose the measure is itself a matter of historical uncertainty, though a decent amount of evidence points to none other than Lincoln himself. As Lee's article details and surviving letters attest, Seward introduced the amendment to the Senate following a conversation with Republican operative Thurlow Weed. A long time Seward ally, Lincoln summoned Weed to Springfield for a meeting on December 20, 1860 to talk about the prospective compromise measures being floated in Congress. Weed returned to New York with a short memorandum from Lincoln outlining his thoughts on the fugitive slave clause, though saying little about a constitutional protection for slavery. He also apparently told Seward "verbally, the substance of the suggestion [Lincoln] prepared for the consideration of the Republican members," as Seward informed Lincoln in a letter of acknowledgement dated December 26. Seward described Weed's 'verbal' conveyance as a resolution stating "That the constitution should never be altered so as to authorise Congress to abolish or interfere with slavery in the state" – a clear description of the Corwin Amendment, which he presented the same day to the Republican members of the Senate's compromise 'Committee of Thirteen.'
"Could Lincoln have actually been the unidentified co-author of the Corwin Amendment? Much of the current consensus on this question has followed from the work of David M. Potter, who argued in the 1940's that Seward and Weed either misinterpreted Lincoln or intentionally deviated from his instructions. Lee makes a stronger case for Lincoln's role in its genesis, though it is significantly less acknowledged in the historical literature. Supportive evidence may be found elsewhere in Lincoln's papers though. First, Weed and Seward were not the only recipients of Lincoln's instruction. The day after his meeting with Weed – December 21 – Lincoln also notified Illinois Senator Lyman Trumbull to expect "three short resolutions which I drew up, and which, on the substance of which, I think would do much good." Weed also showed Lincoln's memorandum to Sen. Hannibal Hamlin of Maine, the incoming Vice President, on or slightly before December 27. Though Hamlin's description of the conversation in a letter back to Lincoln conveys little about their content save to note the aforementioned memorandum received by Seward, it also post-dates Seward's presentation of the Corwin Amendment's text to the Republican members so he evidently believed both came with the sanction of Lincoln. …
"For his own part, Lincoln made no public statement about the amendment until after its adoption (he described it and stated in his first inaugural address on March 4th that he had "no objection to its being made express and irrevocable"). Yet as Lee thoroughly documents, Lincoln actively lobbied behind the scenes to drum up support for the amendment after he arrived in Washington in late February. A young Henry Adams, who was clerking for his congressman father and Corwin Amendment co-sponsor Charles Francis Adams, affirms this as well, noting that the amendment's adoption by the narrowest of two-thirds majorities came only because of "some careful manipulation, as well as the direct influence of the new President."
Anyway, thanks again.
Mr. Kalamata
>>Kalamata wrote: “I am not a lost-causer, but Lincoln WAS a tyrant.”
>>rockrr wrote: “And you wonder why no one takes you seriously...”
I don’t wonder at all. I was just as brainwashed as you are now, at an earlier time in my life.
Mr. Kalamata
.....and, in the end, the fruitcake was a staunch Unionist! Almost Lincolnesque!
Thanks,
Mr. Kalamata
You have that all wrong. Buchanan signed the Corwin Amendment, even though his signature was not required. Lincoln never signed the Corwin Amendment that I have ever heard. Lincoln however did put his name on the 13th Amendment. That was not a requirement either, but Abe wanted his name on it.
A correction was made here:
Thanks,
Mr. Kalamata
Now I see that you already retracted (post 391)your gross mis-assumption. Thank you for clarifying that you erred.
>>HandyDandy wrote: “Thank you for clarifying that you erred.”
No problem.
I am perfectly aware that the story of Jefferson Davis in a dress was wartime propaganda started, most likely, from a story in Harpers weekly. I posted it to “get your goat” as it were.
However, I find it laughable that you would talk about a hate ceiling. When your side continues to to call Lincoln a tyrant and using other disparaging remarks against Grant and Sherman.
Do I hate Jefferson Davis and the rest of the leaders of the confederacy? I hate what they stood for and the ideas they espoused. I believe they were all traitors and should have been tried by military tribunal and then hung by the neck until dead. I think President Lincoln’s policy of letting them up easy was wrong and eventually lead to African Americans being treated as worse than 2nd class citizens for the next 100 years. Though this status was substantially better than being a slave.
I actually am thankful that the southern fire eaters did rebel because in doing so they unwittingly hasten the demise of slavery. I believe without their actions we would have had slavery in the United States well into the 20th century. This would have made a mockery of our Declaration of Independence.
Thankfully they did rebel and they lost. This lead to the end of slavery with the passage of the 13th Amendment. This amendment finally reconciled the constitution with the Declaration of Independence and gave truth to the founders assertion “that all men are created equal.”
A true pot meet kettle moment on your part.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.