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.

[OIFVeteran]

The war happened because of slavery, no slavery no war. The southern states seceded because of the election of a "black" republican. They had threatened to do this in 1856 if Fremont won the election as a republican. This is undisputable historic truth.

The United States went to war because it's fort was fired upon by rebel forces that had gained control of the state of south Carolina. The United States fought to suppress a rebellion. They later added the war aim of freeing the slaves.

Here's a breakdown of the context of Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas's ordinances of secession. Keep in mind that when the phrase states rights is used it's almost exclusively to the right to travel freely with slaves, expansion of slavery into the western territories, holding slaves, etc.

Georgia: 56% Slavery; 23% Economic issues; 15% Context; 4% States' Rights; 2% Lincoln's Election

Mississippi: 73% Slavery; 20% Context; 3% States' Rights; 4% Contest

South Carolina: 37% States' Rights 41% Context; 20% Slavery; 2% Lincoln's election

Texas; 54% Slavery; 21% States' Rights; 15% Context; 6% Military Protection; 4% Lincoln's Election

You can look at the documents yourself and verify what I have posted.

[central_va]

Secession happened because 11 states wanted to free themselves from the Union compact. The slavery issue was not the cause but the effect of Federal overreach. The war “happened” because the North couldn’t accept the secession of these 11 states. Lincoln could have prevented war if he had met the the Southern peace delegation in March of 1861. He even admitted to this in his second inaugural address.

[Who is John Galt?]

This link from your page is very informative:
'Colonial Origins of American Liberty'

It's an excellent summary, that raises some points I rarely saw discussed on these threads...

[OIFVeteran]

Lincoln could not meet with the “peace” delegation because it would be a de facto recognition of the Confederacy as an independent country. He, and the Republican Party, believed there was no right to unilateral secession. They believed, as James Madison stated in his letter to Alexander Hamilton of July 20th 1877 that “the constitution requires an adoption in Toto, and forever.”

The Republican position was further supported by Supreme Court decisions. The first in Cohens vs Virginia 1821 where Chief Justice Marshall wrote;

“The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will. But this supreme and irresistible power to make or to unmake resides only in the whole body of the people, not in any subdivision of them. The attempt of any of the parts to exercise it is usurpation and ought to be repelled by those to whom the people have delegated their power of repelling it.”

The actions and statements of President Andrew Jackson further supported the course the Republicans party took. Even Chief Justice Taney, no friend of Abraham Lincoln, believed secession was illegal. He wrote this during the secession crisis;

- SCOTUS Chief Justice Roger Taney, January, 1861

The South contends that a state has a constitutional right to secede from the Union formed with her sister states. In this I submit the South errs. No power or right is constitutional but what can be exercised in a form or mode provided in the constitution for its exercise. Secession is therefore not constitutional, but revolutionary;and is only morally competent, like war, upon failure of justice."

The southern slavocracy appealed to the law of force to achieve their aims and failed miserably.

[central_va]

Yet Lincoln admitted to the world in a public speech that the war could have been avoided making him a war monger, those are the facts.

[OIFVeteran]

Nice dodge. What do you think James Madison, the father of the constitution, meant when he wrote it had to be adopted in toto and forever?

[central_va]

If a non secession clause was put into the US Constitution in 1787 then it would have never been ratified.

[OIFVeteran]

But what do you think James Madison, the father of the constitution meant when he wrote “in toto and forever? “

[central_va]

I don’t know but that idea NEVER MADE IT INTO THE FINAL USC v1787.

[jeffersondem]

“I believe you are correct. Thanks for the info. . .”

That is the way to take responsibility for an error; straightforward, cheerful, and to the point. It adds even more credibility to everything else you have posted.

In one sense I hope the other side does not begin to embrace truth and accountability. If they do it will make the job of those who advocate consent of the governed two percent more difficult.

[central_va]

I believe they were all traitors and should have been tried by military tribunal and then hung by the neck until dead.

You are a lunatic. Why wasn't Davis tried for treason? He demanded a trial.

[OIFVeteran]

Let me help you there.

in toto

adv.

Totally; altogether: recommendations that were adopted in toto.

for·ev·er (fôr-ĕv′ər, fər-)

adv.

1. For everlasting time; eternally: No one can live forever.

2. At all times; incessantly: was forever complaining about the job.

n.

A seemingly very long time: It has taken forever to resolve these problems.

[BroJoeK]

central_va: "128th Ill. Inf.
Following the Emancipation Proclamation, the regiment suffered 700 desertions.
The regiment was disbanded on April 1, 1863, by order the War Department."

The Union Army had well over 2,000 regiments of which the vast majority served & fought honorably.
Of those 2,000+ Union regiments about 200 were colored troops, which more than made up for any whites who disgraced themselves.

One of my ancestors served in a sister regiment to the 128th, the 119th Illinois from neighboring Quincy.
They were hardly a crack unit, my ancestor didn't even speak much English, but over three years the 119th marched thousands of miles, fought dozens of battles, suffered hundreds killed, wounded or captured and earned one medal of honor.

The 119th's regimental history mentions Union Generals Sherman, Halleck, Rosecrans & Thomas, Confederate Generals Forrest, Price and Hood, but says nothing about slavery or emancipation, indeed, nothing remotely political.

[central_va]

Ok they changed the word perpetual union in the preamble to a more perfect union for a reason.

[DoodleDawg]

Yet Lincoln admitted to the world in a public speech that the war could have been avoided making him a war monger, those are the facts.

Well then you won't might providing the quotes then, will you?

[central_va]

Lincoln's second inaugural address paragraph 2:

---

March 4, 1865

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.

---

Both parties meaning Lincoln and the other the Southern Peace Delegation trying to negotiate peace. Lincoln "accepted" the war meaning he let it happen so it was his choice.

[DoodleDawg]

Both parties meaning Lincoln and the other the Southern Peace Delegation trying to negotiate peace. Lincoln "accepted" the war meaning he let it happen so it was his choice.

If Lincoln accepted the war then that must mean someone else initiated the war. Making them the warmongers. I wonder who that was?

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata: "All you know is what your brain has absorbed from decades of left-wing/neo-conservative propaganda; and it appears you have no desire to hear an alternate view.
I, personally, seek to read and hear both sides.
Nothing personal; it is just the way I am."

Those are total lies, in fact Kalamata is a committed Lost Cause propagandist who instantly dismisses any facts or ideas not consistent with his own.

Kalamata's weapons of ideological warfare include an impressive library of accurate quotes, but only quotes which can be used to support his own constructs and always bolstered by generous helpings of personal attacks, mocking & insulting lies against anyone who disagrees.

Kalamata: "Lincoln was a politician and a white supremacist, so he was obliged to speak out of both sides of his mouth from time to time.
For example, Lincoln supported the Illinois Black Codes, and the Illinois Constitution which prohibited the immigration of blacks into the state."

Nearly all American voters were "white supremacists" in those days, but some like Lincoln advocated more freedom for African Americans than others would permit.
Lincoln had a long personal history in opposition to slavery, a history well known by secessionist Fire Eaters in states like South Carolina.
It's why they seceded.

Kalamata: "I believe Lincoln was saying that if Illinois had the power to grant citizenship to a fugitive slave, he would oppose it.
Is that what you read? "

And yet less than seven years later Lincoln was murdered for proposing exactly that.

"On April 11, Booth attended Lincoln's speech at the White House in which Lincoln promoted voting rights for blacks;[18]
Booth said 'That means nigger citizenship ... That is the last speech he will ever give.' "

Kalamata: "Illinois did, after all, restrict the immigration of blacks into the state:"

And yet US census numbers show that Illinois' freed black population increased between 1820 and 1860 at a higher percentage rate than any other state in the Union, North or South.
From 1840 to 1860, during the time of Illinois' 1848 constitution, its freed-blacks doubled, only Ohio's grew faster and by 1860 several states, North and South, even had declining freed-black populations.

Bottom line: whatever Illinois' law said, freed-blacks continued to flock there.

Kalamata: "There is no evidence his views changed.
That is not to say his politics did not change from time to time, depending on how the wind blew."

The largest piece of evidence supporting Lincoln's change of mind regarding full citizenship for freed-blacks is the .41 caliber steel ball and Deringer pistol John Wilkes Boothe used to shoot him in the head:

Kalamata: "The historical facts are, the secessionists tried to leave the United States in peace, and Lincoln would have none of it. "

And yet more lies from Kalamata, he can't stop it, can't control it, they just flow out of him.
The facts are there was nothing peaceful about secession, Confederates began immediately waging a low-level war against the United States, actions which President Buchanan warned them in February 1861 would lead to armed conflict.

Lincoln was totally willing to tolerate Southern independence, but not at the expense of submitting to Confederate military actions against the United States.

Kalamata: "You are unfamiliar with the history of secession, the constitutional and ratification convention debates, and the constitutionally-enshrined concept of retained rights.
The states had power over secession, until the tyrant Lincoln usurped it.
That is also a historical fact."

No, it's a pack of historical lies, from beginning to end.
The real historical fact is that the Union did nothing to stop secession or Confederacy until Confederates provoked, started, formally declared and began waging war against the United States.

Kalamata: "Senator Toombs sounds furious, and rightly so!"

A lot of political hyperbole for a tariff that originally intended to return rates to the levels Southern Democrats themselves had supported in 1846, and which they defeated in 1860, and could still have defeated -- or forced compromises on -- in 1861 had they not seceded.

Kalamata: "Again, it was all about economics..."

Sure, the economics of slavery, but not just economics, also ethics, morality & laws related to slavery.

Kalamata: "If slavery alone was the issue, Lincoln would have not waited several years before making a big deal out of it; and he would never have appointed a slave-holder and/or slave-benefactor as the commander of the armies he was sending to wipe out the slave-holders and non-slave-holders of the South."

Complete insane nonsense, proving yet again that nothing rational goes on between Kalamata's ears.

Kalamata: " In fact, many northern soldiers were aghast when Lincoln announced the Emancipation Proclamation, protesting that they joined to preserve the Union, not to help abolish slavery.
The result was over 200,000 deserted, and many others evaded the draft.
This is McPherson:"

Desertions during the Civil War totaled about 300,000 for the Union (12%), 150,000 for Confederates (15%), or roughly 6,000 per month Union, 3,000 Confederates, but the monthly numbers went up & down depending on fortunes of war.
The fall of 1862 & winter of 1863 seemed especially bleak for the Union side under "Little Mack" McClellan.
Major Union defeats at the time included Hartsville Tennessee, Fredericksburg Virginia, Chickasaw Bayou Mississippi and Galveston Texas.
Desertions are said to have increased, but no numbers anywhere support Kalamata's 200,000 figure.

Kalamata: "And don't forget to mention the beam in the eyes of the northern leaders and populace:"

Here Kalamata quotes a historian in 1965 saying 1860 era Republicans didn't believe in full rights for freed slaves.
And yet in six Northern states freed-blacks did vote, so it is not true that every Northerner was just as troglodytic as typical Southern slaveholders.

Kalamata: "So much for the so-called party of freedom."

In 1860 the Republican party of freedom offered more freedom for blacks than the Democrats' slavery party.
By 1870 Republicans passed the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments, granting full citizenship.
Sadly, it took the Union Army in former Confederate states to enforce those Amendments and when Democrats negotiated the army's withdrawal in 1877, Southern Democrats were soon enough able to reassert their own Black Laws, Jim Crow, segregation and KKK terrorist enforcement, thus effectively nullifying the Republican full-citizenship Amendments for the next 100 years.

[BroJoeK]

DoodleDawg on the Greek word "Kalamata": "It's also a kind of olive that I'm not too fond off though my sister loves them and insists on serving them at family get-togethers."

Thanks so much for that!

Of course, it's also a place name for a town on the coast near Sparta.

So, if we think of the Kalamatans as effectively Spartans, then perhaps we can understand (if not sympathize with) one of their sons' deep affinity for the American Confederate "Sparta"?

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata: "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."

Naw, the truth is that Kalamata "trusts" no fact or scientific idea which conflicts with his own Biblical interpretations, none, period.
So, if you press him on certain scientific observations, say for example, the decay rate of Uranium 235, he will announce that it can't be proved and means nothing in any case.

If you ask him about, say, the red shift in light from stars measured to be millions of lightyears away, he'll tell you it can't be proved, it's not important, means nothing and certainly shouldn't be used to support atheistic "just so stories".