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.

[Bull Snipe]

This was the same Salmon Portland Chase, as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, decided in Texas v. White that secession was illegal.

[BroJoeK]

OIFVeteran: "Wanted to add a follow up comment on what you mention here about Kalamata claim about knowing Marines that think Lincoln was a tyrant.
I served almost 21 years in the US Military."

I was honorably discharged in 1973, just after the changeover to all-volunteers, so most of my experience is of a military long past.

We had black troops, NCOs and officers, a black company commander and battalion XO, in the early 1970s.
We also had plenty of white southerners in those positions.
Some were quite proud of their country & western heritage.
In all my years I never met one who said something bad about Lincoln or the Union.

OIFVeteran: "Served both active duty and reserves, enlisted and officer.
Over that time I met exactly two people that believed Lincoln was a tyrant and the south was justified in seceding.
They were my roommates for awhile when I was lower enlisted in the Marines."

Sure, in Basic Training we had some pretty rough characters and I have vague memories of hearing some racist talk somewhere, but never anyone who drew the connection between their own racism and blaming Lincoln!

By the way, I have seen where Kalamata claims to have taken our oath of office to protect & defend the Constitution, but I somehow missed the part, if there was one, where he claimed to have actually served honorably...

[BroJoeK]

OIFVeteran: "Lincoln was far from a tyrant.
He, and the 37th congress, were exercising their constitutional powers to suppress the largest insurrection in the countries history."

Anyone can call anyone a "tyrant", the word is meaningless by itself.
So the apt comparison in this case is Lincoln to Jefferson Davis -- did Lincoln the "tyrant" take any actions which Davis the... uh, "patriot" didn't also take?

Answer: other than winning the war, none I can think of.

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata: "I have read about the Lincoln rumour, but never mentioned it. However, I have noticed that the progressives love to cackle & crow about the Davis rumour."

They weren't "rumors", they were partisan political hyperbole & cartoons, of the type we can easily find today.
On these threads over many years I've seen Lincoln's 1861 sneaking through Baltimore mentioned about as often as Davis's 1865 escape from Richmond.

But I'd never before seen the two mentioned together in one post.

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata: "Joey doesn't understand science, but he can fool the non-scientist with his slick, Lincoln-like rhetoric."

I will take the comparison to Lincoln as a compliment, even though completely undeserved.

Kalamata: "Ideologues, like those in the Evolutionism Orthodoxy that have hijacked science education, reject anything that doesn't fit their ideology.
For example, this is the Evolutionary Biologist and devout Marxist, Richard Lewontin of Harvard University:"

I don't know of Lewontin, never heard the name before so far as I can remember, but I'd say here he's just trying to be provocative, and for what purpose?

Kalamata: "That is anti-science.
Scientists do not take sides; pseudo-scientists do.
Scientists simply follow the data."

What the Lewontin quote says is somewhat similar to what I say, but in different words, namely, that natural-science is limited by definition to natural explanations of natural processes.
Everything else, i.e., theology, is by definition "not science".
So here Lewontin complains about the apparent limits of natural-science and seemingly, wouldn't it be easier and more fun just to claim some supernatural process is at work?

Answer: maybe, conceivably, but by definition that's not science, no matter how insane it makes people like Kalamata.
Indeed, it drives Kalamata so insane he loudly declares by writ of his own unique authority that natural science is bunk and only his own "Biblical science" is really true.

Anyway, I can't tell what Lewontin's problem is, and more important, I care less, but the fact remains that by definition natural science is still limited to natural explanations no matter how much Lewontin or Kalamata may cry about that.

[Kalamata]

>>OIFVeteran wrote: "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."

I am sorry I disappointed you by ignoring it.

I believe you misunderstand me. I am not pro-Jefferson Davis, but rather anti-Lincoln.

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

>>OIFVeteran wrote: "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."

I tend to call a thug a thug, rather a thug a ballet dancer.

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

>>OIFVeteran wrote: "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."

If you hate traitors, then you hate Lincoln and his merry gang of thugs.

It appears you believe Lincoln's interpretation of the Constitution rather than the written words of the document, and the notes of the convention in which it was constructed. I was blessed that I became a Constitutional History buff before becoming a Civil War buff, so I was not so easily fooled by the mischaracterizations of Lincoln by his scholarly ideologues.

Over the years I came to understand why the Hard-Left Elites are in love with Lincoln's memory. He was above all a central planner, and his economic platform was similar to the modern plans of Obama and Clinton, which were fiat-monetized, crony-capitalist, pay-for-play economics. I cringe every time I read one of the Lincoln history groupies claim he was a capitalist. He was anti-capitalist.

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

>>OIFVeteran wrote: "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."

From what I have read, with minor exceptions, blacks were treated worse in the North than in the South. Those were also de Tocqueville observations, as aforementioned, and reposted here, in part:

"In the part of the Union where Negroes are no longer slaves, have they drawn nearer to whites? Every man who has lived in the United States will have noted that an opposite effect has been produced. [{In no part of the Union are the two races as separated as in New [England (ed.)] [v: the North].}]

"Racial prejudice seems to me stronger in the states that have abolished slavery than in those where slavery still exists, and nowhere does it appear as intolerant as in the states where servitude has always been unknown…

"In nearly all the states where slavery is abolished, the Negro has been given electoral rights; but if he presents himself to vote, he risks his life. Oppressed, he can make a complaint, but he finds only whites among his judges. The law opens the juror 's seat to him, but prejudice pushes him away from it. His son is excluded from the school where the descendant of the European goes to be instructed. In the theaters he cannot, even at the price of gold, buy the right to sit next to the one who was his master; in the hospitals he lies apart. The Black is allowed to beseech the same God as the whites, but not to pray to him at the same altar. He has his priests and his churches. The gates of heaven are not closed to him: but inequality scarcely stops at the edge of the other world. When the Negro is no more, his bones are thrown aside, and the difference in conditions is found again even in the equality of death.

"Thus the Negro is free, but he is not able to share either the rights or the pleasures or the labors or the pains or even the tomb of the one whose equal he has been declared to be; he cannot meet him anywhere, either in life or in death.

"[{What miserable mockery this is.}]

"In the South where slavery still exists, Negroes are less carefully kept aside; they sometimes share the labors of whites and their pleasures; to a certain point they are permitted to mix with them. Legislation is more harsh in their regard; habits are more tolerant and milder. In the South the master is not afraid to raise his slave up to his level, because he knows that if he wishes he will always be able to throw him back into the dust. In the North the white no longer distinctly sees the barrier that should separate him from a degraded race, and he withdraws with all the more care from the Negro because he fears that someday he will merge with him…

"This is how in the United States the prejudice that pushes Negroes away seems to increase proportionately as Negroes cease to be slaves, and how inequality becomes imprinted in the mores as it fades in the laws. But if the relative position of the two races that inhabit the United States is as I have just shown, why have the Americans abolished slavery in the north of the Union, why do they keep it in the south, and what causes them to aggravate its rigors there?

"It is easy to answer. Slavery is being destroyed in the United States not in the interest of the Negroes, but in that of the whites."

[de Tocqueville, Alexis, "Democracy in America." 2010, pp.553-556]

A careful reading of those paragraphs indicates that the LESS contact the person had with the blacks, the MORE racist he was. Several Northern states even had prohibitions against black immigration -- to keep them OUT!

"The nature of restrictionist legislation varied from state to state. Several states required from incoming Negroes certificates proving their freedom and attesting to their citizenship in another state. Connecticut forbade, without the approval of civil authorities, the establishment of any educational institution for the instruction of non-resident Negroes. Most of the new states, particularly those carved out of the Northwest Territory, either explicitly barred Negroes or permitted them to enter only after they had produced certified proof of their freedom and had posted a bond, ranging from $500 to $1,000, guaranteeing their good behavior. If enforced, this requirement alone [the bond] would have amounted to practical exclusion. Violators were subject to expulsion and fine, the non-payment of which could result in their being whipped, hired out, or, under the Illinois statute of 1853, advertised and sold at public auction. Residents, white or Negro, who employed such persons or encouraged them to remain in the state were subject to heavy fines.

"Three states – Illinois, Indiana, and Oregon – incorporated anti-immigration provisions into their constitutions. The electorates, voting on these provisions separately, indicated their overwhelming approval at the polls. Voters indorsed the Illinois constitutional clause barring the further admission of Negroes by a margin of more than two to one, most of the opposition coming from northern counties in which there were few Negroes. Indianans gave a larger majority to the restriction clause than to the constitution itself, and Oregon approved exclusion by an eight-to-one majority. The popular mandate thus seemed clear. "The tendency, strong and irresistible, of the American mind," an Indianan declared, "is finally to accomplish a separation of the two races."

[Leon F. Litwack, "North of Slavery: The Negro in the Free States, 1790-1860." University of Chicago Press, 1965, pp.71-72]

Note: the $500 to 1,000 entry bond was analogous to a poll tax.

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

>>OIFVeteran wrote: "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."

Many scholars believe that slavery would have eventually disappeared on its own. The legacy of Lincoln's war is a century or more of racial hatred and separation, that lingers even today; not to mention the misery Lincoln's racist invaders caused the Southern blacks during their marches of terror. They were not the "deliverers" historian make them out to be.

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

>>OIFVeteran wrote: "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.”

Frederick Douglass would disagree:

"It must be admitted, truth compels me to admit, even here in the presence of the monument we have erected to his memory, Abraham Lincoln was not, in the fullest sense of the word, either our man or our model. In his interests, in his associations, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man.

"He was pre-eminently the white man's President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people to promote the welfare of the white people of this country. In all his education and feeling he was an American of the Americans. He came into the Presidential chair upon one principle alone, namely, opposition to the extension of slavery. His arguments in furtherance of this policy had their motive and mainspring in his patriotic devotion to the interests of his own race. To protect, defend, and perpetuate slavery in the States where it existed Abraham Lincoln was not less ready than any other President to draw the sword of the nation. He was ready to execute all the supposed constitutional guarantees of the United States Constitution in favor of the slave system anywhere inside the slave States. He was willing to pursue, recapture, and send back the fugitive slave to his master, and to suppress a slave rising for liberty, though his guilty master were already in arms against the Government. The race to which we belong were not the special objects of his consideration. Knowing this, I concede to you, my white fellow-citizens, a pre-eminence in this worship at once full and supreme. First, midst, and last, you and yours were the objects of his deepest affection and his most earnest solicitude. You [whites] are the children of Abraham Lincoln."

[Douglass, Frederick, "Oration by Frederick Douglass - unveiling of the Freedman's monument in memory of Abraham Lincoln." Pathway Press, 1940, pp.12-13]

If you need a hero, try George Washington, who could have remained President for life, but stepped down after two terms, setting a precedent that lasted until Red Franklin took the helm.

Mr. Kalamata

[rockrr]

I saw some other loser drag it up once, several years ago. He was unceremoniously mocked. Maybe we should make a tradition of it!

[jeffersondem]

“And Lincoln lived long enough to see West Virginia abolish slavery in February 1865.”

Mr. Lincoln was just starting to turn his life around.

[dfwgator]

Lincoln did not kill himself.

[jeffersondem]

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

Sentence first - verdict afterwards!

[Kalamata]

>>OIFVeteran wrote: "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."

That is undisputable revisionist history. The South could have had a new Amendment (the 13th) protecting their slaves forever, it they had stayed in the Union. But they knew that under Lincoln, and his Hamiltonian economic policies, their wealth would have been plundered, like it was in the 20's and 30's. On the other hand, with perpetual free trade from their Southern ports, they would have flourished. At the same time, the Northern manufactures that relied on protective tariffs would have "suffered" due to increased competition.

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

>>OIFVeteran wrote: "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."

The United States went to war because Lincoln wanted to go to war, and he did everything he could think of to precipitate it. Lincolnites tend to forget that Lincoln promised war against any state that refused to collect tariffs for him:

"In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless forced upon the national authority. All the power at my disposal will be used to reclaim the public property and places which have fallen; to hold, occupy and possess these, and all other property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties on imports; but beyond what may be necessary for these, there will be no invasion of any State."

[First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861, in Roy P. Basler, "The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln Vol 4." Rutgers University Press, 1953, p.254]

In that same statement you will notice that Lincoln also declared all forts and other buildings within the seceded states belonged to the Union, rather than the states of which they were a part of, including Fort Sumter, a tariff collection depot. Is there any reason to doubt why Lincoln attempted to re-supply Fort Sumter? Not according to this letter:

Capt. G. V. Fox Washington, D.C.
May 1, 1861
My dear Sir

"I sincerely regret that the failure of the late attempt to provision Fort-Sumpter, should be the source of any annoyance to you. The practicability of your plan was not, in fact, brought to a test. By reason of a gale, well known in advance to be possible, and not improbable, the tugs, an essential part of the plan, never reached the ground; while, by an accident, for which you were in no wise responsible, and possibly I, to some extent was, you were deprived of a war vessel with her men, which you deemed of great importance to the enterprise."

"I most cheerfully and truly declare that the failure of the undertaking has not lowered you a particle, while the qualities you developed in the effort, have greatly heightened you, in my estimation. For a daring and dangerous enterprize, of a similar character, you would, to-day, be the man, of all my acquaintances, whom I would select."

"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort-Sumpter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result."

Very truly your friend
A Lincoln

[Abraham Lincoln to Gustavus V. Fox, in Roy P. Basler, "The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln Vol 4." Rutgers University Press, 1953, pp.350-351]

The bottom line is, Lincoln manipulated events that caused the bloodiest war in American history.

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

>>OIFVeteran wrote: "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.."

That is grossly over-simplified. The chief cause of the secession was the election of the Plunderer-In-Chief, Abraham Lincoln, whose motive since the beginning of his political career in the early 1830's was the promotion of a high protective tariff, an internal improvement system, and a national bank, all requisites of a crony-capitalist. This is believed to be his first political speech:

"Fellow-Citizens: I presume you all know who I am. I am humble Abraham Lincoln. I have been solicited by many friends to become a candidate for the Legislature. My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance. I am in favor of a national bank. I am in favor of the internal improvement system, and a high protective tariff. These are my sentiments and political principles. If elected, I shall be thankful; if not it will be all the same."

[Announcement of His Candidacy for the State Legislature, about March 1, 1832, in Henry Clay Whitney, "Life and works of Abraham Lincoln Vol 03: Early Speeches." Current Literature Publishing Co., 1907, p.1]

That was consistently Lincoln's agenda.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: "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."
>>Joey wrote: "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."

Child.

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

>>Joey wrote: "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."

You are welcome to challenge my statements with your own facts, Joey. However, just as a reminder, temper-tantrums are not facts.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "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."
>>Joey wrote: "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."

Are you referring to Lincoln's attempt to permanently enshrine slavery within the Constitution via an Amendment; his support for the Fugitive Slave Law; or his many claims that the Constitution supported the right to own slaves? Just curious . . .

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "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? "
>>Joey wrote: "And yet less than seven years later Lincoln was murdered for proposing exactly that."

If Lincoln had not won HIS war, he and every one of his thugs would have been charged with war crimes. Are you familiar with this book?

"[H]ad the Confederates somehow won, had their victory put them in position to bring their chief opponents before some sort of tribunal, they would have found themselves justified (as victors generally do) in stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command for violation of the laws of war, specifically for waging war against noncombatants."

[Lee B. Kennett, "Marching Through Georgia: Story of Soldiers and Civilians During Sherman's Campaign." HarperCollins, 2001, p.286]

This one places the psychopath's, Sherman and Sheridan, into proper perspective:

"Lincoln's embracing of 'hard war' may have had consequences more far-reaching even than defeat of the South. Union general Philip Sheridan, in Germany to observe that empire's conquest of France in 1870, told Otto von Bismarck that defeated civilians "must be left nothing but their eyes to weep with over the war." The chancellor was said to have been shocked by the unsolicited advice. But the kind of warfare practiced by the Federal military during 1861-65 turned America-and arguably the whole world-back to a darker age. "It scarcely needs pointing out," wrote Richard M. Weaver, "that from the military policies of [William T.] Sherman and Sheridan there lies but an easy step to the total war of the Nazis, the greatest affront to Western civilization since its founding."'

"In war, as in peace," observed Weaver, "people remain civilized by acknowledging bounds beyond which they must not go." Echoing the words of Lee, Weaver understood no necessary contradiction in the term "Christian" as applied to the profession of arms. "The Christian soldier must seek the verdict of battle always remembering that there is a higher law by which he and his opponent will be judged, and which enjoins against fighting as the barbarian."

[Walter Brian Cisco, "War Crimes Against Southern Civilians." Pelican Publishing Company, 2008]

Weaver's quote about the Nazis came from here:

"It scarcely needs pointing out that from the military policies of Sherman and Sheridan there lies but an easy step to the total war of the Nazis, the greatest affront to Western civilization since its founding." [Curtis & Thompson, "The Southern Essays of Richard M. Weaver." Liberty Press, 1987, p.169]

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

Joey wrote: "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.' "

That is what Powell claimed, but the execution of Lincoln by Booth may have been a consolation prize. Are you familiar with the kidnapping plot?

"A series of meetings between the [Booth and Surratt] followed. These were highly vexatious. Booth attempted to draw information from Surratt without revealing his purpose. Surratt determined to give nothing away until he understood what Booth really wanted. Surratt still feared that he might be a spy. To Booth, at this point, Surratt was only a friend of Harbin's who was a friend of Mudd's who was a friend of Thompson's who was a friend of Queen's who was a friend of Martin's who was a friend of Kane's.

"Exasperated, Surratt finally exclaimed, 'You know well I am a Southern man. If you cannot trust me, we will separate.'

"His hand called, Booth could delay no longer. He spoke of the suffering of Southern soldiers in Northern prisons and of the critical need of the South for these men. He had an undertaking at hand that would lead to their exchange. These words were followed by a long and, it seemed to Surratt, an ominous pause.

"Well, sir, what is your proposition?" demanded Surratt, breaking the silence.

"Booth rose and looked under the bed, inside the wardrobe, out the door, and down the passage. 'We have to be careful. Walls have ears.' Drawing his chair close to Surratt, he whispered, 'It is to kidnap President Lincoln and carry him off to Richmond.'"

[Terry Alford, "Fortune’s Fool: the life of John Wilkes Booth." Oxford University Press, 2015, pp.205-206]

This is from a 1926 interview with an acquaintance of Booth named (I believe) Hannah Cook:

"'Father and a few of the neighbors and Booth blathered about the store stove and discussed the feasibility of removing Lincoln from the Presidency,' said Hannah in an interview given about 1926. 'His murder was not considered, but the kidnapping and removal to the Far South was tentatively agreed upon. There he was to be held for a king's ransom, all for the Southern cause.' When pressed for details about the abduction plot, Hannah demurred, 'Oh, well, the war is ended.'"

[Ibid. pp.208-209]

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Illinois did, after all, restrict the immigration of blacks into the state:"
>>Joey wrote: "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."

Why do I get the feeling you are trying to whitewash the sins of the North, Joey? It was obviously "impossible" to keep blacks out, but there may have been an alternate purpose for the legislations:

"Although seldom invoked, the anti-immigration laws reminded Negroes of their inferior position in society and provided whites with a convenient excuse for mob violence and frequent harassment of the Negro population. Perhaps the authors of such legislation had no more than this in mind. An Ohio legislative committee reported in 1838 that "it was never believed that the law would ever be complied with, nor was it intended by the makers that it ever should be. It's evident design was to drive this portion of our population into other states. It was an unrighteous attempt to accomplish, indirectly and covertly, what they would shrink from doing openly and frankly."

"Ohio provided a classic example of how anti-immigration legislation could be invoked to harass Negro residents. That state's restrictive statutes, enacted in 1804 and 1807 as part of the Black Laws, compelled Negroes entering the state to post a $500 bond guaranteeing their good behavior and to produce a court certificate as evidence of their freedom. No extensive effort was made to enforce the bond requirement until 1829, when the rapid increase of the Negro population alarmed Cincinnati. The city authorities announced that the Black Laws would be enforced and ordered Negroes to comply or leave within thirty days. The local Negro population promptly obtained a time extension, sent a delegation to Canada to find a suitable location for resettlement, and petitioned the legislature for repeal of "those obnoxious black laws."

"Impatient for results, white mobs roamed through Cincinnati's Negro quarters, spreading terror and destruction. Subsequently, the Negro delegation sent to Canada returned with a cordial invitation from the governor of Upper Canada. "Tell the Republicans on your side of the line," he declared, "that we royalists do not know men by their color. Should you come to us you will be entitled to all the privileges of the rest of His Majesty's subjects." An estimated 1,100 to 2,200 Negroes departed from the city, most of them apparently settling in Canada."

[Leon F. Litwack, "North of Slavery: The Negro in the Free States, 1790-1860." University of Chicago Press, 1965, pp.72-73]

The purpose of those laws could have been to maintain blacks as 2nd class citizens, Joey. It certainly kept most of them from voting:

"By 1840, some 93 per cent of the northern free Negro population lived in states which completely or practically excluded them from the right to vote. Only in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine could Negroes vote on an equal basis with whites. In New York, they could vote if they first met certain property and residence requirements. In New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut, they were completely disfranchised, after having once enjoyed the ballot…

"In addition to the dictates of political, economic, and social necessity, white manhood suffragists maintained that public opinion demanded color distinctions. A Pennsylvania constitutional convention delegate found, in passing through nearly half his state in 1837, "almost unanimous" opposition to Negro suffrage from members of both political parties. "There can be no mistaking public opinion on this subject," he declared. "The people of this state are for continuing this commonwealth, what it always has been, a political community of white persons."

[Ibid. pp.75, 77]

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "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."
>>Joey wrote: "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:

Do you have any hard evidence that Lincoln sought full citizenship for all blacks, or even suffrage? Lincoln was a white supremacist his entire life who believed the races should not mix; and there is no evidence, that I am aware of, that he ever changed his mind.

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

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

How so, Joey?

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

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

There were no Confederate military actions against the United States, Joey, until Lincoln committed acts of war against them.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "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."
>>Joey wrote: "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."

No, Joey. I know you want to believe that; but Lincoln provoked the war, and then performed the first acts of war, including acts of war against non-secessionist states, such as Maryland. Study the historical timeline.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Senator Toombs sounds furious, and rightly so!"
>>Joey wrote: "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."

That is deceptive baloney, Joey. You have been posting trash economics since early in in this thread. The 1846 tariff was acceptable to the South BECAUSE it eliminated the crony-capitalist item-by-item rates carved out by special interests:

"As president he delivered on his promise in 1846 when, under the guidance of Treasury Secretary Robert J. Walker, Congress adopted a comprehensive overhaul of the tariff system featuring a moderate downward revision of rates and, importantly, the standardization of tariff categories on a tiered ad valorem schedule.

"This final feature was intended to improve the transparency of the tariff system by consolidating the somewhat convoluted list of tariff items, itself the product of many decades of lobbying and the carving out of highly specialized categories as political favors for specific companies and industries. By converting the tariff from a system that relied primarily on itemized specific duties or individually assigned ad valorem rates to a formal tiered schedule of ad valorem categories in which tariffs were assessed as a percentage of the import's declared dollar value, Walker further limited the ability of special interests of all stripes to disguise tariff favoritism in units of volume and measurement—different tariff rates assessed by tons of iron, gallons of alcohol, yards of cord and so forth.

"The Walker reforms helped to stabilize many years of fluctuating tariff politics by instituting a moderately free trade Tariff-for-revenue system that lasted, subject to a further uniform reduction of rates in 1857, until the eve of the Civil War…

"Between December 1858 and March 1860, Morrill was inundated with letters from manufacturers and industrialists requesting favorable protective tariff rates against their foreign competitors. Many of these petitions were copied verbatim into the text of the tariff bill. The Morrill schedule also replaced the ad valorem schedule system of Walker with the reintroduction of item-by-item rates. The new schedule utilized an ad hoc mixture of individual ad valorem rates and specific duties, assessed by import units rather than volume, making its administration less transparent. While it is difficult to measure the full effect of the revisions given this change of assessment, Morrill's equivalent rates pushed most items well above the 1846 schedule and, in several instances, to near-parity with the Black Tariff levels of 1842."

[Phillip W. Magness, "Tariffs and the American Civil War." Essential Civil War Curriculum, 2017, pp.6,8]

This article includes a warning that the South might secede if the bill was passed:

"In February, 1861, the Senate was petitioned by the Chamber of Commerce of New York not to pass the Morrill Bill. It was argued that it would seriously affect commerce and the revenue, and that the growing sentiment for its repeal would deter manufacturers from erecting new mills and buying new machinery. An equally important objection was that the passage of the bill would widen the existing breach between the North and the South. It is well known that commercial and financial capital in the North was, on the whole, strongly opposed to Lincoln 's election. Merchants were apprehensive that it might result in cancellation of orders from the South, and bankers expected the repudiation of Southern debts amounting to over $200,000,000, if the South should secede."

[Richard Hofstadter, "The Tariff Issue on the Eve of the Civil War." American Historical Review, Vol.44, No.1; October, 1938, p.54]

This article is from one of the top Economic Journals:

"Constitutions are not repositories for the inconsequential. Indeed, constitutions are the paramount legal and political institutions in societies. A constitution contains a society's fundamental rules, specifying the constraints placed on governments and individuals that establish a society's incentive structure for the future. Constitutional rules are not to be taken lightly. The Confederacy's constitutional 'cap' on import tariffs was not explicit, however. Rather, the cap follows inescapably from juxtaposing a straightforward economist's perspective on the Confederate Constitution's tariff-enabling clause with the historical record. An intriguing by-product of this juxtaposition is the proposition that the 'tariff ' might have been even more important to the Confederacy's 'founding fathers' than historical economists currently acknowledge...

"The Morrill Tariff of 1861, which returned overall tariff protections to its 1846 level [actually, above,] is usually thought of as a Civil War finance measure. However, raising U.S. tariffs had been a paramount objective of the Republican party and their protectionist allies at least since the Panic of 1857 and was a key plank in the August 1860 Republican party platform. Moreover, the U.S. House of Representatives actually passed the Morrill tariff in its 1859-60 session, prior to the departure of southern congressmen from the House of Representatives. This vote took place on 10 May 1860, well before Lincoln's election, Confederate secession, and Lincoln's inauguration…

"The handwriting was on the wall for the South, and ultimately for the Confederacy, after the Panic of 1857. On the eve of secession and the Civil War, northern politicians overall wanted dramatically higher tariff rates; Southern politicians did not. The Confederates certainly had important reasons to attach constitutional significance to 'low' tariff rates…

"The last three decades of the antebellum period were marked by the objections of various Southerners to high tariffs, especially in South Carolina. Many Southerners perceived that high tariffs subsidized northern manufacturing at the expense of the South. Given the South's high demand for manufactured imports and sizable exports of raw materials circa 1860, it should not be surprising that on the eve of secession and the Civil War many southern (and consequently Confederate) interests supported low tariff rates. For the Confederacy to permit high tariffs constitutionally would raise the specter of the Confederacy voluntarily subsidizing northern manufacturing. Such a possibility is highly unlikely.

"Our objective, noted early on, has been to show that the constitutional expression of this Confederate preference for low tariffs effectively constrained its lawmakers to the lower end of the Laffer relationship. This we have demonstrated by joining a straightforward supply and demand perspective on the Confederate tariff clause with the historical record. Whether the Confederate framers knew of the Laffer relationship is not relevant; their behavior was consistent with it.

"The Confederacy's founding fathers obviously did not specify the exact tariff rates that defined the lower end of the Laffer relationship. Why should one expect the Confederate founders to have special insight on the exact shape of the relationship for various tariffs? Even if they had such insight, why would they put it in their constitution? What the Confederacy did do, however, is worthy of special notice. A de facto constitutional mandate that tariffs lie on the lower end of the Laffer relationship means that the Confederacy went beyond simply observing that a given tax revenue is obtainable with a 'high' and 'low' tax rate, à la Alexander Hamilton and others. Indeed, the constitutional action suggests that the tariff issue may in fact have been even more important in the North–South tensions that led to the Civil War than many economists and historians currently believe."

[Mcguire & Cott, "The Confederate Constitution, Tariffs, and the Laffer Relationship." Economic Inquiry, Vol.40, Iss.3; July, 2002, pp.428,435,437]

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Again, it was all about economics..."
>>Joey wrote: "Sure, the economics of slavery, but not just economics, also ethics, morality & laws related to slavery."

Childish ideologue.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "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."
>>Joey wrote: "Complete insane nonsense, proving yet again that nothing rational goes on between Kalamata's ears."

Childish ideologue wearing heavy-duty historical blinders.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: " 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:"
>>Joey wrote: "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."

The low-ball number of 200,000 was for that particular time, Joey, not for the entire war. Can you not at least provide a source for you incoherent hodgepodge?

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

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

As usual, Joey provides no source.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "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."

As usual, Joey approached this matter with the narrowest of narrow-minds. This is before the war:

"On the eve of the Civil War, even this toehold was at risk, an ominous fact not lost on the enemies of black freedom. James Gordon Bennett's Herald intoned the results of the 1860 federal census like a proslavery sermon. The marked decrease in New York's black population since mid-century, the fact that only 85 of the city's 10,000-plus blacks owned real estate, and the almost complete absence of blacks among the ranks of the city's artisans, were, in Bennett's rendering, incontrovertible evidence that "the true position of the negro in the United States is one of servitude" and that "as a slave" the African American was "happy and contested, as a freeman despised and contemned." Such diasporic conditions, and indeed, all of the trials of black life in New York, argued Bennett, were blacks' own fault, a necessary result of what he conceived of as blacks' innate inferiority and unfitness for freedom. It is no surprise that Bennett came to demand the reenslavement of all Northern blacks."

"Such arguments calculatedly ignored the extent to which black New Workers' plight stemmed from the vast power of white proslavery culture and the endless ridicule from arbiters of "respectable" opinion such as Bennett. In the proslavery campaign to demonize black culture, no weapon was more powerful than the increasingly fashionable "scientific racism" that maintained that African Americans were permanently and biologically inferior to white – indeed, a separate species more akin to apes and monkeys than humans in the scale of creation. Proslavery culture and scientific racism gave prestige and sanction to recently arrived Irish immigrants' efforts to drive blacks into the most unskilled and repugnant jobs. Ironically, before the draft riots, Democratic editors and orators raised the specter of brutalized black hordes flooding into New York City in the wake of emancipation to steal white jobs and violate white women when, in fact, the Irish had pushed blacks out of many trades, especially after the massive migration of the Great Irish Famine. Black New Yorkers had to contend both with the fact of their fragmented and waning physical presence in the city and with a grossly distorting proslavery racism that insisted that blacks' predicament was an inevitable result of their own alleged deficiencies."

[Berlin & Harris, "Slavery in New York." The New York Press, 2005, p.299]

Did you notice the introduction of Social Darwinism and the apes-to-man myth into the mix?

Frankly, Joey, I am becoming more and more convinced every day that Southern race relations were corrupted by the Northern Republican "reconstructionists" who brought their Northern "Black Codes" with them to the South. This doesn't mention them directly, but certainly implicates them. Notice how both black and white Southerners are getting along well into the century, to the astonishment of visiting Northerners:

"In writing of slavery under the old regime it is common for historians to draw distinctions between the treatment of slaves in the upper and older South and their lot in the lower South and the newer states. In the former their condition is generally said to have been better than it was in the latter. It is worth remarking an analagous distinction in the treatment of the race in the era of segregation. It is clear at least that the newer states were inclined to resort to Jim Crow laws earlier than the older commonwealths of the seaboard, and there is evidence that segregation and discrimination became generally practiced before they became law. Even so, there are a number of indications that segregation and ostracism were not nearly so harsh and rigid in the early years as they became later.

"In his study of conditions in Mississippi, Vernon Wharton reveals that for some years 'most of the saloons served whites and Negroes at the same bar. Many of the restaurants, using separate tables, served both races in the same room... On May 21, 1879, the Negroes of Jackson, after a parade of their fire company, gave a picnic in Hamilton Park. On the night of May 29, "the ladies of the [white] Episcopal Church" used Hamilton Park for a fete. After their picnic the Negroes went to Angelo's Hall for a dance. This same hall was used for white dances and parties, and was frequently the gathering place of Democratic conventions... Throughout the state, common cemeteries, usually in separate portions, held the graves of both whites and Negroes.' Wharton points out, however, that as early as 1890, segregation had closed in and the Negroes were by that date excluded from saloons, restaurants, parks, public halls, and white cemeteries.

"At the International Exposition in New Orleans in 1885 Charles Dudley Warner watched with some astonishment as 'white and colored people mingled freely, talking and looking at what was of common interest... On "Louisiana Day" in the Exposition the colored citizens,' he reported, 'took their full share of the parade and the honors. Their societies marched with the others, and the races mingled in the grounds in unconscious equality of privileges.' While he was in the city he also saw 'a colored clergyman in his surplice seated in the chancel of the most important white Episcopal church in New Orleans, assisting the service.'

"A frequent topic of comment by Northern visitors during the period was the intimacy of contact between the races in the South, an intimacy sometimes admitted to be distasteful to the [Yankee] visitor. Standard topics were the sight of white babies suckled at black breasts, white and colored children playing together, the casual proximity of white and Negro homes in the cities, the camaraderie of maidservant and mistress, employer and employee, customer and clerk, and the usual stories of cohabitation of white men and Negro women. The same sights and stories had once been favorite topics of comment for the carpetbaggers and before them of the abolitionists, both of whom also expressed puzzlement and sometimes revulsion. What the Northern traveler of the 'eighties sometimes took for signs of a new era of race relations was really a heritage of slavery times, or, more elementally, the result of two peoples having lived together intimately for a long time and learned to like and trust each other—whatever their formal relations were, whether those of master and slave, exploiter and exploited, or superior and inferior."

[C. Vann Woodward, "The Strange Career of Jim Crow." Oxford University Press, Rev Ed, 1957, pp.22-25]

I did not really understood the term "Damn Yankee" until I started studying Civil War history, Joey. I was living a very sheltered life.

Mr. Kalamata

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata to Bull Snipe: "I believe you are correct. Thanks for the info. . .”

jeffersondem: "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."

Among the inventory of standard lies Lost Causers bring to these threads is: "Lincoln signed the Corwin Amendment".
After being quickly corrected, this usually devolves to "Lincoln supported Corwin".
When it turns out he didn't support Corwin publicly, that devolves further to "Lincoln secretly supported Corwin."

And this final claim is based on just who's say-so?
Well, a young staffer who thought he heard somebody say something about Lincoln, so it must be true!
Sort of like that "whistleblower" against President Trump today.

The truth is that in December 1860 there were many such "compromise" proposals floating around, including a much stronger one protecting slavery, from Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis.
As often the case, Congress was desperate to "do something", anything that might save the situation.
Lincoln opposed all those proposals and so they all died in committee or elsewhere.

But Corwin had support from all Democrats and a few Republicans, notably NY Senator Seward, Lincoln's ally & future Secretary of State.
Historians think that at this point Seward was pretty much a loose cannon, acting on his own with or without Lincoln's knowledge.
What's certain is that Lincoln did not publicly oppose Corwin and Seward eventually rounded up a big enough minority of Republicans to join with Democrats and pass Corwin.
So Corwin passed mainly by Democrats and was signed by Democrat President Buchanan.

Why did Lincoln not oppose Corwin?
Because, he said in effect: it was pure eyewash, typical Congress trying to "do something" and in fact made no real change to slavery as it was then recognized.
And it might help keep some Border States from secession, which it did.
Corwin satisfied Unionist Democrats and RINO Republicans, especially in Border States which is where, in 1861, Lincoln thought the Union would be won or lost.

But it had no effect on Confederate states which already had much stronger protections of slavery written into their own constitution.

It's interesting to notice that among the Border States, Missouri & Delaware did not ratify Corwin while Kentucky (1861) & Maryland (1862) did.
Maryland then flipped and abolished slavery on its own, in 1864, while Kentucky refused to ratify the 13th Amendment until 1976!
Only Mississippi took longer.

[BroJoeK]

central_va: "I wonder what the Maryland Legislature would have thought about that."

DoodleDawg: "They were trying to take Maryland into rebellion against the U.S.
What should have happened to them? "

central_va: "Seems tome that Lincoln is not the only tyrant here."

The US Constitution is totally clear on the subject of treason:

Article 3, Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

In April 1861, after Fort Sumter, Maryland's legislature voted 53-13 against secession.
On May 6 Confederates formally declared war against the United States and thus, by definition, support for Confederates in Union states was treason.

After the Confederate declaration of war, Federal officials began to arrest those suspected of treason and pro-Confederates ever since have argued they acted unjustly.
But pro-Confederats make no such complaints against Jefferson Davis, who arrested proportionately as many pro-Union Confederate citizens as Lincoln arrested pro-Confederates.

Some even go so far as to claim, "it doesn't matter what Davis did, it only matters what Lincoln did."

That's how you can tell they're Democrats at heart, a form of mental illness.

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata: "Don't let Joey fool you: evolution is his religion, On the Origin of Species is his holy book, and Darwin is his prophet."

This, I think, might be what Kalamata calls a "counterpunch", a total smear which Kalamata himself knows is a total lie, but which he can justify in his own mind on grounds of "counterpunching".
That's the charitable explanation, probably more realistic is that he just doesn't care if it's true or not, but it just feeeeeeels sooooo gooooood to say it, nothing else matters.

But sticking with "counterpunch", to what do Kalamata's lies "counterpunch"?
Why to the truth, of course, the truth about Kalamata and his messed-up mind.
The truth is Kalamata's definition of "science" begins & ends with the term "Biblical science" -- in his mind whatever supports that is science, whatever doesn't isn't.
The truth is Kalamata's definition of "history" boils down to approximately this: the evil Enlightenment Age brought us Lincoln's tyranny over freedom loving Confederates and give us today's legal abortions and mandatory atheistic evolution in public schools.

Kalamata: "I asked Joey for evidence of evolution, and all he could deliver were highly-imaginative museum mockups based on highly-fragmented fossils.
The ENCODE Project Report of 2012 exposed the myth of Junk DNA that the evolutionist so heavily relied upon, so they are now desperately trying to keep the evolution myth alive."

And here we see on display Kalamata's denier tactics.
The truth is Kalamata will accept no evidence, period, which might conflict with his own ideas of "Biblical science".
As for so-called "junk DNA", from the beginning that term referred to roughly 90% of DNA found to be non-coding.
In more recent years other functions were found for some of the 90% and thus "junk" is not such a good term for it.
Indeed, large statistical studies suggest that some "junk" is influenced by evolution, all of which Kalamata uses to claim:

1. evolution scientists are liars and
2. evolution is bunk.

And because atheistic science is all lies, the real truth can be found in, yes, "Biblical science", says Kalamata.

Kalamata: "Scientists know there is no empirical evidence for evolution -- none; and more and more scientists are speaking out, despite a credible threat to their careers by the modern-day Inquisition of the evolutionism orthodoxy."

That's total nonsense, but here's what's true: there is in fact a serious anti-evolution industry supported most visibly by promoters like Ken Ham (Ark Encounter) and doubtless some conservative Universities.
They embrace such terms as "intelligent design" and "irreducible complexity", reject all conflicting evidence and they have worked out somewhat detailed explanations in order to reduce both the Earth's age and evolution's role.
Yes, some do admit evidence for an older Earth, but true believers like Ham & Kalamata reject all interpretations which add to their Biblical understanding of ~10,000 years.

Now every word of the above is true, but in response our FRiend Kalamata will "counterpunch" with a blast of lies, doubtless because it feeeels sooo goood, why bother to make the effort to be honest?

Kalamata: "Child."

As I was saying...

Kalamata: "The geological column is not fake evidence, Joey. "

Your "analysis" is totally fraudulent, your conclusions are pure religion.

Kalamata: "Again, I am a counter-puncher.
If you have contrary evidence, please present it."

In every post you "counter" nothing, instead you aggressively punch your anti-science, anti-history, anti-American agenda.
You argue, if arguments might work, otherwise you smear, insult & belittle when they don't.
That's not "counterpunch", that's just propaganda.

Kalamata: "Joey reminds me of the proverbial 'children in the marketplace.' "

As I was saying...

Kalamata: "I know you cannot provide any examples, Child.
For the rest of you, these are the kinds of scientific quotes from devout evolutionists that outrage (and scare the daylights out of) the evolutionism ideologues:"

As I was saying... here Kalamata first demanded I copy & paste his own quotes of Stephen Gould, then does his own homework and in the process proves my point: Kalamata uses Gould's discussion of evolution to argue against evolution.
Typical denier tactic.

[DoodleDawg]

This, I think, might be what Kalamata calls a "counterpunch", a total smear which Kalamata himself knows is a total lie, but which he can justify in his own mind on grounds of "counterpunching".

You cannot reason someone out of a position they were not reasoned into. Mr. Olive discounts most major branches of science because they conflict with his Biblical belief in creation and the accounts of a global flood and other incidents outlined in Genesis. That is his faith, he accepts it without question, and will dismiss anything that conflicts with it regardless of what evidence you may present.

[DoodleDawg]

I have read about the Lincoln rumour, but never mentioned it. However, I have noticed that the progressives love to cackle & crow about the Davis rumour.

I have never read an account of Lincoln being dressed as a woman during his trip through Baltimore from any historian. I have read accounts of Davis wrapping himself in a woman's shawl and people in his own party identifying him as a woman to the Union troops who arrived at his party's campsite.

[Who is John Galt?]

Why did Lincoln not oppose Corwin? Because, he said in effect: it was pure eyewash, typical Congress trying to "do something" and in fact made no real change to slavery as it was then recognized.

Please see my Post #148 (plus link in Post #152), for Mr. Lincoln's own proposal from December 1862...

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata to OIFVeteran: "That is undisputable revisionist history."

No, based on Confederate "Reasons for Secession" documents, the later revisionist claim is that secession was over something other than the threat to slavery represented by Lincoln's "Black Republicans".

Kalamata: "The South could have had a new Amendment (the 13th) protecting their slaves forever, it they had stayed in the Union.
But they knew that under Lincoln, and his Hamiltonian economic policies, their wealth would have been plundered, like it was in the 20's and 30's."

As OIFVeteran pointed out, Southern Fire Eaters threatened secession in 1856 if Republican John Fremont was elected president.
Fremont was defeated by Doughfaced Northern Democrat James Buchanan, who supported the Supreme Court's Dred Scott ruling.

In 1860 Fire Eaters again threatened, if Lincoln was elected, but this time they also sabotaged their own national Democrat party, splitting it and insuring Lincoln's minority victory.
In neither 1856 nor 1860 was the main issue tariffs, it was always slavery.

Were some Southerners concerned about tariffs?
Sure, a small number of Southern elites doubtless did worry about such things.
But the vast majority of Southerners, even in the Deep South, could not be persuaded to reject their own country over the difference between 20% and 25% tariffs on the price of raw materials for clothing.

Only slavery had the power to move a majority of voters, and even then the vote was quite close in Louisiana, Alabama and Georgia.
Even in 1861 a lot of Southerners weren't buying the nonsense pro-Confederates were selling.

Kalamata: "On the other hand, with perpetual free trade from their Southern ports, they would have flourished.
At the same time, the Northern manufactures that relied on protective tariffs would have "suffered" due to increased competition."

There was never a proposal in the Confederate Congress for "free trade".
In fact the first Confederate tariff was basically the old Union 1857 tariff, but redirecting the proceeds from Washington to Montgomery.
It was also proposed to collect tariffs on "imports" from Union states, expected to bring total Confederate tariff revenues to maybe $20 million per year.
This would compare to 1860 Union tariff revenues over $50 million per year.

In fact, Confederate tariff revenues totaled about $3 million ($Confederate) over four years.

Kalamata: "The United States went to war because Lincoln wanted to go to war, and he did everything he could think of to precipitate it."

The United States went to war because Jefferson Davis started it at Fort Sumter, then Confederates formally declared war on May 6, 1861.

Kalamata: "Lincolnites tend to forget that Lincoln promised war against any state that refused to collect tariffs for him:"

Indeed, Confederates at the time called Lincoln's First Inaugural a "declaration of war", but it wasn't.
It simply informed them that Lincoln would carry out his oath of office by repossessing the seized forts and collecting tariffs.
Lincoln did not "ask states to collect tariffs for him".
The decision for war was Jefferson Davis', and he made it.

Kalamata: "In that same statement you will notice that Lincoln also declared all forts and other buildings within the seceded states belonged to the Union, rather than the states of which they were a part of, including Fort Sumter, a tariff collection depot."

And still another lie straight from the Lost Causers' inventory.
No tariffs were collected at Fort Sumter.
In 1860 Charleston harbor contributed roughly one half of one percent of all Federal tariff revenues.
This is precisely the reason that Lost Causers like DiogenesLamp have concocted their ridiculous "money flows from Europe" and "northeaster power brokers" conspiracy theory -- because there were effectively no tariffs collected at Charleston, SC, it sort of mocks their "tariff theory of secession".
So they have to retreat to ever more obscure and fanciful explanations for why majorities of Southern voters agreed to secession.

Kalamata: "Is there any reason to doubt why Lincoln attempted to re-supply Fort Sumter?
Not according to this letter:"

Lincoln's letter to Fox expresses his sincere regret at the failure of Fox's mission, but he offers as consolation the fact that, as they expected, even in failure "the cause of the country" was advanced.
Fort Sumter had the same effect on Americans as December 7 and September 11.

Kalamata: "The bottom line is, Lincoln manipulated events that caused the bloodiest war in American history."

The bottom line is that Jefferson Davis provoked, started, formally declared and waged the bloodiest war in American history.
And from Day One, Davis called it "a war of extermination on both sides."

Kalamata: "That is grossly over-simplified.
The chief cause of the secession was the election of the Plunderer-In-Chief, Abraham Lincoln, whose motive since the beginning of his political career in the early 1830's was the promotion of a high protective tariff, an internal improvement system, and a national bank, all requisites of a crony-capitalist."

Talk about "oversimplified" -- all of that was just "politics as usual", none of it ever caused serious threats of secession, compromises were always reached and life went on as before.
What changed in 1860 was the election of Lincoln's "Black Republicans" who many Southerners saw as an existential threat to their own "domestic institutions" and "way of life".
Those terms referred to slavey, not tariffs or infrastructure.

[Kalamata]

>>Joey wrote: “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”?”

Don’t rule out him being a Michigan State fan. Of course, he could simply like Greek Olives.

Child.

Mr. Kalamata