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.

[jdsteel]

Exactly that. But they were successful in splitting from the King of England.

You think it’s all the same?

[jdsteel]

I have heard many times that there was not one Whig or Republican slave owner owned slaves at the time of the Civil War.

Since I know how to use a search engine I found many sources to confirm that.

.

[OIFVeteran]

Wrong.

From representatives at the Virginia secession convention.

“Sir, the great question which is now uprooting this Government to its foundation - the great question which underlies all our deliberations here, is the question of African slavery...”

-—Thomas F. Goode, delegate from Mecklenburg County to Virginia’s Secession Convention, 1861

...But, sir, the great cause of complaint now is the slavery question, and the questions growing out of it. If there is any other cause of complaint which has been influential in any quarter, to bring about the crisis which is now upon us; if any State or any people have made the troubles growing out of this question, a pretext for agitation instead of a cause of honest complaint, Virginia can have no sympathy whatever, in any such feeling, in any such policy, in any such attempt. It is the slavery question. Is it not so?”

-—John B. Baldwin, delegate from Augusta County to the Virginia Secession Convention, 1861

From Virginia’s Ordinance of Secession-

The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention, on the 25th day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eight-eight, having declared that the powers granted them under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression, and the Federal Government having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slaveholding States.

Yet you, and the rest of the lost causers on these threads, refuse to accept the secessionists own words about why they seceded. Why? Because you know in your heart that a rebellion to defend slavery is immoral and wrong.

[jeffersondem]

“I have heard many times that there was not one Whig or Republican slave owner owned slaves at the time of the Civil War. Since I know how to use a search engine I found many sources to confirm that.”

When you get a better engine, search Benjamin Burton, Republican, Delaware. Slaveowner.

[eartick]

Who the eff said that republicans did not own slaves.

[jdsteel]

You’re saying they did?

Prove it.

[jdsteel]

When YOU get a better search engine find whether Delaware was a SOUTHERN state or not.

Context man.

[jeffersondem]

“Who the eff said that republicans did not own slaves.”

See posts 475 and 502.

[jeffersondem]

“When YOU get a better search engine find whether Delaware was a SOUTHERN state or not.”

You are moving the goalpost. It is not disputed that there were slaves in both the South and the North.

Your original point - well let’s look at your own words: “I have heard many times that there was not one Whig or Republican slave owner owned slaves at the time of the Civil War. Since I know how to use a search engine I found many sources to confirm that.”

So you made a mistake. No big deal. I’m not saying you are a bad person.

[DiogenesLamp]

You think it’s all the same?

What part is different? The United Kingdom was a Union. The Founders were all slave holders. The Founders formed a Confederacy. The Union officers offered Freedom for any slave that would join them to fight against the Rebels.

In both cases, the Rebel Armies were led by a slave owning General from Virginia.

The main difference is that King George III was not as fanatical or as willing to shed so much blood as was Lincoln.

[DiogenesLamp]

So on the one hand you use the statements actually issued by secession conventions, but in the case of Virginia, you let cherry picked individuals speak for the whole State.

Virginia issued a secession statement, and it clearly articulates that their reason for leaving is the tyrannical nature of raising an army to compel states to obey the central government.

And i'm ignoring your attempts to twist a reference to "Slave Holding States" into an articulation of secession over slavery. Again, Slavery was legal in the Union, and would have remained so with or without secession.

Attempts to drag the issue back to slavery are post hoc justifications for invading states and killing people who only wanted to be free of what they came to regard as an oppressive government which no longer served their interests.

Also, the Secessionists do not have to justify wanting out. The people who have to justify what they did are the ones who started the killing in order to force people to remain under their control.

The North invaded the South. The North did not do this because of slavery. The North did this to impose economic *CONTROL* on the South.

The North invaded to protect the pockets of wealthy and powerful businessmen that backed Lincoln and colluded with every corruptocrat in Washington DC.

Then they made up a bunch of bullsh*t about doing it because of "slavery."

They did it over money, not slavery. They didn't give a f*** about slavery, but they cared deeply about losing money as a result of Southern independence.

[Kalamata]

>>OIFVeteran wrote: "Another thing I discovered is the reason that no one was tried for treason. I thought it was because of Lincoln's "let them up easy policy." It was not. The following letter explains why they did not try Jefferson Davis."
>>OIFVeteran quoting Richard Henry Dana: "As the Constitution in terms settles the fact that our republic is a state against which treason may be committed, the only constitutional question attending the late war was whether a levying of war against the United States which would otherwise be treason, is relieved of that character by the fact that it took the form of secession from the Union by state authority. In other words the legal issue was, whether secession by a State is a right, making an act legal and obligatory upon the nation which would otherwise have been treason of original jurisdiction".
>>OIFVeteran quoting: "Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will."

The constitution is clear that secession is a retained power in that there is no defined authority to suppress it. The constitution is also clear that the use of central government force to present secession is treason. Redefining secession as "rebellion" or "insurrection" makes the suppression any less treasonous.

The Lincoln gang committed treason when he declared martial law in Maryland, and prevented it from from seceding using federal troops.

Once it is understood that the entire constitution resides in Article I, Section 4, the interpretation becomes less cloudy. These are the clauses under which Lincoln committed treason:

"Article I, 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."

"Article I, Section 4: Republican government: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

[Constitution of the United States and Amendments." 1787]

The only way to settle that issue constitutionally is to revisit the debates leading up to Constitution, as Jefferson recommended, and conform to the interpretations at the time it was passed -- a concept that has been enshrined into law by all but the power-hungry and their groupies. This is Jefferson:

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

[To Justice William Johnson, 1823, Monticello, June 12, 1823, in Thomas Jefferson, "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson Vol 15." Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903, p.449]

The alternative method of settling the issue is with the barrel of the gun – the method of choice by the power-hungry tyrant.

This is the "Father of the Constitution," James Madison, on secession:

"On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a national, but a federal act.

"That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution."

[James Madison, Federalist No. 39, in Bailey, Bill, "The Complete Federalist Papers." The New Federalist Papers Project, p.178]

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

[Ibid. Federalist No. 45, pp.214-215]

So, according to Madison, the states retain sovereign power, and are bound to the Union only by a voluntary act. However, the general government is given a power to tax. If a state believes the tax system is over-burdensome, or unequally distributed, it is within the power of that state, and is even their duty, to secede. Without that power, and the exercise of that power, there is no check on the power of the central government. The federal government will have, by default, the power do anything it pleases in all cases whatsoever, rendering the Constitution null and void. I trust Jesus Christ with that kind of power, but no one else.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>DoodleDawg wrote: “Mr. Olive discounts most major branches of science because they conflict with his Biblical belief in creation...”
>>Joey wrote: “Right, and I have no problems with that — I live out in the country and most of my neighbors share such beliefs. But there is a clear distinction to be recognized. It’s this: the faith of my neighbors tells them the Bible is right and modern evolution-related science is wrong.”

It my case it turned out to be the other way around. I was an evolutionist for most of my life, until I was exposed to scientific data that demonstrated the accuracy of the biblical narrative on the flood. It was quite a revelation.

****************
>>Joey wrote: “But our FRiend, Olive-boy, goes the next step beyond and redefines his terms, claiming now that the Bible is science and modern science is just a religion. None of my neighbors, so far as I’ve ever heard, would say such a thing.”

I have never said modern science is a religion, Joey. The pseudoscience of evolution is a faith-based religion — no doubt! But science is not a religion.

****************
>>Joey wrote: “My own beliefs are the more obvious ones: when God spoke to ancient Israelites he spoke in their language using words & ideas they could understand. He didn’t try to explain the secrets of science to them because that was irrelevant. What they needed to understand, first & foremost, is the same thing we need: that God created the natural realm and rules over it. So, if science now discovers another natural process, that doesn’t a whit diminish God’s role, it only shows us His creative genius in making even inanimate objects capable of doing amazing things.
FWIW.”

That is best characterized as, pseudohistory meets pseudoscience.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: “Joey doesn’t understand science. He only knows that we are not allowed to criticize either of his prophets: Abraham Lincoln, the racist; or Charlie Darwin, the father of modern racism. [Joey seems to have an inordinate affection for racists?]”
>>Joey wrote: “Again, an example of Olive-boy’s “counterpunching” — he counters the truth about himself with lies about me.”

When Joey cannot find any facts to support his assertions, and he cannot think of a clever comeback, he resorts to sand-box tactics.

****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “For the rest of you, the decay rate of Uranium 235 is constant (the best we can tell.)”
>>Joey wrote: “Here our FRiend deliberately obscures the truth about himself in order to appear less than totally insane. But the real truth is this: his parenthetic “(as best we can tell)” hides the fact that Kalamata believes radiometric decay was only constant during the very brief historical period when we can measure it. Before that he believes: God set all the radiometric clocks around 10,000 years ago.”

Joey cannot seem to grasp the concept of ‘Daughter Elements’.

****************
>>Joey wrote: “So, notice, in order to maintain his beliefs in “Biblical science” Kalamata must deny not only evolution, but also basic physics.”

Joey doesn’t understand physics, either. The existence of our universe, not to mention the existence of life itself, defies the basic laws of physics. The only solution is special creation using laws we cannot comprehend.

For the record, there is no such thing as evolution: not in observable science, not in the laboratory, and not in the fossil record.

****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “Joey is (finally) correct. Scientifically, the orthodox theories of redshifts cannot be proven. We have no idea how the redshifts were formed, nor if they mean anything, nor if they even exist (that is, the observations may be the result of interference by interstellar matter, which means, “no expansion”.)”
>>Joey wrote: “Right, again, Kalamata denies not just evolution, but any science, including astronomy, which suggests a Universe older than ~10,000 years.”

Get a grip, Joey? I never deny science: only pseudoscience, such as evolutionism and big-bangism. LOL!

****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “Due to modern discoveries of quantized red-shifts and the fine-tuning of the universe, only a scientific illiterate, like Joey, or a die-hard atheist (but I repeat myself) would discount the possibility of the universe being designed.”
>>Joey wrote: “And here again Kalamata demonstrates that he just can’t make his arguments without lying. Of course the Universe was designed intelligently, by God, and Olive-boy well knows that’s my belief, but keeps lying about it, and for what purpose?

So, you do believe in Intelligent Design.

****************
>>Joey wrote: “Obviously in order to obscure the fact that what Kalamata advocates is not just that God created the Universe, but that He did it according to Kalamata’s unique interpretations of Biblical scripture, ~10,000 years ago.”

It is strictly a science thing. The geological column shows clear evidence of a global flood

****************
>>Joey wrote: “The truth is my beliefs, so far as I can tell, are identical with those taught by most mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic & other traditional churches, which go by the technical name of “theistic evolutionism” meaning, in a nutshell: whatever science now discovers was first created by God.”

I was a theistic evolutionist, until my eyes were opened by scientific data.

****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “BTW, Joey, there was another recent article by a team of evolutionary geneticists that pounded another nail into the coffin of the evolutionism “goto-boy” called Junk DNA. These are a few excerpts from the article:”
>>Joey wrote: “And so yet again with his denier tactics, turning a discussion about technicalities with in evolution”into Kalamata’s argument against evolution. >>Joey quoting: Here, from the Nature article, for example:
>>Joey quoting Nature: “At least 15% of pseudogenes are transcriptionally active across three phyla, many of which are proximal to conserved regulatory regions. It is estimated that at least new human-specific protein-coding genes were formed by retrotransposition since the divergence from other primates.”
>>Joey wrote: “Notice that in his own quote from Nature there is no argument against evolution, but still Danny uses science’s words to deny science”

Joey cannot tell the difference between scientific data, and an obligatory kiss of Darwin’s ring. A scientist must be able to rightly-divide the data from the ideology, or he will be in the dark as much as Joey.

****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “Your religious prophets of Darwin and Lincoln have been taking a beating lately, Joey.”
>>Joey wrote: “And yet another Kalamata denier tactic: when you’ve been pushed back and defeated on every front, like a football team sacked in its own endzone, then get up and declare victory, do your little victory dances and pretend to be the real winner.”

Child.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: “It appears I joined a little before you, Joey.”
>>Joey wrote: “I didn’t say when I joined, but I promise you that unless you were in the military when President Truman desegregated it in 1948, your memories of military life don’t go back further than mine, Olive-boy.

That puts you at least in your 80’s Joey; perhaps the 90’s. Hang in there, Geezer.

****************
>>Joey wrote: “I’ll repeat: from the Civil War on the US military was always less racist than the hometowns of most enlistees.”

I would like to see your data.

****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “I don’t recall anyone criticizing Lincoln while I served. I didn’t learn the truth about him until this century.”
>>Joey wrote: “So, it turns out you don’t claim that many serving marines were fellow Lincoln-loathers, just some after they retired?”

When did you quit beating your wife?

****************
>>Joey wrote: “And you also claim that having never learned to loathe Lincoln as a child, a man late-in-life can suddenly become insanely obsessed with him? I don’t believe it.”

I realize this is a hard concept for you, Joey, but some people do not run away from the truth when confronted with it.

****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “It appears Joey is confusing our western heritage, created by Christians, with Lincoln, who tried to destroy it”
>>Joey wrote: “Nonsense, Lincoln like Washington is part of our heritage. He tried to destroy nothing except slavery.”

He didn’t give a rat’s behind about slavery.

****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “It was the power of Christianity, and the belief in the doctrine of limited government, that helped us partially crawl out the crony-capitalist hell that Lincoln pushed us into (do you recall the warning of Eisenhower?) “
>>Joey wrote: “In 1961 he warned about a “military-industrial complex”, not “crony capitalism”.”

LOL! Someone needs to get Joey up-to-speed on the definition of crony capitalism. He won’t listen to me — not since I mocked his religion of evolutionism.

Joey, many cronies will kill if someone stands between them and the source of their political pork. Trump, appropriately, labels them gangsters.

****************
>>Joey wrote: “After Eisenhower military spending fell from 10% to ~5% in 1980, Reagan increased it to ~7% by 1984. After Reagan the military fell to 3% under Clinton, rose to 5% for the War on Terror and then back to 3% under Obama. President Trump has increased the military back to ~4%, just over half of Reagan’s but nearly 1/3 more than Clinton & Obama. At the same time that military spending was cut in half, then in half again, domestic social spending such as Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” exploded. Bottom line: while President Eisenhower in 1961 did warn of a “military-industrial complex”, he had already reduced it by 1/3 and future administrations would further reduce it by 1/2 and then 1/2 yet again, until defense was barely 3% of GDP. And no president has talked about “crony capitalism” except in context as defined by law of illegal activities such as bribes & kickbacks. Indeed, one reason Republicans got elected in 1860 was their promise to end 60 years of previous Democrat government corruption and misspending. So your claims that “crony capitalism” was somehow invented by Lincoln and that Trump will somehow strike a blow against it are... well, bizarre.”

More irrelevant statistics. My point is, cronyism was reasonably in check by threats of nullification and secession, until Lincoln’s war against the states destroyed state sovereignty. Just sayin’ . . .

****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “I served honorably, Joey (and I used every dollar of my G. I. Bill, and then some.)”
>>Joey wrote: “Me too.”

****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “Have you ever noticed that Joey’s arguments are riddled with sanctimony?”
Have you ever noticed that Olive-boy’s arguments are full of personal insults, mockery & belittlements? In fact, that’s about all he’s really got.”

Child.

Mr. Kalamata

[BroJoeK]

OIFVeteran: "That’s a serious accusation that needs answered.
Are you s Michigan fan? And Go Buckeyes."

LOL!
I was at Penn State Rip Engle's last year, a losing season.
The next year was Joe Paterno's first and, iirc, he never had a losing season.
Paterno lost to Ohio State in 1975 & 76, beat them in 1978 & 80, but since then Ohio State has the better record by... ahem... a lot. :-(
Against the Spartans, my Lions have done a little better, winning four straight from 1993-1996 and winning 10 of 17 since 2000.
So, I don't want to say that word... ahem... "nemesis", but yeh, Buckeyes are tough nuts for lions to crack. :-)

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: "Joey cannot let a day pass without cluttering up a thread with sanctimonious foolishness."
>>Joey wrote: "Typical Democrat, accuses his opponent of the very thing he's most guilty of. In Kalamata's case, his term "Biblical science" pretty much defines "sanctimony"."

That is one of the nicest things a hard-left progressive has ever said about me, Joey.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Even devout Lincoln apologists, like the late Cornell History Professor, Clinton Rossiter, admit to that historical fact:" {quoting Rossiter, 1948} "For if Lincoln was a great dictator, he was a greater democrat… This amazing disregard for the words of the Constitution, though considered by many as unavoidable, was considered by nobody as legal."
>>Joey wrote: "I'd call that complete 100% bunk, just lunatics babbling nonsense."

Rossiter was a pretty reliable Lincoln fanatic, Joey; but I have noticed that he occasionally committed an act of 'history.' Professor James Randall was also guilty of committing an act of 'history,' as follows:

"In referring to his proclamation of May 4, 1861, calling for enlistments in the regular army far beyond the existing legal limits, Lincoln himself frankly admitted that he had overstepped his authority. It was such acts as these that gave rise to the charge of "military dictatorship," and this charge seemed to gain weight from the President's deliberate postponement of the special session of Congress until July 4, though the call for such session was issued on April 15. The alleged "unconstitutionality" of this conduct of President Lincoln was urged as a leading argument by those who contended that the whole process by which the "war" began was illegal… War, it was argued, must begin with a declaration; Congress alone has the power of declaring war; the President's power of suppressing an insurrection is not tantamount to the war power; and his right to promulgate a blockade order becomes valid only after war has become a legal fact through a congressional declaration. War, therefore, did not lawfully exist, it was said, when these early captures were made; hence there could be no valid blockade and no prize jurisdiction in the Federal courts."

[Randall, James G., "Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln." D. Appleton & Company, 1926, pp.52-53]

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "In fact Lincoln followed laws (i.e, the 1807 Insurrection Act), precedent (military opposition to the Whiskey Rebellion), and the Constitution (revoking Habeas Corpus) wherever he could. And Congress at the time reviewed and approved any actions said to be controversial. What the good Cornell Democrat professor is really doing here is simply trying to use Lincoln's example to help justify his own party's power-grabs before and during the Second World War."

No objective historian would claim Lincoln's actions were legal, Joey.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Joey has a difficult time staying on topic, which is, "was Lincoln a tyrant?" This is also from a Lincoln apologist:"
>>Joey wrote: "Right, like other pro-Confederates Olive-boy wants to claim, "it doesn't matter what good-Davis did, it only matters what evil-Lincoln did."

Davis would be only a tiny blip in history, if not for Lincoln's treachery.

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

>>Joey wrote: "The fact is that our Lost Causers are tickled & delighted to accept the beams in their own eyes if they can just search out a little splinter in evil-Lincoln's. Sorry, but that level of loathing is just pathological."

I know what a 'Burner and Plunderer' is, Joey; but what is a Lost Causer?

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

>>Kalamata wrote: quoting "[Donald, David Herbert, "Why the North Won the Civil War." Collier Books, 1962, pp.86-87]" "At least 15,000 civilians were imprisoned in the North for alleged disloyalty or sedition."
>>What this 1962 author doesn't acknowledge in Olive-boy's quote is that Jefferson Davis arrested an equal number of Southerners, and also held them without Habeas Corpus. He also does not acknowledge that Lincoln's use of the Constitution's Habeas Corpus clause began while Congress was out of session, and that Congress took up the issue when it came back a few weeks later. After much debate, Congress authorized what Lincoln was doing."

You just admitted to Lincoln's tyranny (highlighted.) How careless of you, old man?

Professor Donald also made this statement which seems to contradict your assertion about Davis:

"It is true that in January, 1862, the Confederate Congress did pass a law forbidding the publication of unauthorized news of troop movements, but even this slight regulation was bitterly protested and flagrantly ignored. No Southern newspaper was ever suppressed by the Confederate government for its opinions, however critical or demoralizing. The ardent wish of Secretary of War George W. Randolph was realized: that "this revolution may be... closed without suppression of one single newspaper in the Confederate States." More significant militarily was the Confederacy's insistence upon maintaining the cherished legal rights of freedom from arbitrary arrest and upon preserving due process of law. This sentiment was so strong that, though the Confederacy was invaded and Richmond was actually endangered, President Davis did not dare institute martial law until he had received the permission of his Congress. While General George B. McClellan was about to assault the Confederate capital in 1862, the Southern Congress debated the question and concluded that their President was "subject to the Constitution and to the laws enacted by Congress in pursuance of the Constitution. He can exert no power inconsistent with law, and, therefore, he cannot declare martial law." Grudgingly Congress permitted Davis to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus for three brief periods—once when McClellan was within sight of Richmond, again during the Fredericksburg- Chancellorsville threat, and once more when Grant was pushing through the Wilderness. Even then he was allowed to suspend the writ only in limited areas, not throughout the Confederacy. When he came to Congress for a renewal of his authority during the grim winter of 1864-1865, he was refused, lest too much power in the hands of a dictatorial president curb the democratic rights of the people."

[Donald, David Herbert, "Why the North Won the Civil War." Collier Books, 1962, p.85]

The devout Lincolnite, James Randall, was less likely to commit an act of 'history;' but even he could not ignore the difference between Davis's lawful acts and Lincoln's usurpations:

"Davis overlooked the suppression of civil liberties in parts of the Confederacy, especially East Tennessee, where several hundred Unionists languished in Southern 'Bastilles.' Five days after Davis's inaugural address, Congress authorized him to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in areas that were in 'danger of attack by the enemy.' Davis promptly declared martial law in several places, including Richmond. Provost marshals enforced a requirement of passes for travel, banned sales of liquor, and jailed several 'disloyal' citizens, including two women and John Minor Botts, a prominent Virginia Unionist and former United States congressman. At the same time, however, Davis did curb the excessive enforcement of such measures by some of his generals who commanded military departments. And unlike Lincoln, who suspended the writ on his own authority, Davis acted only when Congress authorized him to do so—for a total of seventeen months on three different occasions during the war. Nevertheless, the leading historian of civil liberties during the Civil War, Mark Neely, has found records of four thousand political prisoners in the Confederacy. The records are incomplete, and there were surely several thousand more. 'Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis acted alike as commanders in chief when it came to the rights of the civilian populace,' Neely concluded. 'Both showed little sincere interest in constitutional restrictions on government authority in wartime. Both were obsessed with winning the war.'"

[James M. McPherson, "Embattled Rebel: Jefferson Davis as Commander in Chief." Penguin Press, 2014, Chap.2]

"Historians could not help but notice the differences in Confederate and Union ideologies and policies—the Union restricting liberty from the earliest moment to the very end of the war, while the Confederacy made a great point of its maintenance of civilian rights in the midst of war almost to the very end. Dwelling more on what the presidents said than what they did, historians assumed that Confederates valued white civil liberties more than Northerners did and that Confederate leaders had more reverence for the constitution." [Mark E. Neely Jr., "Southern Rights: political prisoners and the myth of Confederate constitutionalism." University Press of Virgiinia, 1999, pp.166-167]

Imagine that? Davis was the good guy?

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "No where in the constitution, the constitutional convention debates, supreme court rulings -- no where is power authorized to the executive to suspend habeas corpus. It is far too dangerous a power to give to a single individual, as about a million people later found out -- those who were killed or had their lives destroyed in Lincoln's War. So, was Lincoln a tyrant? The crystal clear answer is, YES!"
>>Joey wrote: "In fact the US Constitution (and the Confederate constitution) does authorize restricting Habeas Corpus under exactly the conditions Lincoln suffered."

Only the Congress is authorized that power, Joey.

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

>>Joey wrote: "Sure, it's a legal question of whether, in emergencies, the President can do that on his own, but in 1861 Congress took up the question and eventually authorized what Lincoln was doing. And no Supreme Court ruling ever found Lincoln in the wrong."

The Republican Congress usurped the constitution when it rubber-stamped Lincoln's tyranny, Joey. Further, no Supreme Court has recognized the power over habeas corpus belonging to anyone, but the Congress, Joey.

Chief Justice Taney issued an opinion that Lincoln's suspension was unconstitutional, citing John Marshall and Joseph Story, and had it delivered to Lincoln. Lincoln ignored it.

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

>>Joey wrote: "The real truth here is that if we define Lincoln as "tyrannical", then Jefferson Davis was equally tyrannical and so this whole exercise is just, yet again, Democrats criticizing the splinter in Lincoln's eye while ignoring the beams in their own."

You don't know what you are talking about.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: “Lincoln was a crony-socialist, Joey, as was Buchanan.”
>>DiogenesLamp wrote: “I have only learned of this thing we now call “Crony Capitalism” in the last decade or so. Prior to that, I had no inkling that there was in fact collusion between powerful government officials and powerful wealthy men of business.”

The powerful in the Whig Party, such as Clay and Webster, were unabashed crony capitalists. Lincoln’s hero was Clay.

****************
>>DiogenesLamp wrote: “Once I learned of it, and the Obama administration (that other race obsessed Liberal Lawyer President from Illinois) was a very good lesson on the subject, I started seeing evidence of it throughout history, and especially in the run up to the Civil War.

LOL! Once you see it, you cannot un-see it.

****************
>>DiogenesLamp wrote: “The subsequent corruption of the Grant Administration and the widespread corruption during the “Gilded Age”, demonstrates that Lincoln was greatly responsible for expanding this back door influence selling scheme between government and business.”

The so-called “reconstruction” helped root-out any serious opposition to the cronyism. The remainder of the century was pure plunder by the “republicans.”

****************
>>DiogenesLamp wrote: “This thing that came to resemble what we later know as Nazism.”

Exactly. Obama is a devout fascist, relying on the legacy of Lincoln’s consolidation of power to implement his destructive policies. Does anyone know in whose pockets Obama’s $10 trillion in debt ended up?

Mr. Kalamata

[BroJoeK]

jdsteel: "I have heard many times that there was not one Whig or Republican slave owner owned slaves at the time of the Civil War."

jeffersondem: "When you get a better engine, search Benjamin Burton, Republican, Delaware. Slaveowner."

In 1860 Delaware had fewer slaves per capita than any other slave state, and Burton with 28 was said to be the state's largest slaveholder.
In 1862 he met with Lincoln to negotiate compensated gradual emancipation, similar to but more generous than abolition in Washington, DC.
Lincoln had great hopes for the abolition plan he negotiated with Burton, it could set the example for other Border slave-states.

But Burton's plan was defeated in Delaware's legislature, twice, both times by one vote.
So, yes, Burton was a slaveholder himself, but also active in the abolition movement.

As for which party did 1860 secessionists belong to, Green are Breckenridge Democrats, Brown are John Bell's Constitutional Unionists.
Democrats were, of course, the party of slavery, while Constitutional Unionists were strongest in areas with fewer slaves or stronger commercial ties to the North.
As their party name suggests, Constitutional Unionists opposed secession in early 1861.

[Kalamata]

OIFVeteran wrote: “I’m continuously amazed that you lost causers refuse to believe what the secessionist themselves said.”

I am continuously amazed that the Plunderers-and-Burners refuse to believe everything Lincoln said.

Mr. Kalamata