On this date in 1864 President Lincoln receives a Christmas gift.

DoodleDawg to jeffersondem: "Paragraphs are your friend."

Typically, when jeffersondem launches his most aggressive attacks on my posts, he begins by posting my words, but deleting all line & paragraph breaks.
That allows him to simply tack on a pithy punchline at the end and be done.

.

>>OIFVeteran wrote: “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.”

Still cherry-picking?

The oppression of the Slaveholding States by the Northern States is not news. That oppression was the chief cause of the secession, and that oppression was economic. Once you understand that a slave was a form of capital equipment to the slave-holder, everything begins to makes more sense.

It doesn’t hurt to understand that Lincoln, like Clay, despised and denigrated abolitionists.

Mr. Kalamata

Well said. AND it is true today, the north would starve if it was not for the Southern and midwest States. The north are takers, they are not givers in the final tally.

Do you have a link. I wish I could read the key off of your image but cannot.

Kalamata: BJK from post #439: "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: "Lincoln promised in his First Inaugural to protect slavery in the slave states, Joey.
Are you insinuating Lincoln was a liar?"

First, notice Kalamata's denial tactic here.
Rather than address the point he is clearly wrong about, he instead goes on the attack against Lincoln.

Second, Lincoln kept his promises regarding slavery in states loyal to the Union, even if as in Missouri & Kentucky, the Confederacy also claimed them.

Third, it's indisputable that the major focus of those first "Reasons for Secession" documents, documents written before Lincoln's inauguration, their focus was slavery, for the simple reason that no other grievance was powerful enough to convince a majority of Southern voters to support disunion.

Kalamata: "The most serious threats to secession in pre-Lincoln America, if I recall correctly, were the 1824 tariff by Henry "Slave-Master" Clay, and the 1814-1815 Hartford Convention of New England states that was precipitated by the War of 1812."

Well... there were many more threats of rebellion, insurrection, secession & treason, including:

1787 Shay's Rebellion in Massachusetts helped precipitate the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
The forces which defeated Shay's rebels were lead by Continental Army General Benjamin Lincoln.
Many rebels were tried & convicted, most pardoned, two hanged.
1792 Whiskey Rebellion in western Pennsylvania put down when President Washington raised an army to defeat it.
Those arrested & convicted were later pardoned by President Washington.
1798 Quasi-War against France, US fears of treason lead to Alien & Sedition Acts under President Adams, originally supported even by Thomas Jefferson, who later used them to imprison his political opponents.
1799 Fries Rebellion against Quasi-War taxes in Pennsylvania.
Rebels were arrested, tried & convicted of treason but pardoned by President Adams.
1805 former Jefferson Vice President, NY Aaron Burr's conspiracy to take over and secede Louisiana.
President Jefferson had Burr arrested and tried for treason.
1814 Hartford Convention, New Englanders unhappy with "Mr. Madison's War", the Louisiana Purchase and 1807 trade embargo met to discuss possible secession.
In response President Madison transferred Federal troops from the frontlines in the war with Canada to near the border of Massachusetts, in case of rebellion.
1828 "Tariff of Abominations" provoked Nullification Crisis and South Carolina to threaten secession.
President Andrew Jackson responded by ordering a war-fleet to Charleston Harbor and threatening:
South Carolinians backed down and Congress reduced the tariff a little.
1857 Mormon Rebellion in Utah, Democrat President Buchanan sent the US Army, Gen. Albert S. Johnson commanding, to suppress it.

In every case since 1788 Federal government acted under the Constitution to suppress threats of rebellion, insurrection, domestic violence, secession and/or treason.

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.

I'm guessing it was similar to the revelation you claim to have had over Lincoln. If so then I'm sure it was quite imaginative.

The pseudoscience of evolution is a faith-based religion — no doubt!

Of course it is.

But science is not a religion.

And religion is not science. Or at least it shouldn't be.

That is best characterized as, pseudohistory meets pseudoscience.

So I've observed from reading your posts.

Kalamata (post #484, 2nd partial): "Most citizens, North and South, were jealous of their pocket books, and for their respective states, not the Union.
But, just in case, please cite references for your claim."

Sure, the word "tariff" does not appear in any of the early "Reasons for Secession" documents, while "slavery" appears many times in each.
Yes, the word "tariff" does appear twice in Robert Rhett's December 1860 "Address to Slaveholding States", but not to complain about them being raised, only in passing.
By contrast, some form of the word "slavery" appears over three dozen times, as it does in every such document.

Nothing could be clearer in meaning than Mississippi's "Reasons for Secession" document:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery -- the greatest material interest of the world.
Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.
These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.
These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.
That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation.
There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."

Clearly that is an economic argument, but it's the economics of slavery they hoped to protect.

Kalamata: "Joey is deceiving you by throwing out contextually-useless numbers. "

As usual, Olive-boy is lying.

Kalamata: "Federal tariffs, especially the 1824 Henry Clay Whig tariff, were "targeted" to favor politically-connected, crony-capitalistic Northerners.
The 1846 tariff reduced the crony capitalism somewhat, and the 1857 tariff even more so.
But the Morrill Tariff was an in-your-face return to Whig-style crony-capitalism:"

Kalamata quoting:

"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."

But a look at the facts shows us something different:

Commodity	1846 Tariff	1857 Tariff	Morrill
Woolens	30%	24%	37%
Brown Sugar	30%	24%	26%
Cotton	25	19	25
Iron mfg	30	24	29
Wines	40	30	40
Average	31%	24%	31%

It's important to remember that these five commodities alone accounted for over half of US total imports.

Kalamata: "The Morrill Tariff was the bastard-child of defunct Whig Party politics.
Abraham Lincoln was a devout Whig, as were many of the so-called "republicans" of his day, and crony-capitalism was their game."

Well... before we run off insanely yelling against "crony capitalism", let's first remember that protecting American produced products was part of the Federal game plan from Day One -- the very first tariff of 1789 (the Hamilton Tariff) was so intended:

"The Tariff Act of 1789 was the first major piece of legislation passed in the United States after the ratification of the United States Constitution and it had two purposes.
It was to protect manufacturing industries developing in the nation and was to raise revenue for the federal government.
It was sponsored by Congressman James Madison, passed by the 1st United States Congress, and signed into law by President George Washington.
The act levied a 50¢ per ton duty on goods imported by foreign ships; American-owned vessels were charged 6¢ per ton."

Notice that first Tariff of 1789 was intended to raise Federal revenues and protect American producers.
It was proposed by Virginia Congressman Madison and signed by President Washington.
It also protected US shipping.

As years went past Democrats generally (but not always) favored lower tariffs, Federalists-Whigs-Republicans higher tariffs.
And even today the list of Republicans who've used higher tariffs to support American producers includes President Trump.
And so far, nobody I've seen on Free Republic accuses Mr. Trump of supporting "crony capitalism".

Kalamata: "Don't confuse Joey with the facts.
Lincoln made it crystal clear that the collection of taxes (tariff revenues) was vital to his "success"."

And yet again the Olive-boy denial tactics -- having lost the previous argument he immediately changes subjects and attacks, attacks, attacks.

So... there's no doubt that in March 1861 Lincoln said he wanted to

" hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts"

And there's no doubt some Confederates called that "a declaration of war".

But we should notice first that Lincoln did not specify which properties or which duties he intended.
Second, our pro-Confederates tell us seized properties no longer belonged to the Federal government, which you'd suppose exempted them from Lincoln's pledge.
Therefore, to call Lincoln's words in March "a declaration of war" seems a bit... premature.

Third, Lincoln then made no moves to occupy any properties or collect any duties except, in the cases of Forts Sumter & Pickens, which were already occupied, Lincoln tried to resupply them.

Now were getting somewhere! In a backhanded way you’ve actually admitted that the reasons the slavocracy rebelled was to protect their “capital”, slaves. Good for you.

As I said, Context.

The discussion was pertaining to the Civil War.

The United Kingdom was a Union???

At the time of the civil war it was known as the British Empire. None of the vassal states joined in voluntarily.

https://historyofmassachusetts.org/great-britain-american-revolution/

from post #484, response 3.

Kalamata: "Who do we believe: the Confederates who were living in the nightmarish days of Lincoln, or Joey?"

Naw, you missed my point, again.
Confederates calling Union actions a "declaration of war" began long before Lincoln was even inaugurated...

As early as December 31, 1860, when President Buchanan responded to South Carolina's demands to surrender Fort Sumter, Buchanan's written response was, in effect, "no way Jose".
The SC commissioners called that a declaration of war.
In February, Congress considered updating the 1807 Insurrection Act and some Southerners called that a declaration of war.
And many claimed Lincoln's March 4 Inaugural Address was a declaration of war.
Now we see from your quote that Jefferson Davis himself called Lincoln's post-Sumter actions a declaration of war.

So it seems that some Confederates were seeing declarations of war behind every tree and under every rock long before Lincoln took office.
Now, what's it called when you go around projecting your own fears onto others?
That's right, it's called being a Democrat, a form of mental illness.

Kalamata: "Joey speaks with a forked-tongue.
With a little more practice he may qualify as a progressive lawyer."

That's just nonsense -- what Olive-boy uses whenever he's lost an argument.
Regarding Lincoln's Inaugural promise to occupy Federal properties, on a second look at Lincoln's words, I notice now he said nothing about which properties he would occupy.
Indeed, if Confederates really believed their own lies about property magically changing ownership just because some people declare themselves seceded, then Confederates would not have interpreted Lincoln's words as a threat at all, since Lincoln would not occupy their property, only the Federal government's.

Kalamata: "...you appear to be correct about Fort Sumter.
Several of my references mentioned Fort Sumter as a tax collection depot,"

Right, I've seen that same claim on these threads before, that somehow duties were being collected at Fort Sumter.
In fact, in 1860 after 30 years of construction Sumter was still not finished and was not then used for anything.

More important, it's irrelevant exactly where Charleston's tariffs were collected and Lincoln had even considered a plan to collect them off-shore, before ships even entered the harbor.
But even more important, I'll repeat the fact that Charleston's tariff collections represented roughly one half of one percent of total tariff revenues and so that could not have been an important factor in Lincoln's thinking.

And again, that's exactly what causes our FRiends like DiogenesLamp to concoct cockamamie conspiracy theories involving "money flows from Europe" and "Northeastern power brokers" who were somehow pulling Lincoln's strings, forcing him to do things for their reasons rather than any of the reasons Lincoln himself expressed.

Kalamata: "That said, the collection of tariff revenue was a significant part of the narrative of those trying times. "

Sure, Federal revenues then as now were always a matter of concern to many, but had nothing to do with Fort Sumter.
Indeed, if you add up all tariff revenues from every Confederate port, including the huge one at New Orleans, they still come to only 4% of total Federal tariff revenues.
Further, the last thing Congress did before adjourning on March 4, 1861 was vote to authorize the government to borrow several millions of dollars, enough in those days to keep things going smoothly for many months.

So money was not the immediate issue at Fort Sumter, but rather it was more a matter of national honor and potential strategic advantages.

Kalamata: "Buchanan was a little better versed than Lincoln on the construction of the Constitution, but not by much."

I disagree with Buchanan's analysis.
In fact, the 1807 Insurrection Act (signed by President Jefferson) provided the authority President Lincoln used:

"Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion. "

Kalamata: "Lost Causers? LOL!"

I've used the terms "pro-Confederate" and "Lost Causers" more or less interchangeably without much push-back on either.

Kalamata: "I have read similar economically-illiterate statements to yours from other "Burners and Pillagers," and I must declare that I am astonished!
This is Economics101, Joey.
Read carefully:
Where, and by whom, tariffs are collected has nothing to do with who benefits from them or who is harmed by them...."

Sure, I'm not disputing some of that, but merely noting that some pro-Confederates tell us Lincoln "invaded" Charleston harbor in order to collect it's tariff revenues!
And I'm saying factually, that's just nonsense.

Kalamata: "The Southern states were mostly consumers of the protected items, so they were harmed by the tariffs.
Rightly, they saw the tariffs as a method of redistribution-of-wealth "

Actually, Southern products were also protected by tariffs, especially the big ones: cotton and sugar.
So every region -- North, East, West and South -- both benefitted from and paid for import tariffs.

Kalamata: "Regarding revenue, Lincoln said this:

"And whereas, since that date, public property of the United States [Fort Sumter] has been seized, the collection of the revenue obstructed, and duly commissioned officers of the United States, while engaged in executing the orders of their superiors, have been arrested and held in custody as prisoners..."

Sure, Charleston tariff revenues were part of the mix, but they were not, all by themselves (as some posters here like to claim), an existential threat the republic.

Kalamata: "This conversation on the eve-of-the-war between a Virginia delegate and Lincoln reveals Lincoln's passionate concern about revenue collection:"
[John Brown Baldwin, "Interview between President Lincoln and Col. John B. Baldwin, April 4th 1861 - statements and evidence." 1866, p.13-14]

Now, now, FRiend, up to now I've given you great credit for not (unlike some others) posting fake quotes.
But Confederate Congressman & Col. John Baldwin's postwar testimony is about as fake as fake can get.
Nothing at the time corroborates his claims and everything suggests that he concocted his conversation with Lincoln five years later, based on how things turned out.

Kalamata: "The following statement, as recorded by Robert L. Dabney, is from the same conversation between Colonel Baldwin and Lincoln, but with a few extra details:"
[C. R. Vaughn, "Discussions by Robert L. Dabney Vol IV - Secular." Crescent Book House, 1890, pp.93-94]

Again recorded many years after the fact with very clear 20-20 hindsight.
The truth is that nobody in 1861 had any real idea what all the potential for war might imply.

Kalamata quoting: "Alleged grievances in regard to slavery were originally the causes for the separation of the cotton states; but the mask has been thrown off, and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence."
[Boston Transcript, March 18, 1861, in Kenneth M. Stampp, "The Causes of the Civil War." 1986, p.69]

Right, notice the wording, "alleged grievances in regard to slavery" meaning the Boston Transcript does not think those grievances were either real or serious.
But those are in fact the grievances Southern elites used to sell secession to the majority of Deep South voters.
To those voters the reasons were both real and serious.
Now we might also ask, did Deep South elites themselves also believe in their alleged grievances, or was it strictly cynical voter manipulation?
I think the clear answer is "yes, they were sincere at the time."
Their first & foremost priority was protecting slavery against a President and Congress which were for the first time in history openly and blatantly hostile to slavery.
That's what they said at the time.

After that, then, as a consequence of protecting slavery the result was everything else followed, summed up by the Boston Transcript's term, "commercial independence."

Kalamata quoting: "The merchants of New Orleans, Charleston and Savannah are possessed with the idea that New York, Boston, and Philadelphia may be shorn, in the future, of their mercantile greatness, by a revenue system verging on free trade."

This is pure hyperbole, however often repeated by Northerners, in fact Confederates never seriously considered "free trade".
What they wanted in March 1861 instead was to redirect tariff revenues from Washington to Montgomery.
How much was that?
Including New Orleans, about $2 . 5 million of the $52 million total Federal tariff revenues = ~4%.
Confederates also hoped to tariff "imports" from Union states which could add another $20 million per year for Montgomery.

Kalamata still quoting: "The difference is so great between the tariff of the Union and that of the Confederate States that the entire Northwest must find it to their advantage to purchase their imported goods at New Orleans rather than New York"

And that is absolute complete nonsense, so far off the mark that we can only hope the Boston Transcript did not really believe its own lies.
The best we might say is that here the Transcript exaggerates the "threat" of Confederate free trade just as much as Fire Eaters exaggerated Lincoln's "threat" to their slavery.

What we can say is that, absent war, Confederate tariffs & taxes would certainly change trading patterns to some degree, but it would have been orders of magnitude less change than actually experienced during the Civil War.

Kalamata still quoting: "In addition to this, the manufacturing interests of the country will suffer from the increased importation resulting from low duties.... The [government] would be false to its obligations if this state of things were not provided against." "

Notice again that the Transcript does not call for war or invasion or any other violence, but only that Washington take presumably reasonable steps in response.

Kalamata: "The highlighted statement should read, "the cause of Lincoln and his crony-capitalist friends" was advanced. "

Your insane obsession with "crony capitalism" is noted and dismissed as nothing more than the rantings of feeble mind unaccustomed to dealing with reality.

Kalamata: "Lincoln's advancement of the war was the way for him and his cronies to break the shackles of the Constitution -- the shackles that have always irritated greedy, power-hungry men, like Lincoln."

There's no evidence -- none -- that Lincoln intended before 1861 to break any "shackles", not even slavery's shackles, and plenty of evidence that he did his best to win the war while remaining within Constitutional limits.

Kalamata: "That was Lincoln's War, Joey, and the extermination was strictly a one-sided operation by Lincoln's "Burners and Pillagers.""

"Extermination" was Jefferson Davis' word, not Lincoln's, and Davis used it famously at least twice - first just after Fort Sumter in declaring a "war of extermination on both sides" and then again near the war's end:

See I seriously doubt if a person like Kalamata can become this insane in old age if he didn't first learn it as a youth.
I suspect Lincoln-loathing (or something closely related) was in his heart from the beginning, perhaps suppressed as a younger man, but now released to enflame & consume his entire brain.

Kalamata: "No doubt Lincoln's flip-flop discussions of slavery were strictly politics.
On the other hand, his desire for white-separatism, fiat currency, crony "internal improvement" ventures, and a high protective tariff for the politically-connected, was his religion."

And here our new FRiend, Olive-boy, abandons any pretense of sanity he previously maintained in favor of stark, raving, froth-at-the-mouth lunacy.
So I'll repeat: I don't think you can suddenly learn that degree of nuttiness as an old man unless it was already in you, perhaps long suppressed, from childhood.

The level of unbridled and irrational hatred on display could also be explained by mental disorders...

(I agree that he did not come by it organically)

OIFVeteran wrote: "Now were getting somewhere! In a backhanded way you’ve actually admitted that the reasons the slavocracy rebelled was to protect their “capital”, slaves."

I have mentioned that at least once in previous posts; perhaps more. I even explained how the slave correlated with capital equipment in Northern factories.

At least now you may begin to realize that the war was about the states fleeing from the economic plunder of "republican" crony-capitalists, not slavery. Even abolitionists understand that. This is one of the most famous abolitionists in the Civil War era. Read carefully:

"These are the terms on which alone this government, or, with few exceptions, any other, ever gives "peace" to its people.
"The whole affair, on the part of those who furnished the money, has been, and now is, a deliberate scheme of robbery and murder; not merely to monopolize the markets of the South, but also to monopolize the currency, and thus control the industry and trade, and thus plunder and enslave the laborers, of both North and South. And Congress and the president are to-day the merest tools for these purposes. They are obliged to be, for they know that their own power, as rulers, so called, is at an end, the moment their credit with the blood-money loan-mongers fails. They are like a bankrupt in the hands of an extortioner. They dare not say nay to any demand made upon them. And to hide at once, if possible, both their servility and their crimes, they attempt to divert public attention, by crying out that they have "Abolished Slavery!" That they have "Saved the Country!" That they have "Preserved our Glorious Union!" and that, in now paying the "National Debt," as they call it (as if the people themselves, all of them who are to be taxed for its payment, had really and voluntarily joined in contracting it), they are simply "Maintaining the National Honor!"
"By "maintaining the national honor," they mean simply that they themselves, open robbers and murderers, assume to be the nation, and will keep faith with those who lend them the money necessary to enable them to crush the great body of the people under their feet; and will faithfully appropriate, from the proceeds of their future robberies and murders, enough to pay all their loans, principal and interest.
"The pretence that the "abolition of slavery" was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud of the same character with that of "maintaining the national honor." Who, but such usurpers, robbers, and murderers as they, ever established slavery? Or what government, except one resting upon the sword, like the one we now have, was ever capable of maintaining slavery? And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general – not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only "as a war measure," and because they wanted his assistance, and that of his friends, in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both white and black. And yet these impostors now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man – although that was not the motive of the war – as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before. There was no difference of principle – but only of degree – between the slavery they boast they have abolished, and the slavery they were fighting to preserve; for all restraints upon men 's natural liberty, not necessary for the simple maintenance of justice, are of the nature of slavery, and differ from each other only in degree.
"It their object had really been to abolish slavery, or maintain liberty or justice generally, they had only to say: All, whether white or black, who want the protection of this government, shall have it; and all who do not want it, will be left in peace, so long as they leave us in peace. Had they said this, slavery would necessarily have been abolished at once; the war would have been saved; and a thousand times nobler union than we have ever had would have been the result. It would have been a voluntary union of free men; such a union as will one day exist among all men, the world over, if the several nations, so called, shall ever get rid of the usurpers, robbers, and murderers, called governments, that now plunder, enslave, and destroy them.
"Still another of the frauds of these men is, that they are now establishing, and that the war was designed to establish, "a government of consent." The only idea they have ever manifested as to what is a government of consent, is this – that it is one to which everybody must consent, or be shot. This idea was the dominant one on which the war was carried on; and it is the dominant one, now that we have got what is called "peace."
"Their pretences that they have "Saved the Country," and "Preserved our Glorious Union," are frauds like all the rest of their pretences. By them they mean simply that they have subjugated, and maintained their power over, an unwilling people. This they call "Saving the Country;" as if an enslaved and subjugated people – or as if any people kept in subjection by the sword (as it is intended that all of us shall be hereafter) – could be said to have any country. This, too, they call "Preserving our Glorious Union;" as if there could be said to be any Union, glorious or inglorious, that was not voluntary. Or as if there could be said to be any union between masters and slaves; between those who conquer, and those who are subjugated.
"All these cries of having "abolished slavery," of having "saved the country," of having "preserved the union," of establishing "a government of consent," and of "maintaining the national honor," are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats – so transparent that they ought to deceive no one – when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the government that has succeeded the war, or for now compelling the people to pay the cost of the war, or for compelling anybody to support a government that he does not want.
"The lesson taught by all these facts is this: As long as mankind continue to pay "National Debts," so-called, – that is, so long as they arc such dupes and cowards as to pay for being cheated, plundered, enslaved, and murdered, – so long there will be enough to lend the money for those purposes; and with that money a plenty of tools, called soldiers, can be hired to keep them in subjection. But when they refuse any longer to pay for being thus cheated, plundered, enslaved, and murdered, they will cease to have cheats, and usurpers, and robbers, and murderers and blood-money loan-mongers for masters."
[Lysander Spooner, "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority." By the Author, 1867, pp.56-59]

That should be the every American's first book on the "Civil" War.

Lysander Spooner website

We were warned about those kind of shenanigans by our Founding Fathers, but no one listens, or has listened. These are the rules the tyrant resorts to in order to move the money from your pocket, into his:

"6. But the grand nostrum will be a public debt, provided enough of it can be got and it be medicated with the proper ingredients. If by good fortune a debt be ready at hand, the most is to be made of it. Stretch it and swell it to the utmost the items will bear. Allow as many extra claims as decency will permit. Assume all the debts of your neighbors - in a word, get as much debt as can be raked and scraped together, and when you have got all you can, "advertise" for more, and have the debt made as big as possible. This object being accomplished, the next will be to make it as perpetual as possible; and the next to that, to get it into as few hands as possible. The more effectually to bring this about, modify the debt, complicate it, divide it, subdivide it, subtract it, postpone it, let there be one-third of two-thirds, and two-thirds of one-third, and two-thirds of two-thirds; let there be 3 percents, and 4 percents, and 6 percents, and present 6 percents, and future 6 percents. To be brief, let the whole be such a mystery that a few only can understand it; and let all possible opportunities and informations fall in the way of these few to cinch their advantages over the many.
"7. It must not be forgotten that the members of the legislative body are to have a deep stake in the game. This is an essential point, and happily is attended with no difficulty. A sufficient number, properly disposed, can alternately legislate and speculate, and speculate and legislate, and buy and sell, and sell and buy, until a due portion of the property of their constituents has passed into their hands to give them an interest against their constituents, and to ensure the part they are to act. All this, however, must be carried on under the cover of the closest secrecy; and it is particularly lucky that dealings in paper admit of more secrecy that any other. Should a discovery take place, the whole plan may be blown up.
"8. The ways in which a great debt, so constituted and applied, will contribute to the ultimate end in view are both numerous and obvious. (1) The favorite few, thus possessed of it, whether within or without the government, will feel the staunchest fealty to it, and will go through thick and thin to support it in all its oppressions and usurpations. (2) Their money will give them consequence and influence, even among those who have been tricked out of it. (3) They will be the readiest materials that can be found for a hereditary aristocratic order, whenever matters are ripe for one. (4) A great debt will require great taxes; great taxes, many tax-gatherers and other officers; and all officers are auxiliaries of power. (5) Heavy taxes may produce discontents; these may threaten resistance; and in proportion to this danger will be the pretense for a standing army to repel it. (6) A standing army, in its turn, will increase the moral force of the government by means of its appointments, and give it physical force by means of the sword, thus doubly forwarding the main object.
"9. The management of a great funded debt and a extensive system of taxes will afford a plea, not to be neglected, for establishment of a great incorporated bank, the use of such a machine is well understood. If the Constitution, according to its fair meaning, should not authorize it, so much the better. Push it through by a forced meaning and you will get in the bargain an admirable precedent for future misconstructions. In fashioning the bank, remember that it is to be made particularly instrumental in enriching and aggrandizing the elect few, who are to be called in due season to the honors and felicities of the kingdom preparing for them, and who are the pillars that must support it. It will be easy to throw the benefit entirely into their hands, and to make it a solid addition of 50, or 60, or 70 percent to their former capitals of 800 percent, or 900 percent, without costing them a shilling; while it will be difficult to explain to the people that this gain of the few is at the cost of the many, that the contrary may be boldly and safely pretended. The bank will be pregnant with other important advantages. It will admit the same men to be, at the same time, members of the bank and members of the government. The two institutions will thus be soldered together, and each made stronger. Money will be put under the direction of the government, and government under the direction of money. To crown the whole, the bank will have a proper interest in swelling and perpetuating the public debt and public taxes, with all the blessings of both, because its agency and its profits will be extended in exact proportion."
[Philiip Freneau, "Rules for Changing a Limited Republican Government into an Unlimited Hereditary One." National Gazette, 1792]

That was precisely Abraham Lincoln's agenda from the very first day he announced his candidacy for public office:

"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 Whitney, Henry Clay, "Life and works of Abraham Lincoln Vol 03: Early Speeches." Current Literature Publishing Co., 1907, p.1]

I can hear Lincoln now, as he gazed out toward the masses from his podium, snickering, "Suckers!"

Mr. Kalamata

You really are delusional. To read both the written and spoken words of Abraham Lincoln and believe his life long opposition to slavery was a mere pretense for some sinister crony capitalism rises to the level of those who believe the earth is flat or we never landed on the moon.

To further believe that the southern slavocracy was fighting against such a thing, and not fighting for the right to own other human beings, despite their own written records showing that this was the case is just madness. Perhaps you would be more comfortable at a website that more aligns with your beliefs, such as the league of the south or some other white supremacist group.

The United Kingdom was a Union???

The fact you are asking the question demonstrates that you didn't bother to follow the link I provided which showed you that yes indeed, the UNITED Kingdom, was a Union.

But let's do a trivia question. What is this flag called?

None of the vassal states joined in voluntarily.

What does voluntary have to do with anything? If you can voluntarily join, but not voluntarily leave, it isn't really voluntary is it?

More like a Mafia Family.

Thank you for posting that. This is the most profound message I have seen on this board in years. It accurately describes what is happening to us now.

This is why Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and the corruptocracy of the Deep State in Washington DC get away with their crimes. There are two tiers to our system, and they are part of the invisible group of "Masters" to whom the laws do not apply.

I ask all of you to read the statement from Lysander Spooner and the other statement from Philiip Freneau, and then ask yourself "Is this not happening now?"

>>>I have not posted anything to you, so why are you still posting this b_______t to me?

Very well. Now, please ask your Lincoln buds to stop pinging you on replies to my posts.

My point is the UK didn’t exist.

It was the British Empire. The flag you posted originated in 1801, after the American war of independence.

Now tell me again how the Democrat slave owners attempting to leave the US are the same as our forefathers fighting for freedom. Keep in mind that Washington and others were slave owners when they were British subjects. Slavery continued throughout the British Empire until 1853.

“As I said, Context. The discussion was pertaining to the Civil War.”

Your post 502 made that plain. It reads in its entirety:
“I have heard many times that there was not one Whig or Republican slave owner owned slaves at the time of the Civil War. I know how to use a search engine I found many sources to confirm that.”

The problem with your statement: it is not true.

If you don't want to accept that from me, take it from Brother Joe who has become something of an expert on this matter. Said he: “So, yes, Burton was a slaveholder himself . . .” Burton was a Republican.

Brother Joe has thrown cold water on you.

And that brings to mind the ancient colloquial Choctaw valediction: oompa loompa doompety doo.

Translated it means: when your guardian angel of life urinates on your flintlock rifle, then you know your luck has done run out.