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.

[txnativegop]

LOL

[DiogenesLamp]

My point is the UK didn’t exist.

Your point is wrong. This makes it a non point.

"Union of the Crowns." 1603.

"Acts of Union." 1707.

The flag you posted originated in 1801, after the American war of independence.

A silly point. They were still a Union in 1776 when we decided we wanted to be independent from them.

This is the flag they used prior to 1801.

Now tell me again how the Democrat slave owners attempting to leave the US are the same as our forefathers fighting for freedom.

I'm thinking that you need to explain how they are different. I've already covered many of the similarities in one of my previous posts to you.

Keep in mind that Washington and others were slave owners when they were British subjects.

And they remained slave owners when they became American citizens July 4, 1776.

Apparently the founders didn't consider slave owning to be relevant to their right to have independence.

[Kalamata]

>>Joey 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 wrote: "Lincoln promised in his First Inaugural to protect slavery in the slave states, Joey. Are you insinuating Lincoln was a liar?"
>>Joey wrote: "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."

I have addressed spurious claims of the left-wing, big-government revisionists, many times, Joey.

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

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

You make a good point, Joey. Lincoln was unconcerned about slavery in the slave states, except later as an avenue of revenge against those who were disloyal – disloyal according to Lincoln's definition of disloyalty, which was refusal to submit to crony-capitalistic plunder.

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

>>Joey wrote: "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."

Possibly. But the reasons for the first secession, in a nutshell, were the tentacles of crony capitalism, only one of which threatened slavery; the most dangerous of which was the Morrill Tariff. The reason for the second secession was Lincoln's declaration of war to protect HIS tariff.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "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."
>>Joey wrote: "Well... there were many more threats of rebellion, insurrection, secession & treason, including"

I was pointing to the most serious pre-Lincoln threats, Joey.

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

>>Joey listed a serious of historical events.

Rebellion, Joey, which is localized, and which is not recognized by the state government, is not nullification nor secession. The threats of nullification and secession were powers retained by the states to serve as checks against tyrannical government, such as the tyranny of Lincoln, and that of his hero, Henry Clay.

The 1828 Tariff was merely an "enhancement" of Clay's 1824 British-mercantilistic-style tariff disguised as part of "The American System." The tyranny that created the 1824 tariff was the precipitator that raised alarm bells, as explained by Jefferson in 1825:

"I see, as you do, and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power. Take together the decisions of the federal court, the doctrines of the President, and the misconstructions of the constitutional compact acted on by the legislature of the federal branch, and it is but too evident, that the three ruling branches of that department are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic. Under the power to regulate commerce, they assume indefinitely that also over agriculture and manufactures, and call it regulation to take the earnings of one of these branches of industry, and that, too, the most depressed, and put them into the pockets of the other, the most flourishing of all. Under the authority to establish post roads, they claim that of cutting down mountains for the construction of roads, of digging canals, and aided by a little sophistry on the words ''general welfare," a right to do, not only the acts to effect that, which are specifically enumerated and permitted, but whatsoever they shall think, or pretend will be for the general welfare. And what is our resource for the preservation of the Constitution? Reason and argument? You might as well reason and argue with the marble columns encircling them. The representatives chosen by ourselves? They are joined in the combination, some from incorrect views of government, some from corrupt ones, sufficient voting together to outnumber the sound parts; and with majorities only of one, two, or three, bold enough to go forward in defiance." [To William B. Giles, Monticello, December 26, 1825, in Thomas Jefferson, "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson Vol 16." Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903, p.146]

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

>>Joey wrote: "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:"
>>Joey quoting: "...please give my compliments to my friends in your State and say to them, that if a single drop of blood shall be shed there in opposition to the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man I can lay my hand on engaged in such treasonable conduct, upon the first tree I can reach.[65]" >>Joey wrote: "South Carolinians backed down and Congress reduced the tariff a little."

According to this scholar, the Jackson administration backed down (that is, it compromised):

"Meanwhile, the House had been struggling with these issues too. The central figure was [John Quincy] Adams, elected to that body after leaving the presidency. It was his misfortune to be selected chairman of the Committee on Manufactures and to be the center of hopes for some amicable compromise. Such a role, of course, seemed out of character for Adams, better known for his rigidity; but his experience and influence were resources that he recruited in an interesting fashion. Soon after the session began in December, he and Clay attended a joint caucus of protectionist legislators to discuss what to do. As the former president sourly noted in his diary, Clay dominated the talk and assumed a "super-presidential" air, unwilling to accommodate other views. To save the American System, according to Adams, Clay vowed he would "defy the South, the President [Jackson,] and the devil.''

"Worried that contention over the tariff posed great danger to the Union and convinced that any alteration of the schedule had to have Democratic support, Adams decided to collaborate with the administration. So in conferences with Secretary of Treasury Louis McLane, he promised concessions by his committee to reduce rates, but to do it gradually so that there would be enough revenue for the president to achieve his goal of retiring the national debt within the year. National Republican candidate Clay naturally had no interest in that kind of pledge to benefit Jackson in the fall elections. Nevertheless, Adams tried to honor the agreement with McLane while maintaining as much protection in a new tariff as possible. He received a massive report from the secretary on the status of manufactures in late April, as well as a plan to cut the average rate from 45 to 27 percent. The House committee then adjusted some provisions upward, as Adams wished, and secured passage of a bill in that chamber."

[Maurice Baxter, "Henry Clay and the American System." University of Kentucky Press, 1995, pp.75-76]

Until recently gaining access to this book, I considered Henry Clay as somewhat of a statesman who helped worked out a compromise (with Calhoun) on the Tariff. But now I am leaning toward Clay being a bastard-child of the British mercantilists, with no fealty to the United States, or to its Constitution; with Lincoln being Clay's bastard-child.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>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."
>>Joey wrote: "Sure, the word "tariff" does not appear in any of the early "Reasons for Secession" documents, while "slavery" appears many times in each."

Joey loves playing word games. This is a large segment from the Georgia Declaration, containing no mention of "tariff," nor of "plunder," but leaves the reader with no doubt that it referring to "tariffs" and crony-capitalistic "plunder":

"The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day.

"Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency.

"The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence.

"These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country. But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all."

["Georgia Secession Declaration." Avalon Project, Jan 29, 1861]

I posted this earlier, but it may help clarify some of the Georgia objections. We are observing from far outside the box. Details crucial to the competing parties, may seem irrevelant to us. The key to interpretation is (as always,) "follow the money":

"As president [James Polk, who defeated the protectionist Henry Clay,] 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]

Mr. Kalamata

[DiogenesLamp]

“Now, therefore, see briefly what it all comes to. First, you spend eighty millions of money in fireworks [war], doing no end of damage in letting them off.

” Then you borrow money to pay the firework-maker’s bill, from any gain-loving persons who have got it.

” And then, dressing your bailiff’s men in new red coats and cocked hats, you send them drumming and trumpeting into the fields, to take the peasants by the throat, and make them pay the interest on what you have borrowed, and the expense of the cocked hats besides.

“That is ‘ financiering,’ my friends, as the mob of the moneymakers understand it. And they understand it well. For that is what it always comes to, finally—taking the peasant by the throat. He must pay—for he only can. Food can only he got out of the ground, and all these devices of soldiership, and law, and arithmetic, are but ways of getting at last down to him, the furrow-driver, and snatching the roots from him as he digs.”

—” Fors Clavigera,” Part II., p. 27. By John Ruskin, LL.D. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1882.

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: “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.”
>>Joey wrote: “But a look at the facts shows us something different . . . It’s important to remember that these five commodities alone accounted for over half of US total imports.”

Your numbers have been cherry-picked, Joey. The Morrill Tariff signaled a return to cronyism.

****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “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.”
>>Joey wrote: “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.”

A tariff is constitutional, Joey, if applied equally and fairly; but tariffs eventually became a political tool – pay for play.

BTW, it was Hamilton who promoted a crony-capitalist economy to favor the wealthy and politically connected. Clay was a Hamiltonite, and deep in bed with the bankers.

****************
>>Joey wrote: “As years went past Democrats generally (but not always) favored lower tariffs, Federalists-Whigs-Republicans higher tariffs.”

That is misleading. The exporters favored standardized rates. The Whigs favored item-by-item rates to subsidize politically-connected Northern interests.

****************
>>Joey wrote: “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”.”

If Trump is an orange (no pun intended,) the Whigs were apples. The “Republican” Party of Lincoln inherited Whig economics, which Lincoln promoted throughout his entire political career, as did his hero, Henry Clay.

****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “Don’t confuse Joey with the facts.
Lincoln made it crystal clear that the collection of taxes (tariff revenues) was vital to his “success”.”
>>Joey wrote: “And yet again the Olive-boy denial tactics — having lost the previous argument he immediately changes subjects and attacks, attacks, attacks.”

With Joey, it is never about facts, but about “winning.”

****************
>>Joey wrote: “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”.

That was, effectively, a declaration of war against a foreign nation. When Montgomery secretly moved his troops to a more fortified position (Fort Sumter,) that showed an intention to declare war, at least in the minds of the Carolinians, which was “confirmed” when a resupply ship showed up.

Later, after Montgomery warned Lincoln that he could not defend the fort, Lincoln’s cabinet, including Seward, voted almost unanimously against resupply, with Seward explaining that he “would not initiate war to regain a useless and unnecessary position on the soil of the seceding states [e.g., Fort Sumter.]”

But Lincoln ignored his cabinet and pressed ahead with a scheme of “sending bread to Anderson,” to provoke the South into firing the first shot. Lincoln was, after all, a high-powered railroad lawyer, who had mastered the rhetoric of effective propaganda.

****************
>>Joey wrote: “But we should notice first that Lincoln did not specify which properties or which duties he intended.”

Yes he did. He made it crystal clear in his inaugural that he rejected the constitutional authority of the states to secede, thus craftily reframing any resistance by them into “insurrection” and “rebellion,” rather than recognizing them as sovereign states. Lincoln was a tyrant.

****************
>>Joey wrote: “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.”

That is correct. The South offered to pay for the forts and other properties recovered from the Union, but Lincoln rejected it.

****************
>>Joey wrote: “Therefore, to call Lincoln’s words in March “a declaration of war” seems a bit... premature.”

Lincoln effectively declared war in his first inaugural. He told the seceding states to either consent to be governed by the Federal Government, or die.

****************
>>Joey wrote: “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.”

That was an act of war.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: "Who do we believe: the Confederates who were living in the nightmarish days of Lincoln, or Joey?"
>>Joey wrote: "Naw, you missed my point, again. Confederates calling Union actions a "declaration of war" began long before Lincoln was even inaugurated..."

Acts-of-war are acts-of-war, Joey. Major Anderson's dumb move was the first. The second was when Buchanan ordered the reinforcement and resupply of the Fort

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

>>Joey wrote: "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.

That was an act of war.

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

>>Joey wrote: "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."

Acts-of-war are acts-of-war, Joey. Pretending those were peace initiatives will never alter that fact that they were threats against sovereign states.

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

>>Joey wrote: "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."

I will agree that Lincoln was a psychopath, and a true democrat. This fellow also believed that Lincoln was a true democrat:

"[I]n an instance of urgent necessity, an official of a democratic, constitutional state will be acting more faithfully to his oath of office if he breaks one law in order that the rest may operate unimpeded. This was a powerful and unique plea for the doctrine of paramount necessity. It established no definite rule for this or any other country, but it does serve as a superlative example of how a true democrat in power is likely to act when there is no other way for him to preserve the constitutional system which he has sworn to defend."

[Rossiter, Clinton, "Constitutional Dictatorship: Crisis Government in the Modern Democracies." Princeton University Press, 1948, pp.228-220]

That statement could just as easily apply to Hitler. Obviously, Rossiter, a devout Lincolnite, believed the deception that a constitutional system of government can be saved by destroying it, thus demonstrating that Rossiter, also, was a true democrat.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Joey speaks with a forked-tongue. With a little more practice he may qualify as a progressive lawyer."
>>Joey wrote: "That's just nonsense -- what Olive-boy uses whenever he's lost an argument."

It is not about winning or losing, Joey, but seeking the truth.

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

>>Joey wrote: "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."

That is misleading. Lincoln made it crystal clear in his inaugural that he rejected the constitutional authority of the states to secede, thus craftily reframing any resistance by them into “insurrection” and “rebellion,” rather than recognizing them as sovereign states. I cannot say this enough: Lincoln was a tyrant.

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

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

The point is, Montgomery considered Sumter to be more secure than Moultrie, so he secretly relocated his troops there, committing an act of war.

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

>>Joey wrote: "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."

That would also be an act of war.

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

>>Joey wrote: "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."

Lincoln considered free trade going through the ports of Charleston to be a serious threat to his crony Whig agenda.

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

>>Joey wrote: "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."

Lincoln knew exactly what he was doing. He was a greedy, power-hungry crony capitalist for his entire professional and political life.

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

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

Again, Lincoln considered free trade going through the ports of Charleston to be a serious threat to his Whig agenda. This is a part of conversation between Lincoln and Colonel Baldwin, a Virginia delegate, prior to Virginia's secession:

"Lincoln seemed impressed by his solemnity, and asked a few questions: "But what am I to do meantime with those men at Montgomery? Am I to let them go on?'' "Yes, sir." replied Colonel Baldwin, decisively, "until they can be peaceably brought back." "And open Charleston, etc.. as ports of entry, with their ten per cent, tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?"

"This last question he announced with such emphasis, as showed that in his view it [the tariff] decided the whole matter. He then indicated that the interview was at an end, and dismissed Colonel Baldwin, without promising anything more definite."

[C. R. Vaughn, "Discussions by Robert L. Dabney Vol IV - Secular." Crescent Book House, 1890, pp.93-94]

From the same conversation:

"You have been President a month to-day, and if you intended to hold that position you ought to have strengthened it, so as to make it impregnable. To hold it in the present condition of force there is an invitation to assault. Go upon higher ground than that. The better ground than that is to make a concession of an asserted right in the interest of peace."

"Well," said he, "what about the revenue? What would I do about the collection of duties?" Said I, "Sir, how much do you expect to collect in a year?" Said he, ''Fifty or sixty millions." "Why, sir," said I, "four times sixty is two hundred and forty. Say $250,000,000 would be the revenue of your term of the presidency; what is that but a drop in the bucket compared with the cost of such a war as we are threatened with? Let it all go, if necessary; but I do not believe that it will be necessary, because I believe that you can settle it on the basis I suggest,"

[Baldwin, John Brown, "Interview between President Lincoln and Col. John B. Baldwin, April 4th 1861 - statements and evidence." 1866, pp.13-14]

The bottom line is, the South was for peace, but Lincoln was for war. That reminds me of this scripture:

"My soul hath long dwelt with him that hateth peace. I am for peace: but when I speak, they are for war." -- Ps 120:6-7 KJV

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

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

Blah, blah, blah . . .

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Buchanan was a little better versed than Lincoln on the construction of the Constitution, but not by much."
>>Joey wrote: "I disagree with Buchanan's analysis. In fact, the 1807 Insurrection Act (signed by President Jefferson) provided the authority President Lincoln used: >>Joey quoting: "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."

Name-dropping Jefferson is a political trick typically used by progressives, like Joey. The legal document called the Constitution states, by omission, that when states exercise their constitutional authority to secede, they are no longer States or Territories of the Union, but sovereign states – or sovereign nations. If the constructors of the Constitution had intended the states to lose their sovereignty upon ratification, it would have explicitly said so within the powers authorized to the general government in Article I, Section 8, or, negatively, in the prohibited powers of Article I, Section 9. Jefferson not only understood that fact, but enshrined the right of the states to secede from the Union in his legacy works and writings, many times.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Lost Causers? LOL!"
>>Joey wrote: "I've used the terms "pro-Confederate" and "Lost Causers" more or less interchangeably without much push-back on either."

The term would be accurate if it were renamed to "Lost Constitutioners".

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

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

You cannot hide Lincoln words by pretending they don't say what they say.

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

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

You are confused, Joey. Raw cotton was an export. The constitution disallowed duties on exports:

"Article I, Section 9 - Limits on Congress: No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."

You must be thinking of duties on finished cotton goods, such as shirts, dresses, etc.., which would cause everyone to pay more. Cotton growers were hurt mostly by: 1) reciprocal tariffs placed by foreign trading partners, which lowered their incomes, and 2) higher prices for imported items. It is simple economics, Joey.

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

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

As aforementioned (several times,) free trade through southern ports would have destroyed the Lincoln's crony-capitalistic schemes. Every northern manufacturer and newspaper of those days knew and understood that. You can find many reports like this aforementioned one:

"It does not require extraordinary sagacity to perceive that trade is perhaps the controlling motive operating to prevent the return of the seceding States to the Union, which they have abandoned. 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. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports. 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 upon free trade. If the Southern Confederation is allowed to carry out a policy by which only a nominal duty is laid upon imports, no doubt the business of the chief Northern cities will be seriously injured thereby.

"The difference is so great between the tariff of the Union and that of the Confederated States, that the entire Northwest must find it to their advantage to purchase their imported goods at New Orleans rather than at New York. In addition to this, the manufacturing interest of the country will suffer from the increased importations resulting from low duties.... The... [government] would be false to all its obligations, if this state of things were not provided against."

[Boston Transcript, March 18, 1861, in Stampp, Kenneth M., "The Causes of the Civil War." 1986, p.69-70]

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

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

Yeah, everyone who doesn't kiss Lincoln's ring is a liar. I get it . . .

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

>>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]
>>Joey wrote: "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 mentioned that in one of my earlier posts on this thread, but it didn't go over very well. The secession was for economic reasons, no matter how it is spun.

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

>>Joey wrote: "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."

That is not all that was said, Joey. Recall that Senator Toombs labeled the Morrill Tariff a "raid against the South":

"It is true... that the present tariff was sustained by an almost unanimous vote of the South; but it was a reduction— a reduction necessary from the plethora of the revenue; but the policy of the North soon made it inadequate to meet the public expenditure, by an enormous and profligate increase of the public expenditure; and at the last session of Congress they brought in and passed through the House the most atrocious tariff bill that ever was enacted, raising the present duties from twenty to two hundred and fifty per cent above the existing rates of duty. That bill now lies on the table of the Senate. It was a master stroke of abolition policy; it united cupidity to fanaticism, and thereby made a combination which has swept the country. There were thousands of protectionists in Pennsylvania, New-Jersey, New-York, and in New-England, who were not abolitionists. There were thousands of abolitionists who were free traders. The mongers brought them together upon a mutual surrender of their principles. The free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the pon-abolition protectionists became abolitionists. The result of this coalition was the infamous Morrill bill—the robber and the incendiary struck hands, and united in joint raid against the South. Thus stands the account between the North and the South. Under its ordinary and most favorable action, bounties and protection to every interest and every pursuit in the North, to the extent of at least fifty millions per annum, besides the expenditure of at least sixty millions out of every seventy of the public expenditure among them, thus making the treasury a perpetual fertilizing stream to them and their industry, and a suction-pump to drain away our substance and parch up our lands."

[Senator Robert Toombs, speech before Georgia legislature on the Morrill Tariff, November, 1860, in Stampp, Kenneth M., "The Causes of the Civil War." 1986, pp.64-65]

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

>>Joey wrote: "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."

Actually, I believe the newspaper said that slavery was merely a "mask," and that trade was "the controlling motive." You are aware that some Northern newspapers were calling for a blockade of the South to prevent free trade, are you not?

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

>>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."
>>Joey wrote: "This is pure hyperbole, however often repeated by Northerners, in fact Confederates never seriously considered "free trade".

No, that would have been an economic reality under a non-protective tariff authorized by the Confederate Constitution. They were not arm-chair historians, Joey: they were living it.

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

>>Joey wrote: "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."

That is stupendously simple-minded, Joey. Duty-free (or duty-light) imports would come through Southern ports. The South and Territories would no longer be subject to the high prices of protected Northern goods.

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

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

Joey never ceases to amaze me at his inability to grasp simple economics. This is another article from those trying times:

"One of the most important benefits which the Federal Government has conferred upon the nation is unrestricted trade between many prosperous States with divers productions and industrial pursuits. But now, since the Montgomery [Confederate] Congress has passed a new tariff, and duties are exacted upon Northern goods sent to ports in the Cotton States, the traffic between the two sections will be materially decreased.... Another, and a more serious difficulty arises out of our foreign commerce, and the different rates of duty established by the two tariffs which will soon be in force.."

"The General Government,... to prevent the serious diminution of its revenues, will be compelled to blockade the Southern ports... and prevent the importation of foreign goods into them, or to put another expensive guard upon the frontiers to prevent smuggling into the Union States. Even if the independence of the seceding Commonwealths should be recognized, and two distinct nations thus established, we should still experience all the vexations, and be subjected to all the expenses and annoyances which the people of Europe have long suffered, on account of their numerous Governments, and many inland lines of custom-houses. Thus, trade of all kinds, which has already been seriously crippled would be permanently embarrassed..."

"It is easy for men to deride and underestimate the value of the Union, but its destruction would speedily be followed by fearful proofs of its importance to the whole American people."

[Ibid. Philadelphia Press, p.69]

Blockading ports is considered an act of war.

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

>>Joey wrote: "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."

The truth is, one way or another -- either by war or crony-capitalism -- the "republicans" would have plundered the South.

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

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

How simple-minded can one get?

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "The highlighted statement should read, "the cause of Lincoln and his crony-capitalist friends" was advanced. "
>>Joey wrote: "Your insane obsession with "crony capitalism" is noted and dismissed as nothing more than the rantings of feeble mind unaccustomed to dealing with reality."

Lincoln was always a devout crony-capitalist, Joey, from the days of the $12 million "internal-improvements" boondoggle in 1837 (that saddled Illinois with "brilliant schemes" and a mountain of debt,) right up until his death. Illinois amended its state constitution in 1848 to prohibit public financing of private industry, but too late to escape the graft and ambition of the "De Witt Clinton of Illinois," Abraham Lincoln.

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

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

I can see how you might think that way, since you, like Lincoln, believe in a Living Constitution. But it was common knowledge of those days, as well as common sense, that the Constitution was a barrier to the implementation of the Whig economic agenda, which was Lincoln's economic agenda. Neely noticed:

"In the 1840s, Lincoln appeared to be marching steadily toward a position of gruff and belittling impatience with constitutional arguments against the beleaguered Whig program."

[Mark E. Neely Jr., "The Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties." Oxford University Press, 1992, p.212]

When the Whig party died, its economic was adopted by the Lincoln "republican" party. Its progressive concept of "implied powers" (that is, "If I imply it," it magically becomes an authorized power) was pretty much enshrined into law by Lincoln's usurpations. I am simply a voice crying in the wilderness, Joey.

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

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

You are ignorant of, or avoiding, Lincoln's total war on civilians, Joey. When Sherman and Sheridan were finished impoverishing and making homeless both white and black civilians in the South, for generations to come, they turned their "racial justice" on the Plains Indians to make room for another great, crony-capitalist boondoggle, the Transcontinental Railroad (more appropriately called the Zig-Zag Railroad.)

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

>>Joey wrote: "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."

I am simply defending the Constitution, Joey, against progressives like you. Speaking of insane, you have to be insane to believe a living constitution is worth more than wet toilet paper.

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

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

Your love affair with a blood-thirsty tyrant cannot be healthy, Child.

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

>>Joey wrote: "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."

Ignorant Child.

Mr. Kalamata

[BroJoeK]

OIFVeteran from post #361: "...Over that time I met exactly two people that believed Lincoln was a tyrant and the south was justified in seceding."

Kalamata post #368: "I see you are still playing the moral-superiority card. I thought you were done with that."

BJK post #444: "OIFVeteran merely pointed out that he met a small number of racists in the military, and somehow in Kalamata's warped mind that becomes "playing the moral-superiority card"?"

Kalamata post #485: "Joey is contextually-challenged."

Naw, Olive-boy has simply imagined a context which was, in fact, not there.

Kalamata: "Perhaps you fit in with the racists better than I did, Joey?"

Context, context: the question on the table here is, why does Kalamata claim he met so many more racists while serving in the military than either OIFVeteran or yours truly remember.
Here he suggests that's because he didn't "fit in" so well with racists.
I'd certainly agree, it's most likely Olive-boy didn't "fit in" so well with the military, period.
I can find no sense of being a good soldier in his posts here.
I also suspect the reason he met so many racists was because they were not afraid to express such opinions to him.
In my time I served beside, under and over soldiers of every color & background.
When I walked into a room they stood, saluted and were on their best behavior.

Kalamata: "Lincoln was a crony-socialist, Joey, as was Buchanan."

And yet again, Olive-boy, your insane obsession with "crony" anything is noted and dismissed as nothing more than the rantings of feeble mind unaccustomed to dealing with reality.

Kalamata: "I didn’t say “Pennsylvanians” were racist, Joey.
I singled some out as racist."

Pennsylvania is sometimes mocked as "Pennsyl-tucky", it being said we are really three states -- Philadelphia in the East, Pittsburg in the West and Alabama in-between.
Pennsylvania was among the first states to begin abolition and as of 1850 no other free-state had more freed-blacks.
I live "back in the woods" in the "Alabama" part, not so far from President Buchanan's home town.
In some villages nearby you can see Confederate flags flying from porches, sometimes beside US flags.

I doubt seriously if those Confederate flag-flyers consider themselves racists, not at all, but Pennsylvanians have an independent streak which expressed itself not just in 1776, but also in the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion and 1798 Fries Rebellion.
In 1863 there were Pennsylvanians serving on both sides at Gettysburg, though many more for the Union.
So Pennsylvanians admire people with the courage to stand up for their own independence.
And Pennsylvanians, certainly my "Alabama" neighbors, love, love Donald Trump.

Kalamata: "Where are your sources, Joey?"

Thanks for asking.
The total number of slaveholders in 1860, circa 400,000 comes from the 1860 census, a summary found here.

Cotton exports after 1860 can be found here, and also here.

Kalamata: "Joey finally said something I am in complete agreement with.
Our property taxes are now roughly 25% of what they were in PA, on approximately the same size home and lot."

And, typical of our Olive-boy, what he agrees with he takes credit for himself having said!
Post #485, final response, he quotes my words as his own.

{sigh}

[OIFVeteran]

what do you think James Madison, the father of the constitution meant when he wrote this;

From James Madison to Alexander Hamilton

N. York Sunday Evening [20 July 1788]

My Dear Sir

Yours of yesterday is this instant come to hand & I have but a few minutes to answer it. I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to propositions of the nature you describe. My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.

James Madison

[BroJoeK]

OIFVeteran to DiogenesLamp: "The main cause of the war was rebels firing on a United States fort."

DiogenesLamp: "This is incorrect.
The Confederates (they weren't rebels.
Lincoln was the rebel.) had no intentions of firing on Ft. Sumter until Lincoln made it into a necessity."

So let's call DiogenesLamp's response here what it is: lunacy.
It's just Democrats doing what Democrats by nature do -- redefine words and rewrite history to suit their own nefarious purposes.

The simple truth is that in early March 1861 Jefferson Davis ordered Confederate Gen. Beauregard to prepare to take Fort Sumter by force.
Confederates then demanded Sumter's surrender under threat of force, and when Union Maj. Anderson refused Davis ordered Beauregard to "reduce" the fort.

Now DiogenesLamp likes to pretend Anderson might have surrendered "peacefully", without a fight, but in fact Anderson was under orders not to.
So Davis was never going to seize Fort Sumter without starting a war.

DiogenesLamp: "When Lincoln ordered them all to proceed to Charleston and there *ATTACK* everyone surrounding the fort if they did not cooperate, this caused the need to fire on the fort. "

Again, DiogenesLamp well knows the truth of this but continues to lie about it anyway.
In fact, Lincoln's orders were, in effect, "no first use of force" and "resupply mission only".
There were no orders to "*ATTACK*" anyone.

DiogenesLamp: "Even then, General Beauregard had sent a message to Major Anderson telling him that if Anderson would give assurance that the fort would not attack them when those ships arrived, he would refrain from firing on the fort.
Anderson refused. "

And DiogenesLamp's lies just keep on coming.
In fact, Beauregard demanded Anderson's immediate surrender, period.
When Anderson refused, Confederates opened fire on the fort.

DiogenesLamp: "So you see, it was the sending of warships that caused the war.
Without that single act by Abraham Lincoln, there would have been no war.
Therefore it is on Lincoln's head, and his alone, that the nation descended into a bloody civil war. "

And DiogenesLamp's lies just never stop.
The real truth is Confederates had been fighting a low-level war against the United States since December 1860, seizing Federal properties, threatening US officials and firing on Union ships.
And Confederates were warned publicly in February by President Buchanan what he'd already told them privately in December -- they would not take Fort Sumter without a fight.
So Davis knew for months he could start Civil War at Fort Sumter, and he did.
Davis' own cynical words show it was totally premeditated:

"There would be to us an advantage in so placing them that an attack by them would be a necessity, but when we are ready to relieve our territory and jurisdiction of the presence of a foreign garrison that advantage is overbalanced by other considerations."
Davis to Bragg, April 3, 1861

DiogenesLamp: "Slavery for "four score and seven years", and Lincoln and the Republican congress voting to pass the Corwin amendment (extending slavery indefinitely) and you think the war was fought over the normal status quo for that era? "

DiogenesLamp imagines that his own unique historical fantasies are more important historically than the actual reasons expressed by secessionists themselves in 1860 & 1961.

The real truth is that Deep South Fire Eaters announced, in effect, "we're seceding because Black Republicans don't like slavery".
So Democrats in Congress said, "Oh, no, we'll make slavery easier for you, see?"
But Lincoln Republicans said, "no way" to every Democrat proposal, except one, by Corwin a Republican, which seemed harmless enough, changed nothing really.

But most secessionists had no interest in Corwin because by then (March 1861), they already had super-guaranteed slavery protected under their new Confederate constitution.

DiogenesLamp: "The main reason for secession is because a majority of people in disaffected states had decided that the Special Interest Crony Capitalists corruptocrats running Washington DC for the benefit of the powerful men of New York... "

And still more lunatic fantasies.
In fact, not one secessionist at the time said anything remotely similar to DiogenesLamp's wild imaginings.

DiogenesLamp: "...no longer served their interests, and so they voted to "dissolve the political bonds" much as the founders did "four score and seven years" previously."

And here the Lost Cause's Big Lie is hidden behind his word "much".
In fact, there was no remote similarity, none, between our Founders in 1776 and secessionists of 1860.
For example, nothing in 1860 remotely resembled our 1776 Founders' legitimate grievances, such as:

"He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people."

[DoodleDawg]

The point is, Montgomery considered Sumter to be more secure than Moultrie, so he secretly relocated his troops there, committing an act of war.

Leaving aside for a moment your unfamiliarity of Confederate history, even had South Carolina been an independent country at the time Anderson moved his troops from one fort to another both of them were the property of the U.S. government. Why was moving an act of war?

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

Once again we see that you will easily believe anything no matter how ridiculous if it fits your agenda. Stop and think for a change. Sumter is on an island in the middle of Charleston harbor. The wharves where the goods are landed are a miles away on the mainland. How does Fort Sumter collect tariffs when it is nowhere near where the goods are landed? And if Fort Sumter was the tariff collection point then what was the purpose of the Customs House on East Bay Street, right where the wharves were?

Lincoln considered free trade going through the ports of Charleston to be a serious threat to his crony Whig agenda.

Why? Say for the sake of argument that the Southern secession was legal and the Confederacy became a sovereign nation. What difference would it have made for the U.S. what the Confederate tariffs were? What was the impact? And please don't post newspaper editorial after newspaper editorial after newspaper editorial. Facts please. Why do you think it mattered?

This is a part of conversation between Lincoln and Colonel Baldwin, a Virginia delegate, prior to Virginia's secession:

But that conversation was not recorded until April 1865. Far be it from me to suggest that there might be more than a touch of loser revisionism in Dabney's account of his conversation with Baldwin but it isn't like it was an extemporaneous account of the meeting.

The term would be accurate if it were renamed to "Lost Constitutioners".

I always find it amusing when Lost Causers accuse Lincoln of ignoring the Constitution and yet will bend themselves all out of shape to justify Davis' infractions.

Cotton growers were hurt mostly by: 1) reciprocal tariffs placed by foreign trading partners, which lowered their incomes, and 2) higher prices for imported items. It is simple economics, Joey.

Fair enough if true. Great Britain was by far the largest importer of raw cotton so any harm from reciprocal tariffs would have to be there. What was the tariff they placed on U.S. cotton imports? And what did the South import from overseas in large enough quantities that the tariff harmed them so much?

Yeah, everyone who doesn't kiss Lincoln's ring is a liar. I get it . . .

And everyone who questions your crap is a Lincoln apoligist and a liar, too. I get that as well.

That is stupendously simple-minded, Joey. Duty-free (or duty-light) imports would come through Southern ports.

How? What difference would it make if the Confederacy had a zero tariff and goods landed in Charleston? Once they passed to the U.S. they would pay the same tariff that they would pay if they went directly to New York would they not?

No, that would have been an economic reality under a non-protective tariff authorized by the Confederate Constitution.

You say that as if abiding by their constitution was of interest to Davis and the Confederate congress.

Blockading ports is considered an act of war.

Not if they're your own ports.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp on Lincoln: "Concerned with preserving the money streams flowing through his backers pockets and also into the Federal treasury so that he may use it to "stimulate" more Crony Capitalism with him at the center of it. "

Estimates of presidential wealth put Donald Trump at the top of the list, by far, followed by Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt and James Madison.

The list of poorest presidents includes Truman, McKinley, Grant and Lincoln.

But I disagree that George Washington was effectively less wealthy than Donald Trump, for the reason that Washington is said to have been the wealthiest man in the country, while Trump's wealth, impressive as it is, is greatly exceeded by many others.

Of today's roughly 620 US billionaires, Trump ranks down around 250.

I don't have a number for Jefferson Davis' wealth, but he was clearly closer to George Washington's than to Abraham Lincoln's.

By the way, you will be interested to learn that I did talk to the spokesman for the American Billionaires Club -- ABC -- and he confirmed that they did indeed offer to make DiogenesLamp an honorary billionaire, but the Lampster turned it down because, he said, he felt far too morally superior to associate with such filthy "Crony Capitalists".

;-)

[OIFVeteran]

While your still pondering what Madison meant in that letter maybe you can help me figure out what some of the other founding fathers meant by these statements. Thanks for your help!

“There are four things, which I humbly conceive, are essential to the well being, I may even venture to say, to the existence of the United States as an Independent Power:

1st. An indissoluble Union of the States under one Federal Head.

“That there must be a faithfull and pointed compliance on the part of every State, with the late proposals and demands of Congress, or the most fatal consequences will ensue, That whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the Liberty and Independency of America, and the Authors of them treated accordingly”

Both quotes from Washington’s Circular Farewell Letter to the Army 1783

Alexander Hamilton: “Let the thirteen States, bound together in a strict and indissoluble Union, concur in erecting one great American system” Federalist 11

Charles Cotesworth Pinckney at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention, 1788. On the indivisibility of the United States, Pinckney said:

Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Why didn't the five Union slave states secede?
They had slavery too.
If "slavery" was the reason states seceded, then why didn't the other slave states also secede? "

With just a little thought DiogenesLamp would realize that the vote for secession was roughly proportional to the strength of slavery in any given state.
So seven Deep South states with the highest numbers of slaves & slaveholders voted for secession mainly because of their perception of threats to slavery by Lincoln's "Black Republicans".

The four Upper South states, with far fewer slaves, all refused to secede based on such reasons alone, but waited for some act of "injury or oppression" -- Fort Sumter -- then flipped from Union to Confederate.

The Border Slave-States had even fewer slaves and so refused to secede even after Fort Sumter, and even though the Confederacy claimed both Missouri and Kentucky.

DiogenesLamp: "Virginia lists as it's primary reason for seceding the abuse of power from Lincoln in calling up an army to deny freedom to other people who wanted out of his control. "

Actually, Virginia's Ordnance of Secession says nothing about that.
Instead, Virginians held back until after war began at Fort Sumter, then declared:

"...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."

In fact, many Virginians wanted to secede long before Fort Sumter but realized (unlike DiogenesLamp) that secession legally required some violation of the Constitution by Federal government and no such violation remotely existed, until Jefferson Davis gave them the fig-leaf of excuse by opening fire on Fort Sumter.

Even then Virginians had to lie about it, since Lincoln's actions in no way "injured" Virginians and, at Fort Sumter, South Carolina was no longer one of the "Southern Slaveholding States."

[BroJoeK]

jdsteel: "You think it’s all the same?"

DiogenesLamp: "What part is different?
The United Kingdom was a Union."

In 1776 the Brits were a dictatorial empire attempting to impose centralized rule over American colonies long accustomed to governing themselves.

In 1860 the US was a decentralized constitutional republic which had been effectively ruled over since the election of 1800 by Southern Democrats.

DiogenesLamp: "The Founders were all slave holders."

In 1776 nearly all Southern Founders and about half the Northerners were slaveholders.
By 1787 all Southern Founders and no Northerners were slaveholders.

DiogenesLamp: "The Union officers offered Freedom for any slave that would join them to fight against the Rebels."

This is a point where DiogenesLamp might begin to grasp what was really going on if, if he could understand the difference between 1776 and 1861.
In 1776 the Brits offered freedom for slaves who would fight against Americans and how did George Washington respond?
Washington responded by offering freedom to slaves who served the Continental Army.
All told, about 9,000 African Americans did serve as patriots such that it's reported, in Washington's army at Yorktown about one in four was black.

For slaves, "Bounties were both monetary payments and the chance to be given freedom; they were promised to those who joined either side of the war."

"In the Revolutionary War, slave owners often let their slaves enlist in the war with promises of freedom, but many were put back into slavery after the conclusion of the war.[10]"

After Dunmore's Proclamation: "As a response to expressions of fear posed by armed blacks, in December 1775, Washington wrote a letter to Colonel Henry Lee III, stating that success in the war would come to whatever side could arm the blacks the fastest.[22]"

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

Both of whom at times expressed opposition to slavery and support for enlisting African Americans in their army.

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

Not at all true.
In fact King George III was just as willing to spend British blood & treasure, and did so during the Revolutionary War.
The real difference is that, of necessity, Britain's Georgie-boy had to spread his troops, ships and national treasure over a much, much larger battlefield than President Lincoln did.
King George had to fight not just Americans in American but also French, Spanish, Dutch and India-Indians, from the Indian Ocean to Africa, the Mediterranean, Caribbean & Atlantic Oceans.
As George's war dragged on, year after year, the territorial breadth and numbers of opponents grew ever larger.

By stark contrast, Lincoln had only one opponent, the Confederacy, only one region, the South, and as Civil War lasted, year after year, the territorial breadth and numbers of opponents grew ever smaller.

And that's the difference having a truly just cause and willing allies makes.
Our Founders had them in spades, Confederates not so much.

[jdsteel]

“ A silly point. They were still a Union in 1776 when we decided we wanted to be independent from them.”

The word “union” was tossed about then, sure. The correct and most widely used term was “The British Empire”. Just like when people toss around the word “Democracy” to describe the USA when we are not.

Your opinion that the founding fathers did not care about slavery is discredited by the writings and arguments of that time period. It was a hotly debated subject that was left for future generations to settle...which we did.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Founding-Fathers-and-Slavery-1269536

[jdsteel]

If it makes you feel better I will restate it in a way to make it more palatable to you.

There was not one Republican slave owner in the Southern States at the time of the civil war.

Feel better?

[DiogenesLamp]

"Well," said he, "what about the revenue? What would I do about the collection of duties?" Said I, "Sir, how much do you expect to collect in a year?" Said he, ''Fifty or sixty millions." "Why, sir," said I, "four times sixty is two hundred and forty. Say $250,000,000 would be the revenue of your term of the presidency; what is that but a drop in the bucket compared with the cost of such a war as we are threatened with? Let it all go, if necessary; but I do not believe that it will be necessary, because I believe that you can settle it on the basis I suggest,"

What Colonel Baldwin didn't realize is the lost revenue to the US Treasury was just one part of it. The bigger threat in Lincoln's mind was the undermining of all his Crony Capitalist business buddies back in New York. With low tariff trade in the South, their markets all along the border and in the Midwest were under severe threat from European goods displacing them. Without that protective tariff holding up their businesses, they would be economically destroyed.

The financial disaster to the Federal government is one thing, but the destruction of these men of power's businesses was quite another. They were Lincoln's backers, and if he didn't protect their financial interests, he would not only lose the presidency and thereafter be poor, he would be humiliated.

People never stop to think how Southern low tariff trade represented a massive economic threat to the power brokers in the North.

The War was about their money more so than about lost Federal revenues.

[DiogenesLamp]

Your opinion that the founding fathers did not care about slavery is discredited by the writings and arguments of that time period.

Let us be clear on this point. Your claim is only valid if you have evidence of it prior to the Declaration of Independence. What they did subsequent to 1776, (The year they actually established the new government) is irrelevant to what was their intent when they established the new government.

You can't justify past actions by claiming future actions made your past actions right.

So do you have any example of the founders great concern over slavery prior to 1776?

Looking at your link, the answer would appear to be "no."

So let's be clear on this point. *WHEN* the founders were actually creating the new government, they did not give a crap about the issue of slavery. As a matter of fact, they forced Jefferson to remove some of his abuses from the Declaration of Independence that cast slavery in a bad light.

Remaining in the Declaration is an actually pro-slavery statement. "He has incited domestic insurrections among us..." meaning slave revolts.

They considered offering freedom to the slaves to be an "abuse" by the British Crown.

[Kalamata]

>>OIFVeteran from post #361: "...Over that time I met exactly two people that believed Lincoln was a tyrant and the south was justified in seceding."
>>Kalamata post #368: "I see you are still playing the moral-superiority card. I thought you were done with that."
>>BJK post #444: "OIFVeteran merely pointed out that he met a small number of racists in the military, and somehow in Kalamata's warped mind that becomes "playing the moral-superiority card"?"
>>Kalamata post #485: "Joey is contextually-challenged."
>>Joey wrote: Naw, Olive-boy has simply imagined a context which was, in fact, not there.

As usual, tricky Joey took the original statement out of context. This was the original post by OIF:

OIFVeteran wrote: “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. Started in the Marines and retired from the Army. 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. One from Virginia and one from Tennessee, both white. They were also the two most racist people I’ve have ever had the misfortune to meet in real life. (Sadly I’ve met even more racist people on line.)”

That certainly appears to be a case of playing the moral superiority card. I personally consider military and ex-military to have a certain amount of moral superiority to those who didn't serve, and were able to serve. Perhaps Joey doesn't.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Perhaps you fit in with the racists better than I did, Joey?"
>>Joey wrote: "Context, context: the question on the table here is, why does Kalamata claim he met so many more racists while serving in the military than either OIFVeteran or yours truly remember. Here he suggests that's because he didn't "fit in" so well with racists."

I was merely offering a suggestion that perhaps you didn't notice racists, as much as I did, because you are more like them -- like fish in a fish bowl.

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

>>Joey wrote: "I'd certainly agree, it's most likely Olive-boy didn't "fit in" so well with the military, period."

I enjoyed my time in the military, Joey, and I am honored to have had the privilege of serving my country.

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

>>Joey wrote: "I can find no sense of being a good soldier in his posts here."

Joey's will slander you if you don't kiss rings of his heroes: the racist Charlie Darwin and the racist Abraham Lincoln.

Almost forgot: Joey's modern-day hero is author Michael Shermer, an anti-conservative atheist-bigot. The difference between an atheist and an "atheist-bigot," is the latter proselytizes.

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

>>Joey wrote: "I also suspect the reason he met so many racists was because they were not afraid to express such opinions to him."

Perhaps. I was the quiet one.

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

>>Joey wrote: "In my time I served beside, under and over soldiers of every color & background. When I walked into a room they stood, saluted and were on their best behavior."

Once a braggart, always a braggart.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Lincoln was a crony-socialist, Joey, as was Buchanan."
>>Joey wrote: "And yet again, Olive-boy, your insane obsession with "crony" anything is noted and dismissed as nothing more than the rantings of feeble mind unaccustomed to dealing with reality."

How would you prefer to re-characterize it, Joey? Predatory politics? Influence peddling? Pay-for-play? Just curious . . .

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "I didn’t say “Pennsylvanians” were racist, Joey. I singled some out as racist."
>>Joey wrote: "Pennsylvania is sometimes mocked as "Pennsyl-tucky", it being said we are really three states -- Philadelphia in the East, Pittsburg in the West and Alabama in-between. Pennsylvania was among the first states to begin abolition and as of 1850 no other free-state had more freed-blacks. I live "back in the woods" in the "Alabama" part, not so far from President Buchanan's home town. In some villages nearby you can see Confederate flags flying from porches, sometimes beside US flags. I doubt seriously if those Confederate flag-flyers consider themselves racists, not at all, but Pennsylvanians have an independent streak which expressed itself not just in 1776, but also in the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion and 1798 Fries Rebellion. In 1863 there were Pennsylvanians serving on both sides at Gettysburg, though many more for the Union. So Pennsylvanians admire people with the courage to stand up for their own independence. And Pennsylvanians, certainly my "Alabama" neighbors, love, love Donald Trump.

Mattress stuffing.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Where are your sources, Joey?"
>>Joey wrote: "Thanks for asking. The total number of slaveholders in 1860, circa 400,000 comes from the 1860 census, a summary found here. Cotton exports after 1860 can be found here, and also here."

Joey has a knack of painting the rosiest picture of death and destruction. The truth is, after Sherman and Sheridan burned, pillaged, and thoroughly trashed the South, the "republican" "reconstructionists" and Carpetbaggers swarmed in, continuing the plunder. Dunning put it mildly:

"The most conspicuous feature of maladministration was that of the finances. To the ambitious northern whites, inexperienced southern whites, and unintelligent blacks who controlled the first reconstructed governments, the grand end of their induction into power was to put their states promptly abreast of those which led in the prosperity and progress at the North. Things must be done, they believed, on a larger, freer, nobler scale than under the debased regime of slavery. Accordingly, both by the new constitutions and by legislation, the expenses of the governments, were largely increased: offices were multiplied in all departments; salaries were made more worthy of the now regenerated and progressive commonwealths; costly enterprises were undertaken for the promotion of the general welfare, especially where that welfare was primarily connected with the uplifting of the freedmen. The result of all this was promptly seen in an expansion of state debts and an increase of taxation that to the property-owning class were appalling and ruinous. And the fact which was of the first importance in the situation was that this class, which paid the taxes, was sharply divided politically from that which levied them, and was by the whole radical theory of the reconstruction to be indefinitely excluded from a determining voice in the government."

[William Archibald Dunning, "Reconstruction, political and economic, 1865-1877." 1907, pp.205-206]

The looting of the South is what the Lincolnites call "healing the wounds," when, in reality, it was seeding the hatred and delaying the recovery. The Marxist revisionists, such as Eric "Phony" Foner, hate Dunning for helping to expose the treachery of "reconstruction." Therefore, I highly recommend Dunning's books, as I do all books the Marxists hate. This is the book I quoted above:

Free download: Dunning - Reconstruction, political and economic, 1865-1877

BTW, Joey, it doesn't appear your third "source" tells us anything about production and exports in 1861, just before Lincoln's invasion. It also doesn't seem to tell us who benefitted from the production in 1870 and later. Help us out.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Joey finally said something I am in complete agreement with. Our property taxes are now roughly 25% of what they were in PA, on approximately the same size home and lot."
>>Joey wrote: "And, typical of our Olive-boy, what he agrees with he takes credit for himself having said! Post #485, final response, he quotes my words as his own. {sigh}"

LOL! Joey always runs out of material before finishing his act, and is forced to improvise. This was Joey in #444:

"Sure, even today Southerners on average earn less than Northerners, but it also costs less to live in the South and anyone accustomed to high taxes for Northern roads is always amazed to see Southern roads maintained at much lower costs. And if your definition of "the good life" includes enjoying the relaxed outdoors with your family & friends, then it would be easy to construct a chart showing that the further North you travel, the less of that you find."

I am still in complete agreement with you on that point, Child, no matter how much you protest or obfuscate.

Mr. Kalamata