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

I would be hesitant about giving superiority, moral or otherwise, just because someone served in the military. Look at LTC Vindeman for example. I meant my post as merely an observation and cited my years and experiences to show how wide ranging and long it had been.

Kalamata, have you had any chance to look at those quotes from the founding fathers and figure out what they mean?

Thanks to these threads I have been doing more research on the secessionist winter. Lincoln is often accused of being a tyrant, but I am going to post some resolutions and statements from northern states to show that Lincoln was simply carrying out his constitutional obligations as he, and these state governments, saw it.

Governor Banks final address to the Massachusetts legislature, given January 3, 1861:

While I would not withhold from the South what belongs to that section, I cannot consent that we should yield what belongs to us. The right to the Territory must be a common right, as to the people of the country, and their status must be determined upon the rights of the people, and not as to the rights of property. To base the fundamental ideas of the Government upon property is to change the purposes of government, and to establish the basis of that property upon the right to hold slaves, is to exclude the people of non-slaveholding States altogether. It has never been conceded as a right, and it ought not now to be established. There is no species of property entitled to such protection as will exclude men from Territories, aside from all considerations of property. Neither do I believe that a geographical line will give peace to the country. It must either by express agreement be restricted to territory now in our possession, and not to be applied to that hereafter obtained, or the establishment of such line in itself would be a signal for the acquisition of foreign territory in the South at the cost of foreign war, and the renewal of contests for its possession and control, when acquired at the expense of domestic peace. That the lapse of time alone will heal all dissensions upon this subject is shown by the efforts made to precipitate a revolution in order to secure advantage that otherwise must fail.

The closing section of the Annual Message of Governor Randall of Wisconsin, January 10, 1861:

The right of a State to secede from the Union can never be admitted. The national government cannot treat with a State while it is in the Union, and particularly while it stands in an attitude hostile to the Union. So long as any State assumes a position, foreign, independent, and hostile to the government, there can be no conciliation. The government of the United States cannot treat with one of its own States as a foreign power. The constitutional laws of the United States extend over every State alike. They are to be enforced in every State alike.

A state cannot come into the Union as it pleases, and go out when it pleases. Once in, it must stay until the Union is destroyed. There is no coercion of a State. But where a faction of a people arrays itself, not against one act, but against alllaws, and against all government, there is but one answer to be made: “The Government must be sustained, and the laws shall be enforced!”

Secession is revolution; revolution is war; war against the government of the United States is treason.

It is time, now, to know whether we have any government, and if so, whether it has any strength. Is our written Constitution more than a sheet of parchment? The nation must be lost or preserved by its own strength. Its strength is in the patriotism of the people. It is time now that politicians become patriots, that men show their love of country by every sacrifice but that of principle, and by unwavering devotion to its interests and integrity.

The hopes of civilization and Christianity are suspended now upon the answer to this question of dissolution. The capacity for, as well as the right of self-government is to pass its ordeal, and speculation to become certainty. Other systems have been tried and have failed, and all along the skeletons of nations have been strewn, as warnings and landmarks upon the great highway of historic government. Wisconsin is true, and her people steadfast. She will not destroy the Union, nor consent that it shall be done. Devised by great, and wise, and good men, in days of sore trial, it must stand. Like some bold mountain, at whose base the great seas break their angry floods, and around whose summit the thunders of a thousand hurricanes have rattled, strong, unmoved, immovable—so may our Union be, while treason surges at its base, and passions rage around it, unmoved, immovable—here let it stand forever.

DiogenesLamp: "I have only learned of this thing we now call "Crony Capitalism" in the last decade or so.
Prior to that, I had no inkling that there was in fact collusion between powerful government officials and powerful wealthy men of business."

Sorry, but both of you fellows have seemingly been driven to insanity by mere words, in this case the term "crony capitalism".
In fact, that term refers to nothing quantifiable:

"Crony capitalism is an economic system in which businesses thrive not as a result of risk, but rather as a return on money amassed through a nexus between a business class and the political class.
This is often achieved by using state power rather than competition in managing permits, government grants, tax breaks, or other forms of state intervention[1][2] over resources where the state exercises monopolist control over public goods, for example, mining concessions for primary commodities or contracts for public works"

"The first extensive use of the term "crony capitalism" came about in the 1980s, to characterize the Philippine economy under the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos.[4] "

But even this definition admits:

"Crony capitalism exists along a continuum.
In its lightest form, crony capitalism consists of collusion... "

And what exactly is "collusion"?
Well, there are definitions in law and then there are partisan political witch-hunts intended to destroy opponents by throwing words at them, hoping something, anything, might stick.

Bottom line is that "crony capitalism" is just a form of corruption and standards for what is, or is not, "corrupt" can change over time.
So practices considered acceptable 200 years ago might be exposed and outlawed 100 years ago to be replaced with new technology & corrupt practices today.
But there is no quantitative measurement we can use to say if we today are any less or more corrupt than people of either 100 or 200 years ago.

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

First of all, there's no quantifiable evidence that corruption overall under Grant was any more or less than any previous administration.
What we do have are anecdotal reports, some with all the reliability of today's fake news about President Trump's alleged collusion.

Second, blaming Lincoln for events long after he was murdered seems to me beyond even insane, it's just outright malicious lying.

Finally, the "Gilded Age" was the period of fastest economic growth in American history:

"During the 1870s and 1880s, the U.S. economy rose at the fastest rate in its history, with real wages, wealth, GDP, and capital formation all increasing rapidly.[42]
For example, between 1865 and 1898, the output of wheat increased by 256%, corn by 222%, coal by 800% and miles of railway track by 567%.[43]"

"Economic historian Clarence D. Long estimates that (in terms of constant 1914 dollars), the average annual incomes of all American non-farm employees rose from $375 in 1870 to $395 in 1880, $519 in 1890 and $573 in 1900, a gain of 53% in 30 years.[57] "

During the "Gilded Age" the US economy grew 150%, population doubled and average real wages rose over 50%.
Now suppose hypothetically we could construct some sort of quantitative measure of "corruption" and based on this metric we learn that "corruption" effects, say, 3% of the entire economy, meaning, if the economy doubles, as it did in the Gilded Age, so does "corruption".

Now, suppose also that over the years our standards for what is, or is not, "corrupt" change, and so what we are actually measuring is not increasing corruption but rather ever higher standards applied to relatively constant behavior.
Of course, there is no such metric and even if there were, we couldn't be certain exactly what it measured.

My point is: there's no rational reason to let mere words like "crony capitalism" drive you to paroxysms of insanity and frothing at the mouth over your fantasies of "tyranny" and "oppression" by Lincoln decades after he was dead!

Act of the Legislature of the State of Michigan, February 2, 1861.

JOINT RESOLUTIONS on the state of the Union.

Whereas, Certain citizens of the United States are at this time in open rebellion against the government, and by overt acts threaten its peace and harmony, and to compass its final overthrow; therefore

Resolved; That the government of the United States is supreme, with full inherent powers of self-protection and defense.

Resolved, That Michigan adheres to the government, as ordained by the constitution, and for sustaining it intact hereby pledges and tenders to the general government all its military power and material resources.

Resolved, That concession and compromise are not to be entertained or offered to traitors, while the rights and interests of Union-loving citizens should be regarded and respected in every place and under all circumstances. Resolved, That His Excellency, the Governor, be requested to forward a copy of these resolutions to our Senators and Representatives in Congress, and to the Governors of our sister States.

STATE OF, NEW YORK. In Assembly, Jan. 11, 1861.

Whereas, Treason, as defined by the Constitution of the United States, exists in one or more of the States of this Confederacy, and

Whereas, the insurgent State of South Carolina after seizing the Post Office, Custom House, Moneys and Fortifications of the Federal Government, has, by firing into a vessel ordered by the Government to convey troops and provisions to Fort Sumter, virtually declared war; and whereas, the forts and property of the United States Government in Georgia, Alabama and Louisiana, have been unlawfully seized with hostile intentions; and whereas, further, Senators in Congress avow and maintain their treasonable acts; therefore

Resolved, That the Legislature of New York, profoundly impressed with the value of the Union, and determined to preserve it unimpaired, hail with joy the recent firm, dignified and patriotic Special Message of the President of the United States, and that we tender to him, through the Chief Magistrate of our own State, whatever aid in men and money he may require to enable him to enforce the laws and upheld the authority of the Federal Government. And that in defence of "the more perfect Union," which has conferred prosperity and happiness upon the American people, renewing the pledge given and redeemed by our Fathers, we are ready to devote "our fortunes, our lives, and our sacred honor" in upholding, the Union and the Constitution.

Excerpts from Joint Resolutions of the Legislature of the State of Minnesota, January 22, 1861.

“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?”

I consider the goalpost officially moved, although I don't know how you could prove such a declaration. Are you familiar with the name John Moses Henderson Smyth?

Now, about that goalpost concreted into your post 475 (”Southern slave owners were all Democrats”): yep, you need to move that as well.

>>OIFVeteran wrote: "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

Madison explained to Hamilton that the Constitution had already been debated in Convention and sent to the states; and no modifications (conditional ratifications) were allowed during the ratification process.

Of course, a provision for Amendments was included in the Constitution.

Ironically, that statement by Madison proves the ratification provisions of Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island, declaring state sovereignty (e.g. the right to secession,) were already incorporated into the Constitution in Convention. That is an important legal point!

Mr. Kalamata

Kalamata to OIFVeteran: "Slavery was a complicated issue that cannot be objectively cherry-picked."

Naw, it's not that "complicated".
As jeffersondem is so fond of reminding us, in 1776 slavery was lawful in every state.
By 1860 it was still lawful in 15 of 33 states, at which point 11 slave-states seceded, they said, to protect slavery.

During the Civil War when the Union army marched through a Confederate region, many slaves escaped their "masters" and sought protection behind Union lines, which Congress in 1861 began to provide.

During the Civil War, when the Confederate army marched through a Union region, it grabbed up as many African-Americans -- freed, slaves, men, women, children, whatever -- as it could.
These, if not put to work directly for the Confederate Army, were taken to Confederate cities for sale in slave markets.

So what's "complicated" about that?

Kalamata "One thing that IS history, according to these Lincolinites, is Lincoln clearly did NOT fight the war over slavery:"

Of course slavery was not the issue when Civil War started at Fort Sumter, but slavery soon after became an issue when "Beast" Butler ordered his troops not to return fugitive slaves to their Confederate "masters".
And already in the summer of 1861 Congress began passing laws protecting fugitives as "contraband of war" and preventing their return to Confederates.

Throughout the Civil War slavery and emancipation became an ever bigger issue, especially as 200,000 black men joined Union Army colored regiments.
Half of those were freedmen, the other half ex-slaves and there can be no doubting they "fought to free the slaves".

After the war the Union ratified the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments over objections by former Confederates and so there is no doubt that the very fears Fire Eaters seceded to prevent -- the destruction of slavery -- happened only because they lost the war.

So it's entirely fair to say that for Confederates it was a war for their independence to preserve slavery and for the Union it was a war to preserve the Union and destroy slavery.

Very early in the war most Unionists came to understand that if they didn't also destroy slavery, they could never fully preserve the Union.

"...any man who pretends to believe that this is not a war for the emancipation of the blacks, and that the whole course of the Yankee government has not only been directed to the abolition of slavery, but even to a stirring up of servile insurrections, is either a fool or a liar."

Kalamata "When the troops did "emancipate" the blacks, it was not necessarily out of compassion.
Even in the Army blacks were second-class citizens:"

Sure, not everyone's soul is full of saint-like "compassion".
But the fact remains that it soon became Union Army policy to free escaped slaves, while providing them with both shelter and paid work.

As for "second class citizens" it's true that until final ratification of the 13th, 14th & 15th amendments (1870), ex-slaves were not legally full citizens.
But they were already hugely better off than slaves.

Kalamata: "You can cherry-pick history till hell freezes over, but you will never erase the suppressive Northern Black Codes – the ones that were introduced by Republican "reconstructionists" into the South.
Modern day black historians are becoming more and more aware that "Jim Crow" was an invention of the North, and not the South."

No, I think everybody understands it was the Union which imposed Jim Crow on Southern states and that's why, when Southerners negotiated withdrawal of the Union Army in 1876, ex-Confederates immediately began implementing the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments, granted former slaves full voting rights and abolished both Jim Crow and the KKK!
Riiiiight, so it's all "Ape" Lincoln's fault... yeh, that's the ticket.

</sarcasm>

DiogenesLamp to OIFVeteran: "I’m not even going to read a wall of text."

It wouldn't matter if you did read it, you've amply demonstrated that you just can't absorb anything outside the scope of your own constructs.

Handy Dandy: "So,......you agree.
Lincoln was first and foremost concerned with preserving the Union.
We only disagree on what his reasons were."

DiogenesLamp: "He was willing to give up the "Union" in exchange for Virginia offering assurances that it would remain.
Apparently "Preserving the Union" was negotiable regarding the 7 lesser seceded states."

No, Lincoln's (alleged) offer to Virginians might have prevented war from starting at Fort Sumter, but that's all.
It would not stop war from breaking out somewhere else, Fort Pickens, for example.

And we know that Jefferson Davis needed war to flip the Upper South and Border States from Union to Confederates, so even if Lincoln had worked a Fort Sumter deal with Virginia, I think war was all but inevitable anyway.

DiogenesLamp: "You are trying to use "Preserving the Union" as a blanket cover for what his real specific goal was.
Keeping the money.
Yes, if he "preserved the Union" his wealthy and powerful allies would get to keep their income streams, and so too would his government in Washington DC. "

That is pure fantasy based on nothing more than DiogenesLamp's vivid imagination.

DiogenesLamp: "I am reminded of an abusive Husband who "preserves the Union" by beating near to death the wife that tried to leave him."

Except in this particular case there was no "abuse", and the "wife" left without a legal settlement, with guns ablazing and taking truckloads of the "husband's" stuff.
"She" also claimed ownership of nearly half the house and declared war when he wouldn't immediately give it up.

As for who beat whom "near to death" when it was all over the "wife" had killed far more of "his" people than "he" did of "hers".
And "her" overall population statistics were indeed a little "off" in the incomplete Reconstruction census of 1870, but had been fully restored, along with cotton production, by the time of the more accurate 1880 census.

Nice dodge. What do you think he meant by this sentence.

The constitution requires an adoption in toto and for ever.

>>Kalamata wrote: “The point is, Montgomery considered Sumter to be more secure than Moultrie, so he secretly relocated his troops there, committing an act of war.”
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “Leaving aside for a moment your unfamiliarity of Confederate history,”

What did I write, “Montgomery”? LOL! So, sue me.

****************
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “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?”

South Carolina was an independent country under the Constitution in effect at that time. I admit, that is a hard concept for Lincolnites to grasp.

****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “...you appear to be correct about Fort Sumter. Several of my references mentioned Fort Sumter as a tax collection depot,”
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “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?

I don’t have an agenda; and whether Fort Sumter was a tax collection point, or not, is inconsequential to the narrative. But if that is all you have to support your agenda, by all means, use it.

****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “Lincoln considered free trade going through the ports of Charleston to be a serious threat to his crony Whig agenda.”
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “Why?”

Because he said so? Of course, Lincoln was an accomplished liar, so perhaps he was lying at the time. But since I am not smart enough to tell when he was lying, I assume Lincoln was always telling the truth. Therefore, I submit that Lincoln was a constitution-hating, abolition-hating, white supremacist, white separatist, crony-capitalist, power-hungry thug.

****************
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “Say for the sake of argument that the Southern secession was legal and the Confederacy became a sovereign nation.”

There is no argument. The Constitution is crystal clear that the general government was authorized no power over state sovereignty and secession. Show me where the general government was authorized that power, and I will admit I am wrong. I won’t hold my breath.

****************
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “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?”

Free (or limited duty) trade in the Southern States would have destroyed the crony-capitalist system adopted by the Lincoln’s Whig party.

****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “This is a part of conversation between Lincoln and Colonel Baldwin, a Virginia delegate, prior to Virginia’s secession:”
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “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.”

That conversation was alluded to throughout Lincoln’s political career, and forcefully emphasized during his first inaugural address.

****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “The term would be accurate if it were renamed to ‘Lost Constitutioners’.”
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “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.”

Why must you resort to straw men? Do you find it impossible to justify Lincoln’s tyranny, otherwise?

****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “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.”
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “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?”

Those were the grievances. Look them up.

****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “Yeah, everyone who doesn’t kiss Lincoln’s ring is a liar. I get it . . .
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “And everyone who questions your crap is a Lincoln apoligist and a liar, too. I get that as well.”

Only when they lie.

****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “That is stupendously simple-minded, Joey. Duty-free (or duty-light) imports would come through Southern ports.
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “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.

****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “No, that would have been an economic reality under a non-protective tariff authorized by the Confederate Constitution.”
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “You say that as if abiding by their constitution was of interest to Davis and the Confederate congress.”

Of course it was. The economic policies of the Confederate Constitution are the most economically sound polices ever comprised. Naturally the crony-capitalist Lincolnites would abhor them.

****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “Blockading ports is considered an act of war.”
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “Not if they’re your own ports.”

You mean, not if you are a Lincolnite, rather than a constitutionalist.

Mr. Kalamata

South Carolina was an independent country under the Constitution in effect at that time. I admit, that is a hard concept for Lincolnites to grasp.

Oh really? Perhaps it's because it's hard to grasp the nuances of constitutions that didn't exist? Or maybe they did. Sumter was built on territory deeded to the federal government by act of the South Carolina legislature. What changed that? Can you point me to a copy of the constitution that the independent country of South Carolina had adopted in December 1860? Can you point me to where that, or the eventual Confederate constitution, automatically made Sumter Confederate property?

I don’t have an agenda...

LOL! Of course you don't.

...and whether Fort Sumter was a tax collection point, or not, is inconsequential to the narrative. But if that is all you have to support your agenda, by all means, use it.

You claim Fort Sumter was a tax collection site. I'm just pointing out how illogical that claim is. Why would tariffs be collected at Fort Sumter?

Because he said so? Of course, Lincoln was an accomplished liar, so perhaps he was lying at the time. But since I am not smart enough to tell when he was lying, I assume Lincoln was always telling the truth. Therefore, I submit that Lincoln was a constitution-hating, abolition-hating, white supremacist, white separatist, crony-capitalist, power-hungry thug.

Perhaps it's your odd-ball interpretation rather than Lincoln's words?

There is no argument. The Constitution is crystal clear that the general government was authorized no power over state sovereignty and secession. Show me where the general government was authorized that power, and I will admit I am wrong. I won’t hold my breath.

Actually if there was no argument we wouldn't be having these amusing discussions.

Free (or limited duty) trade in the Southern States would have destroyed the crony-capitalist system adopted by the Lincoln’s Whig party.

How?

That conversation was alluded to throughout Lincoln’s political career, and forcefully emphasized during his first inaugural address.

LOL! No it wasn't.

Why must you resort to straw men? Do you find it impossible to justify Lincoln’s tyranny, otherwise?

Straw men or hypocrisy? You condemn what you say is Lincoln's tyranny but complete ignore tyranny on the part of Davis. Tyranny seems to be completely OK with you so long and it's your side doing it.

Those were the grievances. Look them up.

I'm looking for facts, not grievances. What were the British tariff rates on U.S. cotton imports?

Only when they lie.

LOL! Lie? Because you say so?

No.

Why not? How would they have avoided it?

Of course it was. The economic policies of the Confederate Constitution are the most economically sound polices ever comprised. Naturally the crony-capitalist Lincolnites would abhor them.

The Confederate constitution itself could claim almost anything but when the government ignored it at will then it isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

You mean, not if you are a Lincolnite, rather than a constitutionalist.

Which do you claim to be?

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

The fact is, Upper South Virginians refused to secede over just the issues Deep South states expressed in their "Reasons for Secession" documents.
Some Virginians did secede after Fort Sumter because, they said, that action satisfied their Constitution ratifying statement requiring "injury or oppression".

But the fact remains that in the part of Virginia which declared secession slaves made up 40% of their population and in Union Western Virginia only 5%.
So it's impossible to argue that slavery was not a big part of why some Virginians decided to secede and others did not.

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

And yet throughout the South those states & counties with the highest numbers of slaves voted most solidly for secession while those with no or few slaves voted Union.
So DiogenesLamp simply choses to ignore the obvious.

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

Among the Big Lies our Lost Causers advance this is one of the biggest -- Confederates "only wanted to be free".
For starters they wanted to take with them at least 15 of 33 states and two or three of seven US territories (1860 boundaries).
And they cared less if those states wanted to secede or not, Confederate troops marched into any Union state or territory they could reach, from Maryland all the way to New Mexico.

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

Those would be Confederate military forces in the Union states/territories of Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma & New Mexico.

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

The Union did not invade Confederate states until after Confederates provoked, started, declared and began waging war in Union states.
As for "why", why did the US go to war after 12/7/41 and 9/11/01?
Because we were attacked, no other reasons are necessary.

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

That's just insane nonsense, no more true of the Civil War than of any other US war.

DiogenesLamp "Then they made up a bunch of bullsh*t about doing it because of "slavery."
They did it over money, not slavery.
They didn't give a f*** about slavery, but they cared deeply about losing money as a result of Southern independence."

Of course Northerners cared a lot about slavery, among other reasons because by 1863 they realized the Confederacy could never be fully defeated unless slavery was also destroyed.

Also did you get a chance to look at this one by Charles Pickney? What do you think he meant? He was one of the signers of the constitution and helped get it ratified at South Carolina’s ratification convention. Thanks for your help!

“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.”

Charles Pickney South Carolina ratification convention1788

>>OIFVeteran wrote: “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!”

I have already posted a reply on the Madison letter to Hamilton, and you are welcome.

********************
>>OIFVeteran quoting: “Washington’s Circular Farewell Letter to the Army 1783”

Washington’s visions were incorporated into the U.S. Constitution, in Convention in 1787, including protections against attempts to consolidate power, of which he played a vital role.

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

Hamilton’s idea of a “great American system” was an un-American British mercantile system, based on a national bank, fiat currency, and crony capitalism. Clay and Lincoln were proponents of Hamilton’s “American System.”

********************
>>OIFVeteran quoting: “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.”

Attempts to nullify the revolution and give the central government unlimited power, were defeated in convention. That left Lincoln no alternative but to usurp power by force.

Mr. Kalamata

>>OIFVeteran wrote: “I would be hesitant about giving superiority, moral or otherwise, just because someone served in the military. Look at LTC Vindeman for example. I meant my post as merely an observation and cited my years and experiences to show how wide ranging and long it had been.”

Agree.

******************
>>OIFVeteran wrote: “Kalamata, have you had any chance to look at those quotes from the founding fathers and figure out what they mean?”

I am not sure which quotes you are referring to; but I tend to confine my interpretations, and acceptances, to the Convention and ratification debates. The construction determined by the Convention is the Supreme Law.

Mr. Kalamata

>>OIFVeteran wrote: “Thanks to these threads I have been doing more research on the secessionist winter. Lincoln is often accused of being a tyrant, but I am going to post some resolutions and statements from northern states to show that Lincoln was simply carrying out his constitutional obligations as he, and these state governments, saw it.”

The supreme law, as written into the Constitution, is not determined by how people feel about it at this or that particular time. The supreme law is determined by what is written, and why it was written.

****************
>>OIFVeteran quoting: “Governor Banks final address to the Massachusetts legislature, given January 3, 1861:”

I cannot make heads or tails out of his words.

Mr. Kalamata

>>OIFVeteran quoting: The closing section of the Annual Message of Governor Randall of Wisconsin, January 10, 1861: The right of a State to secede from the Union can never be admitted.”

The right of state sovereignty and determination, including the right of secession, was both admitted and demanded, in Convention and during Ratification, by men of far greater stature than Governor Randall.

Mr. Kalamata