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

[Kalamata]

>>DiogenesLamp wrote : “I have only learned of this thing we now call “Crony Capitalism” in the last decade or so.
Prior to that, I had no inkling that there was in fact collusion between powerful government officials and powerful wealthy men of business.”
>>Joey wrote: “Sorry, but both of you fellows have seemingly been driven to insanity by mere words, in this case the term “crony capitalism”.

Joey has either been living a very sheltered life, or he himself is a crony. I lean toward the latter.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata to OIFVeteran: “Slavery was a complicated issue that cannot be objectively cherry-picked.”
>>Joey wrote: “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.”

If it was that simple, the Northern manufacturers that relied on crony capitalism would not have panicked because of the secession; nor would have Lincoln.

****************
>>Joey wrote: “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.”

What actually happened to those escaped slaves, Joey?

****************
>>Joey wrote: “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?”

Do you have a source for that, Joey?

****************
>>Kalamata “One thing that IS history, according to these Lincolinites, is Lincoln clearly did NOT fight the war over slavery:”
>>Joey wrote: “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”.

How was that an issue, Joey?

****************
>>Joey wrote: “And already in the summer of 1861 Congress began passing laws protecting fugitives as “contraband of war” and preventing their return to Confederates.”

Like I said, the war was NOT about slavery.

****************
>>Joey wrote: “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”.”

Earlier in the war, captured slaves became servants of the Northern companies and regiments that captured them — from one form of servitude, to another.

****************
>>Joey wrote: “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.”

Joey’s sophistic obfuscation doesn’t alter the fact that the war had nothing to do with slavery.

****************
>>Joey wrote: “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.”

That may be considered “fair” to those who have a warped sense of history, and a love affair with a blood-thirsty tyrant named Lincoln; but not fair to any right-minded person.

****************
>>Joey wrote: “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.”

“Preserve the Union?” Do you not understand how crazy that sounds? Unions are voluntary, Joey.

****************
>>Joey wrote: “1862: The Vidette, a camp newspaper for Confederate Brig. Gen. John Hunt Morgan’s cavalry brigade. In one of the November, 1862 issues, the following appeared: “...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.”

The last part should read, “is either a fool, or a liar, or refuses to submit to the propaganda of blood-thirsty tyrants.”

****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “When the troops did “emancipate” the blacks, it was not necessarily out of compassion. Even in the Army blacks were second-class citizens:”
>>Joey wrote: “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.”

The Union states were the most racist of the states, so it was natural to treat the freed slaves with the same disdain as freed blacks were treated in their home states.

****************
>>Joey wrote: “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.”

The policies of the “republican reconstructionists” led to generations of hatred between blacks and whites, which was not present prior to the Northern invasion.

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

Joey speaks with forked tongue.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>OIFVeteran wrote: “Nice dodge.”

I didn’t dodge anything, so quit being such an accusatory jackass.

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

>>OIFVeteran wrote: “What do you think he meant by this sentence. “The constitution requires an adoption in toto and for ever.”

He meant exactly what he said, which was, the ratification of the Constitution was “as is” — no amendments or alterations allowed.

AGAIN, that statement by Madison proves that state sovereignty and secession were part of the original Constitution, for these reasons:

1) New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island included provisions in their ratification documents for retaining sovereignty and the right to secede .

2) No alterations of the original Constitution were allowed during ratification.

3) Ratification by the three states demanding the right to secede, were accepted, without question.

I realize that is legalese, but think about it.

Mr. Kalamata

[jdsteel]

Let me turn that on it’s head.

How about you show me the philosophical turning point that happened prior to the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers to turn our forefathers that you think supported slavery to what they said after 1776.

For context, here’s some of what was written in the Federalist Papers on slavery:

https://vindicatingthefounders.com/library/federalist54.html

[jdsteel]

“ John Moses Henderson Smyth?”

No, nor can I find any reference to him when searching on the internet. How ‘bout you move that through your goalpost?

[jdsteel]

By the way, I’m not the first to have said no Republicans owned slaves in the Southern states that declared separation from the Union. A simple internet search yields much information but here’s a good one:

https://www.quora.com/In-American-history-has-any-Republican-ever-owned-a-slave

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: "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."
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "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?"

Can you point to me the part of the Constitution, or the law of nations, that requires a nation to retain a military garrison of a belligerent nation within its borders?

The states offered to compensate the federal government for the forts and other federal buildings within its borders, but the warmonger, Lincoln, refused to accept it.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "...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."
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "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?"

It wasn't illogical at all. In fact, the move from the Custom House to a fort had been recommended by one of Buchanan's cabinent members -- his Secretary of State:

"It has been my decided opinion, which for some time past I have urged at various meetings of the Cabinet, that additional troops should be sent to reinforce the forts in the harbor of Charleston, with a view to their better defence should they be attacked, and that an armed vessel should likewise be ordered there, to aid, if necessary, in the defence, and also, should it be required, in the collection of the revenue; and it is yet my opinion that these measures should be adopted without the least delay. I have likewise urged the expediency of immediately removing the Custom House at Charleston to one of the forts in the port, and of making arrangements for the collection of the duties there by having a Collector and other officers ready to act when necessary, so that when the office may become vacant, the proper authority may be there to collect the duties on the part of the United States. I continue to think that these arrangements should be immediately made. While the right and the responsibility of deciding belong to you, it is very desirable that at this perilous juncture there should be, as far as possible, unanimity in your Councils, with a view to safe and efficient action.

"I have therefore felt it my duty to tender you my resignation of the office of Secretary of State, and to ask your permission to retire from that official association with yourself and the members of your Cabinet which I have enjoyed during almost four years without the occurrence of a single incident to interrupt the personal intercourse which has so happily existed.

[General Lewis Cass to John Bassett Moore, "The Works of James Buchanan Vol 11." J. B. Lippencott & Co., 1910, pp.57-58]

Many historians must assume that move actually took place, but I can find no record of it.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "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: "Perhaps it's your odd-ball interpretation rather than Lincoln's words?"

Show me what you are talking about.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "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: "Actually if there was no argument we wouldn't be having these amusing discussions."

If you understood the legal document called the Constitution of the United States, and the purpose of it, you would despise Lincoln; that is, unless you are a gangster.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Free (or limited duty) trade in the Southern States would have destroyed the crony-capitalist system adopted by the Lincoln’s Whig party."
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "How?"

The party was established on a principle of corporate welfare, and protective tariffs was the chief source of income.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "That conversation was alluded to throughout Lincoln’s political career, and forcefully emphasized during his first inaugural address."
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "LOL! No it wasn't."

I have had better conversations with a mute.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Why must you resort to straw men? Do you find it impossible to justify Lincoln’s tyranny, otherwise?"
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "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."

Davis didn't commit treason against the United States and destroy the Constitution. Lincoln did.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Those were the grievances. Look them up."
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "I'm looking for facts, not grievances. What were the British tariff rates on U.S. cotton imports?"

The U.S. didn't import cotton during that time, that I am aware of. Are you referring to finished cotton goods; and, if so, for what purpose?

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "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."
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "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 need to get out more.

Mr. Kalamata

[DoodleDawg]

Can you point to me the part of the Constitution, or the law of nations, that requires a nation to retain a military garrison of a belligerent nation within its borders?

Well if you can't answer my question then you can't answer my question. At least admit it.

Sumter was the property of the U.S. government. There were two ways for ownership to be transferred to the Confederacy - act of Congress or the way that they chose, war.

You need to get out more.

I get out a lot. But in terms of finding the information to dispute your wild claims I have all I need inside my house. he states offered to compensate the federal government for the forts and other federal buildings within its borders, but the warmonger, Lincoln, refused to accept it.

Only Congress can dispose of Federal property - Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. Lincoln didn't have the authority.

In fact, the move from the Custom House to a fort had been recommended by one of Buchanan's cabinent members -- his Secretary of State

And when exactly was that done?

Many historians must assume that move actually took place, but I can find no record of it.

I don't know of any historians who say the move actually took place. Maybe that's why you can find no record of it?

The party was established on a principle of corporate welfare, and protective tariffs was the chief source of income.

Upwards on 95% of all tariff income was collected in Northern ports. Losing far less than 10% would hardly have cause crony capitalism to crash and burn, assuming it existed as you describe to begin with.

Davis didn't commit treason against the United States and destroy the Constitution. Lincoln did.

Davis did commit treason against the U.S. and he trashed his own constitution. Lincoln did neither.

The U.S. didn't import cotton during that time, that I am aware of. Are you referring to finished cotton goods; and, if so, for what purpose?

No, I am referring to your claim that high U.S. tariffs caused foreign countries to apply their own tariffs in retaliation and that cost Southern exporters money. Since most U.S. cotton exports went to the UK then my question is what was their tariff on U.S. cotton imports that cost Southern exporters so much money?

[Kalamata]

>>OIFVeteran wrote: "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! >>OIFVeteran quoting: "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 convention 1788

I believe that statement was by Charles Cotesworth Pinckney (not Charles Pinckney,) who simply stated that the states had been bound together in a mutual union since the Declaration. The other Charles Pinckney said this:

"In every government there necessarily exists a power from which there is no appeal, and which, for that reason, may be formed absolute and uncontrollable. The person or assembly in whom this power resides is called the sovereign or supreme power of the state. With us, the sovereignty of the Union is in the people."

[Speech of Mr. Charles Pinckney, South Carolina Ratification Convention, May 4, 1788, in Jonathan Elliot, "The Debates in the Several State Conventions Vol IV." 1888, pp.302, 327-328]

Note that the 2nd Pinckney states the ultimate authority resides is the people -- not in the Congress, nor in the President, nor in the Supreme Court, but in the people. If you had said that around Lincoln's thugs, it may have gotten you killed.

Mr. Kalamata

[OIFVeteran]

What James Madison said is that the constitution had to be adopted in toto and forever. Meaning there was no means to leave it once a state accepted it.

“The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever.”

It’s pretty clear to anyone with basic reading comprehension skills.

But let’s look at what was said at the South Carolina Ratification Convention by Charles Pickney, one of South Carolina’s representative to the constitutional convention. So he should know what the founders at the convention believed.

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 Pretty clear there, they are not separately and individually independent i.e they are not sovereign. Think I’ll take the word of two founding fathers that was actually at the constitutional convention over some dude named after an olive on the internet.

[OIFVeteran]

Yes, exactly what I’ve been saying and what Justice Marshall said. Just as the constitution states also “We the people...” It resides in all of the people not in any subset of the people, not in the states. Thank you for the quote. I will save it for use in the other civil war forums I post at.

[rockrr]

Buh, but, you don't understand. It's all legalese and stuff...

[Kalamata]

>>DoodleDawg wrote: "Sumter was the property of the U.S. government. There were two ways for ownership to be transferred to the Confederacy - act of Congress or the way that they chose, war."

You mean, the way Lincoln chose.

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

>>DoodleDawg wrote: "Only Congress can dispose of Federal property - Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. Lincoln didn't have the authority."

Foreign nations are not subject to the laws of Congress; but the President and the Congress are subject to the Constitution, and their refusal to allow the states to exercise their retained power of secession constitutes tyranny.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "In fact, the move from the Custom House to a fort had been recommended by one of Buchanan's cabinent members -- his Secretary of State"
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "And when exactly was that done? I don't know of any historians who say the move actually took place. Maybe that's why you can find no record of it?"

I have read it many times in the past, but I cannot find the source.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "The party was established on a principle of corporate welfare, and protective tariffs was the chief source of income."
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "Upwards on 95% of all tariff income was collected in Northern ports. Losing far less than 10% would hardly have cause crony capitalism to crash and burn, assuming it existed as you describe to begin with."

Lincoln believed it was a big deal. He threatened war over the collection of tariffs. Northern newspapers also believed it to be a big deal. For example:

"Should the South succeed in carrying out her designs, she will immediately form commercial alliances with European countries who will readily acquiesce in any arrangement which will help English manufacturing at the expense of New England. The first move the South would make would be to impose a heavy tax upon the manufactures of the North, and an export tax upon the cotton used by Northern manufacturers. In this way she would seek to cripple the North. The carrying trade, which is now done by American vessels, would be transferred to British ships, which would be a heavy blow aimed at our commerce. It will also seriously affect our shoe trade and the manufacture of ready-made clothing, while it would derange the monetary affairs of the country."

[The Boston Herald, November 12, 1860, in Kenneth M. Stampp, "The Causes of the Civil War." 1986, p.68]

This one wrote of the necessity of a blockade:

"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."

[Philadelphia Press, March 18, 1861, in Stampp, Kenneth M., "The Causes of the Civil War." 1986, p.69]

When Lincoln actually ordered the blockade, he claimed his purpose was the collection of revenue:

"Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and the laws of the United States for the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed therein conformably to that provision of the Constitution which requires duties to be uniform throughout the United States:

"And whereas a combination of persons engaged in such insurrection, have threatened to grant pretended letters of marque to authorize the bearers thereof to commit assaults on the lives, vessels, and property of good citizens of the country lawfully engaged in commerce on the high seas, and in waters of the United States: And whereas an Executive Proclamation has been already issued, requiring the persons engaged in these disorderly proceedings to desist therefrom, calling out a militia force for the purpose of repressing the same, and convening Congress in extraordinary session, to deliberate and determine thereon: Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, with a view to the same purposes before mentioned, and to the protection of the public peace, and the lives and property of quiet and orderly citizens pursuing their lawful occupations, until Congress shall have assembled and deliberated on the said unlawful proceedings, or until the same shall have ceased, have further deemed it advisable to set on foot a blockade of the ports within the States aforesaid, in pursuance of the laws of the United States, and of the law of Nations, in such case provided. For this purpose a competent force will be posted so as to prevent entrance and exit of vessels from the ports aforesaid. If, therefore, with a view to violate such blockade, a vessel shall approach, or shall attempt to leave either of the said ports, she will be duly warned by the Commander of one of the blockading vessels, who will endorse on her register the fact and date of such warning, and if the same vessel shall again attempt to enter or leave the blockaded port, she will be captured and sent to the nearest convenient port, for such proceedings against her and her cargo as prize, as may be deemed advisable.

[Roy P. Basler, "The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln Vol 4." Rutgers University Press, 1953, pp.338-339]

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

>>DoodleDawg wrote: "Davis did commit treason against the U.S. and he trashed his own constitution. Lincoln did neither."

Practically everything Lincoln did was unconstitutional, and he committed treason against at least some of the remaining states by making war against them.

Davis relied on the Congress for authorization to suspend habeas corpus.

Where are your sources for your claims against Davis?

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "The U.S. didn't import cotton during that time, that I am aware of. Are you referring to finished cotton goods; and, if so, for what purpose?"
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "No, I am referring to your claim that high U.S. tariffs caused foreign countries to apply their own tariffs in retaliation and that cost Southern exporters money. Since most U.S. cotton exports went to the UK then my question is what was their tariff on U.S. cotton imports that cost Southern exporters so much money?

I don't recall saying there were reciprocal tariffs on cotton, itself; only by their trading partners. I would assume British tariffs on raw cotton imports would be rare, if they occurred at all. However, these historians indicated the threat existed:

"As explained by his colleague, Nathan Appleton, the minimum was designed to protect the fledgling industry in New England without antagonizing Southern cotton exporters to England. Cotton growers in the South exported raw cotton to Britain, and they were opposed to any tariff that would restrict the sales of their British customers to the United States. They worried about both loss of sales and further losses due to possible British retaliation. Lowell's tariff design shows that the sectional conflict over the tariff that would loom large at midcentury was already present at the start of New England industrialization, although in 1816 he had navigated the political shoals and crafted a tariff that did not founder on the rocks of sectionalism."

[Irwin & Temin, "The Antebellum Tariff on Cotton Textiles Revisited." Journal of Economic History, Vol.61, No.3; September, 2001, p.779]

Mr. Kalamata

[DoodleDawg]

You mean, the way Lincoln chose.

No, that's what Davis chose. In the end was it worth it?

Foreign nations are not subject to the laws of Congress; but the President and the Congress are subject to the Constitution, and their refusal to allow the states to exercise their retained power of secession constitutes tyranny.

We're talking about transferring ownership of Sumter from the U.S. to the Confederacy. Your comment is irrelevant to that.

Even had the Confederacy sent a delegation to negotiate rather than one to deliver an ultimatum, it would still have required Congressional approval to transfer ownership of Sumter to the Davis regime. But the South was not interested in a peaceful settlement.

I have read it many times in the past, but I cannot find the source.

Of course not.

Lincoln believed it was a big deal. He threatened war over the collection of tariffs.

Or over the delivery of the mail, if you're going to take parts of the First Inaugural out of context.

But again you offer nothing but editorials and cherry-picked quotes instead of hard facts. Why would the loss of approximately 5% of tariff revenue cause the war? Especially since three years later tariff revenue was well over twice what it had been in 1860? Loss of revenue from Southern imports just were not that great of a blow economically.

Practically everything Lincoln did was unconstitutional, and he committed treason against at least some of the remaining states by making war against them.

Absolute nonsense. Unlike Davis, everything Lincoln did was subject to judicial review. And suppressing rebellion is allowed; Article I, Section 8.

Davis relied on the Congress for authorization to suspend habeas corpus.

Where are your sources for your claims against Davis?

His own actions and that of his government. No Supreme Court. Offering to end slavery in exchange for foreign recognition when he had no power to do so. Policies he enacted which were found unconstitutional in the U.S. - income tax, declaring martial law in areas nowhere near the war. Policies like nationalizing industries that would have been found unconstitutional had Lincoln tried them.

Cotton growers in the South exported raw cotton to Britain, and they were opposed to any tariff that would restrict the sales of their British customers to the United States. They worried about both loss of sales and further losses due to possible British retaliation.

Fair enough. Was any retaliation ever enacted in form of tariffs on goods imported from the southern states? If you stop and think about it, doing so would have made no sense. Taxing an import that your own domestic industries needed for their product and which was not easily replaced?

[BroJoeK]

OIFVeteran: "Charles Pickney South Carolina ratification convention 1788."

There were two Charles Pinckney's (1st cousins) from South Carolina at the 1787 Constitutional Convention.
Both were spectacularly successful in life and lived until about 1825.
Both were strong Federalists in 1787, contributing to and helping ratify the new Constitution.

Charles Cotesworth Pinckney was 11 years older, a general in the Revolutionary War and close friend of George Washington, he remained a Federalist all his life, even when Federalists became unpopular in South Carolina.
In 1800 he was nominated for Vice President under John Adams and in both 1804 and 1808 for President on the Federalist ticket, losing all three times.

Charles Pinckney (younger), who you quoted, also served in the Revolutionary War, as a young lieutenant, was captured by the Brits at Charleston in 1780, held, sent north and finally released returning to Charleston in 1783.
After the 1787 Constitutional Convention, younger Pinckney came to side with Jefferson's anti-Administration faction and managed Jefferson's 1800 South Carolina presidential campaign, against his cousin, the elder Pinckney on the Federalist ticket.

Younger Pinckney claimed a lot of credit for writing the Constitution, and he is acknowledged to have inserted the fugitive slave clause into it.

Neither Pinckney cousin is ever quoted as having acknowledged or defended an unlimited "right of secession" at pleasure.

[OIFVeteran]

Can you show any quotes or writings by the founding fathers during the time of the creation and adoption of the constitution talking about this supposed “retained power of secession”? From the federalist papers, letters to each other, etc. I mean this seems like a pretty important right, you can just leave the Union whenever you want. Seems the founders would have discussed it.

I mean the quotes I’ve posted from the founders explicitly say the opposite.

“The constitution must be adopted in toto and forever.” - James Madison

I mean forever means, well, forever. You can’t at a future date say I’m out of the constitution now because you’ve adopted it forever. Maybe forever meant something else back then?

Or how about this one from the federalist papers.
“Let the thirteen States, bound together in a strict and indissoluble Union, concur in erecting one great American system” Alexander Hamilton
That’s pretty clear to me. Indissoluble means unable to be destroyed, lasting. You can’t have something indestructible when a state can just up and leave for any reason.

Or how about good old Charles Cotesworth Pickney who stared at South Carolina’s constitutional ratification convention-
“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.”

He clearly says that the states are NOT separately and individually independent. Actually calls it a form of political heresy. If a state is not independent how can it then claim to be independent?

[Kalamata]

>>OIFVeteran wrote: "Yes, exactly what I've been saying and what Justice Marshall said. Just as the constitution states also 'We the people...' It resides in all of the people not in any subset of the people, not in the states. Thank you for the quote. I will save it for use in the other civil war forums I post at."

I don't know how you squeezed that out of Pinkney's statement. Besides, an arrogant, power-hungry person like John Marshall is the last person you should be praising. Marshall was an oligarchist who believed the ultimate authority belonged in the hands of five politically-appointed lawyers on the Supreme Court -- NOT in the people. Prior to Lincoln ramming Nazi-style central planning down our throats, the Supreme Court did not have such awesome power.

Read carefully this part of Pinckney's statement again:

"The person or assembly in whom this power resides is called the sovereign or supreme power of the state."

Pinckney's statement was merely an acknowledgement of the Jeffersonian doctrine that the states were individually sovereign, and the ultimate ability to create and distribute power belonged in the Amendment process of the states (e.g, "in the people",) not in the Courts, nor in the President, nor in Congress.

Pinckney was was merely seeking ratification of document that scared the daylights out of Americans who had just fought a horrible war against a central planner -- the King. They most certainly were not going to turn their hard-fought freedom over to the control of another central planner -- not without a fight. Lincoln realized that, so he was for war.

Mr. Kalamata.

[Kalamata]

>>OIFVeteran wrote: “What James Madison said is that the constitution had to be adopted in toto and forever. Meaning there was no means to leave it once a state accepted it.”

That is nonsense.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Joey wrote: "Neither Pinckney cousin is ever quoted as having acknowledged or defended an unlimited "right of secession" at pleasure."

Few did. The right to secede – to self-determination – in the minds of most patriots, came only after a "long train of abuses and usurpations," and is enshrined in the Constitution.

The same constraint applied to those making the laws:

"Can it be believed, that under the jealousies prevailing against the General Government, at the adoption of the Constitution, the States meant to surrender the authority of preserving order, of enforcing moral duties and restraining vice, within their own territory?... Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding, and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties, which may make anything mean everything or nothing, at pleasure."

[To Justice William Johnson, 1823, Monticello, June 12, 1823, in Thomas Jefferson, "The Writings of Thomas Jefferson Vol 15." Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903, pp.448-450]

Many, if not most, debates on the constitutionality of this or that law is based on those "metaphysical subtleties" (which can mean anything,) rather than original intent. Those who believe the government has the right to make laws at pleasure are enemies of the Constitution, and the people. The right to self-determination does not exist in the minds of controlling, tyranny-minded individuals, who are the most dangerous of all people.

Mr. Kalamata

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata: "The constitution is clear that secession is a retained power in that there is no defined authority to suppress it."

The Constitution says nothing about secession, period, but no Founder ever agreed that disunion at pleasure, meaning without either "necessity" or "mutual consent", is legitimate.
All considered such disunion rebellion and took actions to suppress it.
See again my post #526 for a listing of rebellions, treason & attempted secession.

Kalamata: "The constitution is also clear that the use of central government force to present secession is treason."

And that is pure insanity, nothing else, typical of the way Democrats think & argue.
In fact, President Jefferson signed the 1807 Insurrect Act authorizing the President to suppress rebellions.

Kalamata: "Redefining secession as "rebellion" or "insurrection" makes the suppression any less treasonous."

No, no, the truth is the reverse: even if you Democrats try to redefine your rebellion & insurrection as "secession", it remains no less treasonous.

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

That's a total lie because no martial law was imposed in Maryland, or anywhere else, until after Confederates formally declared war against the United States, on May 6, 1861.
With war formally declared against it, the US Constitution's treason clause became operative:

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

Also, its Habeas Corpus clause:

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

These also activated the 1807 Insurrection Act:

"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."

Here is the Maryland sequence of events:

1. After Fort Sumter, on April 27, 1861, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus along the railroad tracks through Maryland, fearing Marylanders would destroy tracks to prevent Union troop movements to Washington.

2. Two days later, April 29, the Maryland legislature voted 53-13 (four to one) against secession.

3. A week later, May 6, Confederates in Mobile formally declared war against the United States.

4. Two weeks later, Union Gen. "Beast" Butler declared martial law in Maryland.

5. On May 25 John Merryman was arrested and on May 28 a federal circuit court (pro-slavery, crazy Roger Taney presiding), ruled such arrests unconstitutional.
   Lincoln ignored Taney's ruling and the ruling was not supported by either the Supreme Court or Congress.

6. When Congress returned in July it took up the Habeas Corpus issue, debated at length and eventually authorized Lincoln to withhold it.
   In the meantime, the Confederate Congress without much debate authorized Jefferson Davis to withhold Habeas Corpus, which he did, frequently.

7. In September 1861, 1/3 of Maryland legislators, considered pro-Confederate, were arrested and held.
   That ratio of Marylanders supporting the Union roughly two to one is also confirmed by Maryland enlistments in the Union vs. Confederate armies.

8. In February 1862 Lincoln ordered such prisoners released, ending court challenges at the time.

Sources: here, here, here, and here.

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

Here again, like any good Democrat, Kalamata simply imposes his own fantasies on Constitutional language which was never intened to support them.

Kalamata: "If a state believes the tax system is over-burdensome, or unequally distributed, it is within the power of that state, and is even their duty, to secede.
Without that power, and the exercise of that power, there is no check on the power of the central government."

Here our Olive-boy bends & twists James Madison's words into meanings Madison himself never intended.
How do we know that for sure?
Because Madison tells us:

"...the compact being among individuals as imbodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself.
The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect.
It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure. "