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

Then what the hell does forever mean to you?!?

For someone with supposedly six degrees your reading comprehension sucks. What Pickney is referring to here when he says state( singular) is a nation.
State-a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.

I mean the sentence prior he says “in every government”. Not every government had states(plural) like America did. He is making the distinction that unlike all other governments(a state) that sovereignty of our country resides in the people. When he says people he means we the people as in the people of America as it declares in the constitution. No subset of the people i.e. people in one state.

If he meant what you incorrectly thinks he means his last sentence would have been “With us the sovereignty of the Union resides in the states(plural).”

Your citing ability is by far eclipsed by your cherry picking and twisting ability’s. Your like Bill Clinton with his “depends on what the word is means.”

Here is what Patrick Henry had to say about the constitution at the Virginia ratification convention, when he was trying to stop it's ratification. He is arguing that it is going to do the exact thing your saying it doesn't!

On June 5, 1788 Henry spoke again in the Virginia Convention on this subject: "I rose yesterday to ask a question, which arose in my mind. When I asked that question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious: the fate of this question and of America may depend on this. Have they said, We, the states? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation: it is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, sir, on the expression, We, the People, instead of, the States of America. I need not take much pains to show that the principles of this system are extremely pernicious, impolitic and dangerous. Is this a monarchy, like England - a compact between prince and people: with checks on the former to secure the liberty of the latter? Is this a confederacy, like Holland - an association of a number of independent States, each of which retains its individual sovereignty?

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

Considering Olive-boy's highly transactional relationship with the truth, I don't believe this version of events for a moment.
What's far more likely is a common human experience: like anyone growing older, Kalamata at some point naturally decided to make his peace with God and so prepare for the next life.
In Kalamata's case that meant a church whose definition of "salvation" included full adherence to their own interpretations of Biblical texts, interpretations we might summarize under the heading, "Biblical science".

Now Kalamata tells us he is both highly educated and some sort (unspecified) of scientist meaning we should well be able to presume he understands the basic ideas of what methodologically natural science is all about -- natural explanations for natural processes.
But late in life his mission became to seek out and find data and arguments which, far from being "natural explanations for natural processes" are instead: "science" which conforms to & confirms the Bible.

And, lo and behold, it turned out there is such data and argumentation, a lot of it, because a good number of others were engaged in the same enterprise.
It began with what was long called "creationism", and about 30 years ago picked up the name "intelligent design", focused on such concepts as "irreducible & specified complexity", added to "hydrological sorting", "ecological zonation" and "differential escape" it gets us through Genesis & Noah's flood and is well on its way to becoming what Kalamata calls "Biblical science" and what Ken Ham describes as "a natural understanding of the Bible".
Notice here Ham's word "natural": meaning no, not "natural" as in "natural explanations for natural processes", but rather as in "what we would naturally understand the Bible's words to mean".

Today Intelligent Design is a multi-multi million dollar industry employing many "scientists" like our own Kalamata to spread the word and even write "peer reviewed" articles for its own "scientific" publications.
It fights its war-on-science on many fronts, though curiously, does not seem to have assaulted our courts since being yet again defeated in the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Schools, now 15 years ago.

So how does (we are told) a highly educated scientist like Kalamata with lifelong work experience, lobotomize his brain into believing that "Biblical science" is the real deal while natural-science as we understand it is "just another secular religion"?
The answer is: using well known denial tactics which begin, first & foremost, by ignoring all data that conflicts with your own constructs, then exaggerating the importance of any which might be used to support your ideas.

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

And this is Denier Rule #2: redefine every word to suit your own purposes.
In this case when he says "science is not a religion", he means (by his definition) that his own version of "Biblical science" is not a religion.
When he says, "the pseudoscience of evolution is a faith-based religion" he means by that not just Darwin's basic simple theory of evolution, but any and all facts or ideas from any branch of science -- be it geology, biology, physics or astronomy, etc. -- which might conflict with his own version of "Biblical science".

Now it's immediately obvious that such denier tactics are the same ones our Democrat fellow citizens use, for example, to concoct cockamamie "articles of impeachment" when no crime exists.
And even though Kalamata can see that such behavior in Democrats is deeply pathological, he refuses to see it in himself.

And why?
Because, he says, the alternatives are just too unacceptable.
That's because Kalamata blames the evil trinity of Darwin, Marx and Lincoln for all the world's ills, he attacks them all with equal ferocity, will not admit any of their ideas as potentially valid, and flat-out denies any data which might support them.

In Kalamata's mind, to grant any of it is not just to reject his own understandings of the Bible, but also to accept as "OK" all the world's modern ills.
His logic goes something like this: if you believe Darwin, then you are responsible for AIDS, for homelessness and mass shootings by lunatics.
If you also think Lincoln did right, then you are responsible for Hitler, Stalin, Mao and the 100 million people they killed.

Of course nobody here thinks much of Marx, but to Kalamata it's all the same -- Marx's atheistic socialism combined with Darwin's atheistic evolutionism and Lincoln's atheistic tyranny join to make Big Government the "trinitarian deity" of our atheistic fellow citizens.
And that, I think, is how Kalamata lobotomized himself.

Kalamata referring to yours-truly's mainline theological beliefs: "That is best characterized as, pseudohistory meets pseudoscience."

Right, nothing which conflicts with his own constructs can break through into Kalamata's newly lobotomized brain.

“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 (during a waxing gibbous moon).”

The way you continue to add stipulations, you may be the first. Can you cite anyone else that styled the claim the way you do?

The bumbling newcomer, Dinesh D’Sousa, was the first I heard make the “no Republican” claim. You probably read his comment somewhere and just repeated it without thinking.

You are really a victim more than an offender.

I’m still waiting for a reasonable and historically accurate explanation to why many of our forefathers went from “not giving a damn about slavery” to what they wrote in the Federalist Papers.

“I’m still waiting for a reasonable and historically accurate explanation to why many of our forefathers went from “not giving a damn about slavery” to what they wrote in the Federalist Papers.”

I’m not sure why that comment is addressed to me.

To which of my posts are you referring?

“In all, they work just fine for me.”

The recipient of stolen goods usually feels that way.

L

Not stolen, earned.

“Not stolen, earned.”

Just not by you.

L

I think 30 years in our navy earned me half pay for the rest of my life. Along with the Benes guaranteed by law.
If you see it otherwise. so be it.

Military service is different. I did mine and thank you for yours.

L

Don’t thank me. I was paid for every day that I was in the Navy.

One thing you could say about them, they never missed payday. Would that the private sector did that well.

L

then it was every two week, just like clockwork. Now it is once a month, just like clockwork.

mr.k “Prior to Lincoln ramming Nazi-style central planning down our throats, the Supreme Court did not have such awesome power.

Once you play the “Nazi” card, you have lost the argument. House rules. Also, if you really believe that the SCOTUS did not have “such awesome power” pre Lincoln, I would turn your attention to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger B. (The Loon) Taney. He had ruled from the bench that the blacks had not been considered as citizens at the time of the Constitution, were not then citizens, and could never be citizens. Within a couple of years all Hell broke loose. Talk about “crony capitalism” and someone being in the back pocket of The Slave Power. Look no further than the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS in 1857. Brush up on the Dred Scott Decision. It is why Taney was Lincoln’s nemesis. It is also why, after swearing in Lincoln, Taney had to sit through a tongue lashing during Abe’s First Inaugural.

>>Kalamata wrote: "You mean, the way Lincoln chose."
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "No, that's what Davis chose. In the end was it worth it?"

Lincoln was the aggressor and self-appointed dictator.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "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."
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "We're talking about transferring ownership of Sumter from the U.S. to the Confederacy. Your comment is irrelevant to that."

You are pretending the Constitution actually existed at the time of the secession. It didn't. Otherwise, the legacy of Lincoln, his merry gang of thugs, and the rubber-stamp Congress, would have been: "They hung by ropes until dead." A survivor would have been Chief Justice Taney, who ruled against Lincoln's tyranny regarding habeas corpus.

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

>>DoodleDawg wrote: "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."

Historians claim otherwise. The South sought to negotiate financial settlements for the reclaimed property, before the attack on Fort Sumter; but Lincoln refused to either see or acknowledge them. Rather, he schemed behind the scenes to provoke an attack on the Fort. Lincoln was for war. War was the only way he could break the chains of the Constitution and make permanent the crony-capitalist system we are plagued with today.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Lincoln believed it was a big deal. He threatened war over the collection of tariffs."
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "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."

You are misleading the readers. This is Lincoln:

"[T]here needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion—no using of force against or among the people anywhere."
[First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861, in Roy P. Basler, "Abraham Lincoln: His Speeches and Writings." The World Publishing Company, 1946]

He said nothing about mail in that warning.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Practically everything Lincoln did was unconstitutional, and he committed treason against at least some of the remaining states by making war against them."
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "Absolute nonsense. Unlike Davis, everything Lincoln did was subject to judicial review."

Nothing Lincoln did was subject to judicial review. He was a loose cannon -- a self-appointed dictator. He ignored Justice Haney's opinion about his abuse of habeas corpus, and he even had his Congress pass a banana republic "law" to place Lincoln above the law, which included making it a criminal act for state judges to prosecute federal authorities (Lincoln's thugs) who made arbitrary arrests. You certainly don't want to hear what happened at the ballot boxes.

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

>>DoodleDawg wrote: "And suppressing rebellion is allowed; Article I, Section 8."

Secession is not rebellion; and as long as you insist on lying about it, we may as well drop the subject.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Davis relied on the Congress for authorization to suspend habeas corpus. Where are your sources for your claims against Davis?"
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "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."

That is not a source. This is a source:

"[U]nlike Lincoln, who suspended the writ on his own authority, Davis acted only when Congress authorized him to do so—for a total of seventeen months on three different occasions during the war. '"
[James M. McPherson, "Embattled Rebel: Jefferson Davis as Commander in Chief." Penguin Press, 2014, Chap.2]

This is another source:

"It is true that in January, 1862, the Confederate Congress did pass a law forbidding the publication of unauthorized news of troop movements, but even this slight regulation was bitterly protested and flagrantly ignored. No Southern newspaper was ever suppressed by the Confederate government for its opinions, however critical or demoralizing. The ardent wish of Secretary of War George W. Randolph was realized: that "this revolution may be... closed without suppression of one single newspaper in the Confederate States." More significant militarily was the Confederacy 's insistence upon maintaining the cherished legal rights of freedom from arbitrary arrest and upon preserving due process of law. This sentiment was so strong that, though the Confederacy was invaded and Richmond was actually endangered, President Davis did not dare institute martial law until he had received the permission of his Congress. While General George B. McClellan was about to assault the Confederate capital in 1862, the Southern Congress debated the question and concluded that their President was "subject to the Constitution and to the laws enacted by Congress in pursuance of the Constitution. He can exert no power inconsistent with law, and, therefore, he cannot declare martial law." Grudgingly Congress permitted Davis to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus for three brief periods—once when McClellan was within sight of Richmond, again during the Fredericksburg- Chancellorsville threat, and once more when Grant was pushing through the Wilderness. Even then he was allowed to suspend the writ only in limited areas, not throughout the Confederacy. When he came to Congress for a renewal of his authority during the grim winter of 1864-1865, he was refused, lest too much power in the hands of a dictatorial president curb the democratic rights of the people."
"Yet, in comparison with the Confederacy, the Union government did curtail civil liberties. As soon as the fighting started, President Lincoln, without delaying to consult Congress, suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, at first for a small area in the East, later for the entire nation. At a subsequent date he reported his fait accompli to Congress: "These measures, whether strictly legal or not, were ventured upon, under what appeared to be a popular demand, and a popular necessity; trusting then, as now that Congress would readily ratify them." Congress had little choice but to ratify, and the disloyal citizen no alternative but to acquiesce. At least 15,000 civilians were imprisoned in the North for alleged disloyalty or sedition. They were arrested upon a presidential warrant and were kept incarcerated without due process of law. It did the disaffected citizen no good to go to court for a writ of habeas corpus to end his arbitrary arrest. On orders from President Lincoln himself, the military guard imprisoning him refused to recognize a judicial writ even when it came from Chief Justice Roger B. Taney."
[David Herbert Donald, "Why the North Won the Civil War." Collier Books, 1962, p.85-87]

From what I have read, Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee were traditional Southern gentlemen.

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

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

Let's try this one more time:

1) The Southern exporters relied on income from their exports.
2) Southerners used that income to purchase goods and services.
3) Protective tariffs made the price of goods and services higher, thus effectively reducing the income of the exporters.

Let's try it another way:

Amazon has an item for $70 that you MUST have for your business. Walmart sells the same item for $90. Both offer free shipping. Obviously Amazon has by far the better deal.
But suppose the Government places a 50% protective shipping tax on all Amazon's products just before you purchase the product. Walmart items are exempt from the shipping tax. The new price at Amazon is $70 * 1.5 = $105.
Therefore, Amazon's item is now more expensive than Walmart's; and you are out 20 bucks on an item that "you must have" due to the protective tax placed against Amazon products. To make it worse, just before you buy, Walmart decides to increase its price to $100, to take advantage of the situation. So, now you are out $30.

That was the economic situation that plagued the Southern exporters. Raw cotton is a nice product, but it is not fabric, woolen goods, wagon wheels, and other items the Southern farmers needed, but did not produce themselves.

Mr. Kalamata

>>OIFVeteran wrote: "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 already have. But these are a few:

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." [James Madison, Federalist No. 45, in Bailey, Bill, "The Complete Federalist Papers." The New Federalist Papers Project, pp.214-215]

Look in Article I, Sections 8 and 9. If the power over secession is not given to the federal government in Section 8, nor forbidden to the states in Section 9, then it belongs to the states. We know that from simple legal logic. But for the contentious, there are also these legal rules:

"Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
"Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This is Alexander Hamilton:

"It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority." [Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No. 28, in Bailey, Bill, "The Complete Federalist Papers." The New Federalist Papers Project, p.132]
"It is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of any individual without its consent. This is the general sense and the general practice of mankind; and the exemption, as one of the attributes of sovereignty, is now enjoyed by the government of every State in the Union… The contracts between a nation and individuals are only binding on the conscience of the sovereign, and have no pretensions to a compulsive force. They confer no right of action, independent of the sovereign will. To… authorize suits against States for the debts they owe… could not be done without waging war against the contracting State…, a power which would involve such a consequence, would be altogether forced and unwarrantable." [Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 81, in Bailey, Bill, "The Complete Federalist Papers." The New Federalist Papers Project, p.364]

James Madison:

"The State governments, by their original constitutions, are invested with complete sovereignty." [James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 31, in Bailey, Bill, "The Complete Federalist Papers." The New Federalist Papers Project, p.143]
"Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution." [James Madison, Federalist No. 39, in Bailey, Bill, "The Complete Federalist Papers." The New Federalist Papers Project, p.178]
"Will it be said that the fundamental principles of the Confederation were not within the purview of the convention, and ought not to have been varied? I ask, What are these principles? Do they require that, in the establishment of the Constitution, the States should be regarded as distinct and independent sovereigns? They are so regarded by the Constitution proposed." [James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 40, in Bailey, Bill, "The Complete Federalist Papers." The New Federalist Papers Project, p.183]

If states are completely sovereign, as Madison claims, then they can do as the please regarding secession.

Excerpt from Virginia Ratification document:

"WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States." ["Virginia Ratification Convention." Avalon Project, June 26, 1788]

Excerpt from New York Ratification document:

"That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; And that those Clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any Powers not given by the said Constitution; but such Clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified Powers, or as inserted merely for greater Caution." ["New York Ratification Convention." Avalon Project, July 26, 1788]

Excerpt from Rhode Island Ratification document:

"That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness:- That the rights of the States respectively, to nominate and appoint all State Officers, and every other power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States or to the departments of government thereof, remain to the people of the several states, or their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said constitution which declare that Congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply, that Congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said constitution, but such clauses are to be construed as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution." ["Rhode Island Ratification Convention." Avalon Project, May 29, 1790, Chap.3]

Don't forget. Lincoln approved the secession of West Virginia from Virginia, which destroyed that union. So, he was also a hypocrite.

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

>>OIFVeteran wrote: "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"
>>OIFVeteran wrote: "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?

You have again taken Madison' statement completely out of context. If your interpretation was correct, we would not have the Bill of Rights.

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

>>OIFVeteran wrote: "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."

That same fellow, Alexander Hamilton, approved the New York Ratification document that stated:

"That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness."

That same fellow stated in the Federalists Papers:

"The contracts between a nation and individuals are only binding on the conscience of the sovereign, and have no pretensions to a compulsive force."

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

>>OIFVeteran wrote: "Or how about good old Charles Cotesworth Pickney who stared at South Carolina’s constitutional ratification convention-"
>>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."
>>OIFVeteran wrote: "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?"

He doesn't say what you say he said. You spun his words from being a proposal into a done-deal. You are not being a straight shooter.

Why are you so desperate for our government to be all powerful? Don't you realize how dangerous that is? Besides, I thought you supported the Constitution?

Mr. Kalamata

Lincoln was the aggressor and self-appointed dictator.

Nonsense on both counts.

You are pretending the Constitution actually existed at the time of the secession. It didn't. Otherwise, the legacy of Lincoln, his merry gang of thugs, and the rubber-stamp Congress, would have been: "They hung by ropes until dead." A survivor would have been Chief Justice Taney, who ruled against Lincoln's tyranny regarding habeas corpus.

And when pinned down you resort to more nonsense. The Constitution did indeed exist throughout the war and Lincoln did abide by it throughout his administration, unlike Jefferson Davis.

Historians claim otherwise.

Not really, no.

The South sought to negotiate financial settlements for the reclaimed property, before the attack on Fort Sumter; but Lincoln refused to either see or acknowledge them.

Not really, no. If you read Jefferson Davis's letter to Lincoln there is no offer to pay for anything. Just a call that Lincoln surrender to Confederate demands on recognizing independence, and a vague offer to negotiate but only if the subject was of interest to Davis.

You are misleading the readers. This is Lincoln:

So is this: ". Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices. The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union."

He said nothing about mail in that warning.

Well maybe if you had read the next paragraph you would have seen it.

Nothing Lincoln did was subject to judicial review.

You really need to read up on the history of the rebellion some time. The Supreme Court operated openly throughout and numerous Lincoln decisions were reviewed by the court. In most cased those decisions were upheld. In other cases the court struck them down. Unlike the Confederacy.

He ignored Justice Haney's opinion about his abuse of habeas corpus...

Issued from the circuit court bench and not the Supreme Court.

...and he even had his Congress pass a banana republic "law" to place Lincoln above the law, which included making it a criminal act for state judges to prosecute federal authorities (Lincoln's thugs) who made arbitrary arrests.

Now you're just being silly.

You certainly don't want to hear what happened at the ballot boxes.

Oh go ahead. This should be funny.

Secession is not rebellion; and as long as you insist on lying about it, we may as well drop the subject.

Well yes it is when done illegally. But let's keep the subject going so you can lie about the legality some more.

That is not a source. This is a source:

That's a single instance. But since you chose that one I'll point out that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the government could not suspend habeas corpus in areas that were not threatened by the war, striking down the governments decision to do so. Jefferson Davis also suspended habeas corpus throughout the Confederacy even in areas hundreds of miles from the fighting, and there was no supreme court to tell him he was wrong.

No Southern newspaper was ever suppressed by the Confederate government for its opinions, however critical or demoralizing.

LOL! As Mark Neely details in "Southern Rights: Political Prisoners and the Myth of Confederate Constitutionalism" the first political prisoner arrested in the war was a newspaper reporter who printed something that Braxton Bragg didn't like. In Brayton Harris's "Blue & Gray in Black & White: Newspapers in the Civil War" he notes "Censorship was more easily implemented in the South, and more readily accepted. A censorship of sorts had been in place in some Southern states, where the press was forbidden to publish, for example, any material advocating the abolition of slavery." He went on to detail the threat to their independence printed in the Richmond Whig: "We beg to suggest to all Southern papers the propriety of omitting all mention of troops within our borders. A word to the wise." Harris does note that there were little need to suppress papers in the Confederacy because there were few papers who opposed the Southern rebellion. Those who did had their editors fired (Richmond Whig), their owners forced to sell(Alabama Beacon, Athena Union Banner, Galveston Union), or were just shut down by the Davis regime and their owner jailed (Knoxville Whig). Even with all that, the press was threatened. The Richmond Examiner was threatened with shut down for printing something General Winder didn't like in 1862. In "Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era" James McPherson quotes a Richmond diarist who noted that several newspaper editors "have confessed a fear of having their offices closed, if they the sentiments struggling for utterance. It is, indeed, a reign of terror."

Let's try this one more time:

Let's do. I am not talking about tariffs making imports more expensive for consumers, North and South. I'm not talking about tariffs impacting Northerners to a much greater extent since the vast majority of imports were consumed by Northerners. I'm talking about your claim in Reply 594 and elsewhere: "They worried about both loss of sales and further losses due to possible British retaliation."

Was there any British retaliation against their cotton imports as a result of the U.S. tariffs, in 1861 or in the years prior? It's a simple question and one you should be able to answer. Assuming you're not making this stuff up as you go along, of course.

Ms. DoodleDawg

That was meant for Diogeneslamp.

You are the guy that brought up John Moses Henderson Smyth. Can’t find anything on him.