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

[Bull Snipe]

"I beg to present you as a Christmas gift the City of Savannah, with one hundred and fifty heavy guns and plenty of ammunition and about twenty-five thousand bales of cotton." General William T. Sherman's "March to the Sea" was over. During the campaign General Sherman had made good on his promise d “to make Georgia howl”. Atlanta was a smoldering ruin, Savannah was in Union hands, closing one of the last large ports to Confederate blockade runners. Sherman’s Army wrecked 300 miles of railroad and numerous bridges and miles of telegraph lines. It seized 5,000 horses, 4,000 mules, and 13,000 head of cattle. It confiscated 9.5 million pounds of corn and 10.5 million pounds of fodder, and destroyed uncounted cotton gins and mills. In all, about 100 million dollars of damage was done to Georgia and the Confederate war effort.

[BroJoeK]

To all -- in any post like this I should apologize for being off-topic, but in this case I am simply following wherever Kalamata's arguments might lead.

Kalamata: "When Joey cannot find any facts to support his assertions, and he cannot think of a clever comeback, he resorts to sand-box tactics."

So claims our own Sandbox Olive-boy.

Kalamata: "Joey cannot seem to grasp the concept of ‘Daughter Elements’."

Olive-boy's assault on science begins with his claims that, according to his own interpretations of the Bible, the Earth is only ~10,000 years old.
Therefore any scientific evidence such as radiometric decay rates which might suggest millions or billions of years are necessarily false.
However, for purposes of this particular post Kalamata is hoping to obscure his real beliefs behind a smokescreen of technical terms like "parent" & "daughter" elements.
Like any believer in "operational science" Kalamata is perfectly willing to acknowledge radiometric decay which can be measured today, but not any discoveries which suggest it's been going on for billions of years.

Kalamata: "Joey doesn’t understand physics, either.
The existence of our universe, not to mention the existence of life itself, defies the basic laws of physics.
The only solution is special creation using laws we cannot comprehend."

Science has never claimed 100% omniscience, far from it.
Science doesn't know all the basic laws of physics and scientists well understand that at certain levels some very strange things can happen, for example, what Einstein called, "spooky action at a distance".

So there is a very long list of things science doesn't know, beginning with the most important of all -- where did the Universe come from?
Thousands of years ago philosophers and theologians answered that question, and science has never come up with a better answer.

Kalamata: "For the record, there is no such thing as evolution: not in observable science, not in the laboratory, and not in the fossil record."

And that is a flat-out lie, accomplished with the help of Olive-boy's self-lobotomization and Denial Tactics.

Kalamata: "Get a grip, Joey?
I never deny science: only pseudoscience, such as evolutionism and big-bangism. LOL!"

Right, notice now Olive-boy admits to denying not just evolution but also "big-bangism", meaning not just the scientific basis of geology, biology, chemistry, paleontology & archaeology but also of physics and astronomy, at least as it relates to anything happening before ~10,000 years ago.

Kalamata: "So, you do believe in Intelligent Design."

Sure, as you well know but constantly lie about, FRiend, I believe God created the Universe intelligently.
I don't pretend to know which events since then were the necessary consequences of God's original creation and which resulted from God's specific interventions, "mid-course corrections" you might say.
I prefer to think that God's perfect creation (the Universe) didn't need "mid-course corrections", but will not be disappointed if I learn, in due time, otherwise.

Kalamata: "It is strictly a science thing.
The geological column shows clear evidence of a global flood"

And that is a total lie, conclusions arrived at dishonestly for strictly theological reasons.

Kalamata: "I was a theistic evolutionist, until my eyes were opened by scientific data."

Nonsense, you mean until you drank the koolaid and lobotomized your brain.
In fact, your arguments here are at least disingenuous when not outright dishonest.

Kalamata: "Joey cannot tell the difference between scientific data, and an obligatory kiss of Darwin’s ring.
A scientist must be able to rightly-divide the data from the ideology, or he will be in the dark as much as Joey."

And here Kalamata alleges motives to the authors of a Nature scientific article he quoted from, alleged motives of which there is zero evidence.

Kalamata: "Child."

Kalamata often responds to my comments with this single enigmatic deprecation, "Child".
After some thought, I've decided that "child" is just Kalamata-code for, "yes, you're right about that, but I can't admit it or my whole argument would come crashing down."

;-)

[DiogenesLamp]

During the "Gilded Age" the US economy grew 150%, population doubled and average real wages rose over 50%.

Population doubled? Should that not have doubled the economy? Does not 150% represent a reduction from what should have been a 200% gain in economic activity due to a doubling of the population?

Worse still, economic activity is synergistic, and doubling of the population should have resulted in economic improvement even greater than 200%.

So where did that missing money go? How much went into the pockets of the Train Barons? The Steel Barons? The Oil Barons? The Finance Barons?

And Washington DC bureaucrat pockets?

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

This contradicts what the Founders did in separating us from the United Kingdom. According to his theory of government, the British people had just as much right to the property of America as did the residents.

It also contradicts Lincoln's statement on the subject.

" Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,—a most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by oldlines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones."

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

Contradicts the Founders claims in the Declaration of Independence. The revolution established the principle that people can leave a Union, and can form another one.

[DiogenesLamp]

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

Alleged "rebellion", when in fact they had the *RIGHT* to become independent, and it should not have been referred to as "rebellion."

You cannot rebel against a nation you are no longer part of, so the entire matter hinges on whether they had a right to independence. Since they did in *FACT* have a right to become independent, the accusation of "rebellion" is unfounded and therefore wrong.

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata: "That puts you at least in your 80’s Joey; perhaps the 90’s. Hang in there, Geezer."

Not at all, there's another explanation, but I'll let you ponder what it might be. ;-)

BJK: "I’ll repeat: from the Civil War on the US military was always less racist than the hometowns of most enlistees."
Kalamata: "I would like to see your data."

Sure, but you can answer the question yourself by naming any hometown in America where African-Americans were better treated than in the US military, even before 1948 under segregation.

So let's start here: after the Civil War's first year, even escaped slaves were paid the same as whites for their service to the Union Army.

Kalamata: "When did you quit beating your wife?"

I'll take that as Kalamata-code for "yes, you are right about that, but I'm just too fricken arrogant to admit it."

Kalamata: "I realize this is a hard concept for you, Joey, but some people do not run away from the truth when confronted with it."

Naw, what you really mean is, "Kalamata is eager to adopt flat-out lies that support his own ideological constructs."

Kalamata on Lincoln: "He didn’t give a rat’s behind about slavery."

And there is an example of a total lie which Kalamata is eager to believe for his own partisan purposes.

Kalamata: "LOL! Someone needs to get Joey up-to-speed on the definition of crony capitalism.
He won’t listen to me — not since I mocked his religion of evolutionism."

Nonsense, I pay careful attention to your words and distinguish between those rare truthful expressions and those many which are nothing but mocking lies.

Kalamata: "More irrelevant statistics.
My point is, cronyism was reasonably in check by threats of nullification and secession, until Lincoln’s war against the states destroyed state sovereignty.
Just sayin’ . . ."

No, my statistics are totally relevant, but your point is pure fantasy, based on nothing more than your own partisan wishes.

Kalamata: "Child."

"Child" being Kalamata-code for "yes, you're right, but I can't admit it or my whole argument comes crashing down."

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

This theory only works if you postulate that Lincoln is a back stabbing liar and had no intention of giving Virginia what they thought they were getting. (Which was to leave the seceded states alone.)

Yes, if Lincoln fully expected to start the war somewhere else, and only told Virginia what they wanted to hear until he could pull another trick to start a war, then you are correct.

Speaking of Fort Pickens, that is exactly where Lincoln sent Lieutenant Porter in the Powhatan under hand carried secret orders.

Porter immediately upon arrival, tried to fire on Confederate shore batteries and did indeed fire on Confederate ships, and all with no knowledge of the events in Charleston.

So yes, Lincoln fully intended to start the war somewhere else and was only conning Virginia to get them to do what he wanted long enough to keep them in line.

[DiogenesLamp]

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

It would have economically destroyed the powerful men that were backing Lincoln. Northern shipping, manufacturing, banking, insurance, warehousing, and countless other industries would have been badly damaged by direct trade between the South and Europe.

It wasn't about the 65 million or so in Federal revenue. It was about hundreds of millions of dollars lost to Lincoln's wealthy backers in the North East.

[DiogenesLamp]

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).

They would have taken a lot more than that. Once the New York based coalition couldn't control the economics of trade with Europe, first the border states would move to the stronger economic horse, and then the midwest would move there too.

With a successful independence, the South would have found numerous other states coming into their sphere of influence due to the economic advantages of doing so. The only people who would have been hurt were the wealthy Northern manufacturers, shippers and so forth. The very people backing Lincoln and his efforts to stop direct Southern trade with Europe.

If left alone, the Nation would have come to look like this relatively quickly.

This was the natural destiny for those states outside of the influence of New York power. This is what would have happened eventually because of economic and social resonance once the New York powers were held back.

New York is still feeding streams of lies into our national consciousness. They are fighting back against their eventual loss of power to the normal people of America.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

Your sentence is badly phrased, but if I can correctly garner from it what you meant to ask, you are asking me what was the turning point?

That's easy. The turning point was 1776 with those five little words Jefferson inserted in the Declaration of independence which got people to thinking that freedom ought to extend to "all men."

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

You need to get more up to speed on the timeline. The Federalist papers all came after the Declaration of Independence. The Federalist papers were created for the purpose of generating support for the adoption of the 1787 constitution, and so they have no bearing on what the Founders were doing in 1776, which was establishing a right to independence.

As I said before in my previous message, you cannot use later actions to justify previous actions. What they did 11 years later has no bearing on what they were doing in 1776.

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

[OIFVeteran]

Yes people can leave a country through the natural right of revolution or rebellion. That is what the founders did during the revolutionary war, and what the secessionist tried to do in the civil war.

The founders never expected the British empire to just let them go. That’s why Benjamin Franklin said “We Must All Hang Together, or Most Assuredly, We Will All Hang Separately” when he signed the Declaration of Independence. The founders never claimed they seceded from the British empire they knew they were rebelling.

Now governments and country’s also have the natural right of self-defense. So when a group of people invokes their natural right of rebellion they are appealing to force, arms, military might. That’s why in that quote of Lincoln you lost causers always like to throw around he says “and having the power”.

The founders even stated to the world that governments shouldn’t be changed for any old reason. As the founders state in the DoI “...that governments long established should not be thrown off for light and transient causes.” They then stated when the natural right of rebellion should be invoked, “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

We can also look at the actions of the founders to show how much they endured until they declared their independence. In 1765 England introduced the stamp tax. Our founders then labored for 11 years attempting to get England to acknowledge their rights as Englishmen. Do you really believe any revolutionary founding father would have said to the southern secessionist “oh, a party you didn’t like won the Presidency in an election in a constitutional Republic that has a series of checks and balances and you want to rebel? They would have laughed at the secessionists!

[DiogenesLamp]

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

And all the states of the Union voted for it.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

Except for when they *ALL* said that rightful power is based on "consent of the governed." Which means "At Pleasure" of the people.

[DiogenesLamp]

>>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:

Trying to switch the subject to what Davis did is another of those "Oh Yeah? Well this guy did far worse!" arguments. (Tu Quoque.)

It is an attempt to deflect from the point of Lincoln's abuses. Whether or not Jefferson Davis did anything wrong, has no bearing on the wrong that Lincoln did.

Jefferson Davis doing wrong things does not make Lincoln's wrong things into "right" things. It is not a contest to see who is the lesser evil between the two men. It is supposed to be an objective standard that applies to everyone, not a relative standard that applies between Lincoln and Davis.

Lincoln did objectively do wrong things. Maybe Davis did too, but again, these do not justify the wrong things that Lincoln did.

Lincoln's iniquity must be judged separately from Davis' iniquity.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

Very well explained, except for the part where most of the tax money gets spent on your competitors to build infrastructure that disproportionately benefits your competitors, and which *YOU* are indirectly paying for.

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes people can leave a country through the natural right of revolution or rebellion.

Except when a nation specifically says people have a right to leave without having to go through "revolution" or "rebellion."

When the nation says you have a right to leave, it is not "rebellion" to exercise the right the nation says you have.

The founders never claimed they seceded from the British empire they knew they were rebelling.

The laws of Britain had no provision whatsoever to allow for subjects to throw off their allegiance to the King. Allegiance was "perpetual."

However, the founding charter of this nation expressly articulates that the right to independence is a natural right given by God, and that all people possess the right to "dissolve the political bonds joining them with another."

So you see, that's the difference between British Law and American Law. Our law recognizes a right to have independence, therefore exercising this right is not rebellion. It is consistent with our own founding principle.

The founders even stated to the world that governments shouldn’t be changed for any old reason.

Operative word here being "should." "Should" is in the eye of the beholder. Do you only do those things you "should" do, or do you ever do things you shouldn't do, but do so because that is what you want to do?

Do you have a right? If so, whether or not you should exercise that right is up to you, isn't it?

[DiogenesLamp]

Also I have noticed you have either missed or ignored my previous message to you asking you if you felt the reasons why a group of states wants to secede is important.

In case you missed it, I pointed out that you liked to post the various secession statements from the three states that can clearly fit the "it's all about slavery!" narrative, so because it seems as if you want support of slavery to be the only reason why the Southern states seceded, I am asking you if you consider the reasons why states want to secede significant?

Do you consider their reasons for seceding important to the discussion?

[OIFVeteran]

I meant to reply to that post, but forget. I do want to say one thing though before I jump into that question. For all of our disagreements I do believe you are arguing from good intentions. Unlike many people I have discuss/argued this topic with who, when you scratch the surface, it really boils down to racism on the part of the person arguing for the lost cause. I know it is hard to judge people from just their writings but I have never gotten the feeling/sense/vibe from your postings that racism has anything to do with that. And please bear with me for this long post.

Since I don’t believe what the southern states did was secession I can’t answer the question as you posted it to me. Now do I believe why people invoke the natural right to revolution matters? Yes, I do. Why? Because human beings are moral creatures and we make moral judgements about ours and other people’s actions.

Let me use a hypothetical what if to demonstrate my point. Let’s imagine the King George and Parliament listened to our founding fathers, gave them representation in Parliament, allows them to run their affairs here, etc. and we do not become an independent country.(or in your view states)

Now fast forward to 1833. The British empire outlaws slavery. The American colonies rebel (for the sake of this hypothetical the northern states still have slavery) and issue a Declaration of Independence. This version is written by a colonial from Mississippi and the second paragraph states-

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

Now compare that to the second paragraph in the actual Declaration of Independence-

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.

I believe that any reasonable person after reading those two paragraphs would say the second group of people had both better cause and more moral reason for rebelling.

[DiogenesLamp]

I meant to reply to that post, but forget. I do want to say one thing though before I jump into that question. For all of our disagreements I do believe you are arguing from good intentions. Unlike many people I have discuss/argued this topic with who, when you scratch the surface, it really boils down to racism on the part of the person arguing for the lost cause. I know it is hard to judge people from just their writings but I have never gotten the feeling/sense/vibe from your postings that racism has anything to do with that.

I don't think many, if any, who argue that Southern secession was legal are motivated by racism. I think most argue from other perspectives.

Speaking for myself, I never used to think about this issue until I saw California and New York getting crazier and crazier, and this has led me to feel like a member of a chain gang that is chained to a batsh*t crazy psychopath.

California frightens me. New York frightens me. They have great economic power coupled with batsh*t crazy ideas, not the least of which is unapologetic support for socialism.

I have been thinking about getting free of them for a long time, but whenever I would broach the subject, most people would say, "Wasn't that decided by the civil war? States don't have a right to separate."

So the topic became more interesting to me. On what basis is the claim made that states don't have a right to secede? Did not the Declaration of Independence guarantee exactly this right? So my thinking has gone.

I know not how many others argue for secession on the basis of crazy states motivating them to want free, but I would say a lot of people might be motivated by being descendant from the States or people being discussed. I think others, such as Ohioan, are deep natural law thinkers, and see the conflict from a more objective perspective.

Now fast forward to 1833. The British empire outlaws slavery.

In the existing timeline. Me, being ever confident in the evil nature of mankind, postulate that if the British were making a whole lot more money off of slavery (as they were off of drug dealing in China), they wouldn't have outlawed it in 1833.

The outlawing of slavery in England was the consequence of a lot of clever legislative tricks on the part of William Wilberforce. Had his opposition been any greater than it was, his tactics would never have worked.

With the slave states remaining part of England, England would most assuredly not have abolished slavery in 1833.

[DoodleDawg]

Very well explained, except for the part where most of the tax money gets spent on your competitors to build infrastructure that disproportionately benefits your competitors, and which *YOU* are indirectly paying for.

LOL! I was wondering where you were skulking at. Took your time showing up. I see that Mr. Olive's ideas are as odd as your's are.