Replies

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

Nonsense, you only lied & denied your way through every issue.
That's just your nature, it seems like what you were born & raised to do -- typical Democrat.

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

Now there's a line of argument which would make your political daddy, Adam Shiff, proud of his boy Danny.
And your mommy, Jerry Nadler, is beaming with joy to see such malarkey from a fellow Democrat.
You learned well from them how to argue.

The truth is that Lincoln opposed slavery from his boyhood on, and like all Unionists from our Founders' time on, Lincoln put preserving the Union before abolition as his highest priorities.

Kalamata: "But the reasons for the first secession, in a nutshell, were the tentacles of crony capitalism, only one of which threatened slavery; the most dangerous of which was the Morrill Tariff. "

In fact, no secessionist ever said anything about "crony capitalism", period -- that is pure Lost Causer fantasy.
Nor did any mention the proposed Morrill Tariff.
Nor did any official "Reasons for Secession" document even mention tariffs in general.
Two secessionists who did mention tariffs, in passing, were Rhett & Stevens, but neither dwelled on the subject with anything remotely resembling their attention to their major focus, which was Black Republican threats to slavery.

Kalamata: "The reason for the second secession was Lincoln's declaration of war to protect HIS tariff."

And still more of your lying father Schiff's logic.
The truth is Jefferson Davis started war at Fort Sumter precisely because that's what he needed to force those Upper South states to declare secession & war against the United States.
The truth about Union tariffs is they produced about $50 million in 1860, only a small percent of which was jeopardized by secession, and all of which paled in comparison to the roughly $5 billion total cost of Civil War.

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

Danny-child, you always point at only those things you wish to see, never the larger picture.
The larger picture is: there were many threats of rebellion, insurrection, secession, domestic violence & treason, all of which were firmly opposed by presidents of the time.

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

Danny-child, you are confused as always because you refuse to look at the whole picture.
In post #526, I listed eight different threats of rebellion, insurrection, secession, nullification & treason.
All were opposed by our Founders and early presidents, none were tolerated as, in Gen. Scott's words, "depart in peace, wayward sisters."

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

Complete nonsense, since the original 1792 tariff averaged 15% and was intended to protect American producers, North and South.
By 1810 revenues doubled and the average rate was reduced to 10%, but the War of 1812 -- aka "Mr. Madison's War" -- exposed America's vulnerabilities resulting in protective tariffs averaging 20% in 1820, under President Monroe.
Indeed, after the War of 1812, federal spending and national debt both tripled as a percent of GDP.
During that time President Madison imposed embargoes on New England exports, driving some New Englanders to threaten secession.

All of that was under Southern Democrat presidents Jefferson, Madison & Monroe, and none of which do we have letters from Jefferson complaining about.
Indeed, Jefferson himself signed the first act to build the National Road (today's US 40) through western Maryland.
So what suddenly happened in 1825 to bring out 82-year-old Tom's wrath against Federal government?
Only one thing -- the controversial election of one of those nasty New Englanders, the son of Jefferson's nemesis, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, and suddenly Old Tom is afraid, afraid that young John Quincy will do to the Virginians what Jefferson & Madison had done to New England!!

So what actually happened?
Federal tariffs went from 20% under President Monroe to 22% under Adams, Federal spending fell by 1/3 and national debt by 1/2 as a percent of GDP.
None of Old Tom's fears came to pass in his lifetime.

Years later, in 1828 a new political alliance rose up with the idea that if 22% protective tariffs were good, then 30%+ tariffs would be even better.
The original alliance included Southern Whigs like Henry Clay, but also Southern Democrats like Andrew Jackson and even at first, South Carolina's John C. Calhoun, then the Vice President.
They were supported by some mid-Atlantic Northerners, but significantly opposed by New Englanders.

That Tariff of Abominations passed in Adams' last year, went into effect in President Jackson's first year, triggering the Nullification crisis to which Jackson famously replied, threatening war.

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

Sure, but not immediately, and by 1835 overall tariffs were back down to the original levels of 1792.

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

Soooooo…. now you've read John Quincy's version of events making Adams the hero and Clay (aka "the Great Compromiser") the goat?
Well, isn't that... ah... "special", Danny-child.
Btw, least we forget: Clay (KY), Jackson (TN) and Calhoun (SC) were all slaveholding Southerners.

>>Joey from post #439: "based on Confederate "Reasons for Secession" documents, the later revisionist claim is that secession was over something other than the threat to slavery represented by Lincoln's "Black Republicans"."
>>Kalamata wrote: "Lincoln promised in his First Inaugural to protect slavery in the slave states, Joey. Are you insinuating Lincoln was a liar?"
>>Joey wrote: "First, notice Kalamata's denial tactic here. Rather than address the point he is clearly wrong about, he instead goes on the attack against Lincoln."
>>Kalamata wrote: "I have addressed spurious claims of the left-wing, big-government revisionists, many times, Joey."
>>Joey wrote: "Nonsense, you only lied & denied your way through every issue. That's just your nature, it seems like what you were born & raised to do -- typical Democrat."

Joey, the progressive, fake-republican, big-government, Lincoln-apologist is only trying to deceive. Anyone who has even a cursory understanding of Abraham Lincoln knows that Dishonest Abe was a white-supremacist, white-separatist, black-colonizationist, and crony-capitalist his entire political career, up until his death; and neither he, nor the "Republican" Party, nor his defunct Whig Party, EVER proposed an amendment to abolish slavery before the war. To the contrary, his "Republican" Party, with Lincoln's blessing and support, proposed an amendment to permanently enshrine slavery into the Constitution.

This famed Lincoln scholar explained Abe's views on abolition:

"Abraham Lincoln was NOT an abolitionist."
[David Herbert Donald, "Lincoln Reconsidered: Essays on the Civil War Era." Alfred A. Knopf, 1st Ed, 1956, p.19]

Abe himself explained his views on "equal rights":

"I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
[First Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Ottawa, Illinois, August 21, 1858: Lincoln's reply, in Basler, Roy P., "The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln Vol 3." Rutgers University Press, 1953, p.16]

According to Abe, the black race can have the rights mentioned in the Declaration, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as long as they do not pursue a right to be equal to the white race.

Abe also rejected the right of the black race to vote, become jurors, intermarry with whites, or to live together either socially or politically with whites:

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."
[Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858: Lincoln's speech, in Basler, Roy P., "The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln Vol 3." Rutgers University Press, 1953, pp.145-146]

The last sentence reveals the true nature of the beast called Lincoln [paraphrasing]: "The negro should NOT be denied everything; ONLY those things that matter."

Aside from Lincoln's hypocrisy, the train of abuses and usurpations by the Hamiltonites against the Jeffersonians (which included those by Henry Clay) is so long that it is difficult to pin down exactly why the Southern states decided to bolt when Lincoln was nominated. Perhaps they simply found Lincoln detestable.

Mr. Kalamata

>>Kalamata wrote: "The 1828 Tariff was merely an "enhancement" of Clay's 1824 British-mercantilistic-style tariff disguised as part of "The American System." The tyranny that created the 1824 tariff was the precipitator that raised alarm bells, as explained by Jefferson in 1825:"
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Complete nonsense, since the original 1792 tariff averaged 15% and was intended to protect American producers, North and South. By 1810 revenues doubled and the average rate was reduced to 10%, but the War of 1812 -- aka "Mr. Madison's War" -- exposed America's vulnerabilities resulting in protective tariffs averaging 20% in 1820, under President Monroe. Indeed, after the War of 1812, federal spending and national debt both tripled as a percent of GDP. During that time President Madison imposed embargoes on New England exports, driving some New Englanders to threaten secession."

Joey possesses a vast storeroom of useless facts. For something useful, this is Frank Taussig on the protective tariff narrative in those days:

"The South took its stand against the protective system with a promptness and decision characteristic of the political history of the slave states. The opposition of the Southern members to the tariff bill of 1820 is significant of the change in the nature of the protective movement between 1816 and 1820. The Southern leaders had advocated the passage of the act of 1816, but they bitterly opposed the bill of 1820…"
"After the failure of the bill of that year, the movement for higher duties seems for a while to have lost headway. The lowest point of industrial and commercial depression, so far as indicated by the revenue, was reached at the close of 1820, and, as affairs began to mend, protective measures received less vigorous support. Bills to increase duties, similar to the bill of 1820, were introduced in Congress in 1821 and 1822, but they were not pressed and led to no legislation…"
"The tariff of 1824 was passed, the first and the most direct fruit of the early protective movement. The Presidential election of that year undoubtedly had an effect in causing its passage; but the influence of politics and political ambition was in this case hardly a harmful one… It was carried mainly by the votes of the Western and Middle states. The South was in opposition, New England was divided; Rhode Island and Connecticut voted for the bill, Massachusetts and the other New England states were decidedly opposed."
[Frank W. Taussig, "The Tariff History of the United States." G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1892, pp.73-75]

Calhoun understood the [long train of] tyranny to begin with the 1824 tariff:

"To understand the causes which have led to the present state of things, we must go back to the year 1824, when the tariff system triumphed in Congress a system which imposed duties, not for the purpose of revenue, but to encourage the industry of one portion of the Union at the expense of the other. This was followed up by the act of 1828, which consummated the system. It raised the duties so extravagantly, that, out of an annual importation of sixty-four millions, thirty-two passed into the treasury; that is, Government took one-half for the liberty of introducing the other. Countless millions were thus poured into the treasury, beyond the wants of the Government, which became in time the source of the most extravagant expenditures. This vast increase of receipts and expenditures was followed by a corresponding expansion of the business of the banks. They had to discount and issue freely, to enable the merchants to pay their duty bonds, as well as to meet the vastly increased expenditures of the Government. Another effect followed the act of 1828, which gave a still further expansion to the action of the banks, and which is worthy of notice. "
[On the Bill authorizing the issue of Treasury Notes delivered in the Senate, September 19th, 1837, in Richard K. Cralle, "The Works of John C. Calhoun Vol III - Speeches." D. Appleton & Company, 1867, pp.70-71]

There was also this, which mentioned the unconstitutionality of the bill:

"If Congress should limit its legislation to the few great subjects confided to it; so frame its laws as to leave as little as possible to discretion, and take care to see that they are duly and faithfully executed, the administrative powers of the President would be proportionally limited, and divested of all danger… Having now pointed out the cause of the great increase of the Executive power on which the Senator rested his objection to the veto power; and having satisfactorily shown, as I trust I have, that, if it has proved dangerous in fact, the fault is not in the constitution, but in Congress, I would next ask him, in what possible way could the divesting the President of his veto, or modifying it as he proposes, limit his power? Is it not clear that, so far from the veto being the cause of the increase of his power, it would have acted as a limitation on it, if it had been more freely and frequently used? If the President had vetoed the original bank, the connection with the banking system, the tariffs of 1824 and 1828, and the numerous acts appropriating money for roads, canals, harbors, and a long list of other measures not less unconstitutional, would his power have been half as great as it now is? He has grown great and powerful, not because he used his veto, but because lie abstained from using it. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a case in which its application can tend to enlarge his power, except it be the case of an act intended to repeal a law calculated to increase his power, or to restore the authority of one which, by an arbitrary construction of his power, he has set aside."
[Speech on the Veto Power in response to Henry Clay, delivered in the Senate, February 28th, 1842, in Richard K. Cralle, "The Works of John C. Calhoun Vol IV - Speeches." D. Appleton & Company, 1861, pp.97,99]

May as well include this one:

"The tariff of 1828 was as much a political movement as a measure of protection. The protective policy [the tyranny] had triumphed in Congress by the passage of the Tariff Act of 1824, which was followed by the election of Mr. Adams, to the presidency the next year, by which the protective system gained an ascendency in the executive, as it had previously in the legislative department of the Government."
[On the Bill introduced by Mr. Wright, Chairman of the Committee on Finance, to repeal and reduce certain Duties therein mentioned, delivered in the Senate, February 23d, 1837, in Richard K. Cralle, "The Works of John C. Calhoun Vol III - Speeches." D. Appleton & Company, 1867, p.43]

This is by another senator, for good measure:

"I must be permitted while on this topic [the constitutionality of the bill] to declare that, however this bill may be modified, still the system is one against which we feel constrained, in behalf of those we represent, to enter our most solemn protest. Considering this scheme of promoting certain employments at the expense of others as unequal, oppressive, and unjust, viewing prohibition as the means and the destruction of all foreign commerce the end of this policy, I take this occasion to declare that we shall feel ourselves justified in embracing the very first opportunity of repealing all such laws as may be passed for the promotion of these objects. Whatever interests may grow up under this bill, and whatever capital may be invested, I wish it to be distinctly understood that we will not hold ourselves bound to maintain the system; and if capitalists will, in the face of our protests and in defiance of our solemn warnings, invest their fortunes in pursuits made profitable at our expense, on their own heads be the consequences of their folly."
[Speech of Robert Y. Hayne, Senator South Carolina, on the floor of the Senate, April 30, 1824, in Edward Stanwood, "American Tariff Controversies in the Nineteenth Century Vol I." Archibald Constable & Co., 1903, p.236]

Like I said, the 1824 protective tariff was the precipitator that raised alarm bells.

Mr. Kalamata

>>Kalamata wrote: "Rebellion, Joey, which is localized, and which is not recognized by the state government, is not nullification nor secession. The threats of nullification and secession were powers retained by the states to serve as checks against tyrannical government, such as the tyranny of Lincoln, and that of his hero, Henry Clay."
>>BroJoeK, the Drama Queen, wrote: "Danny-child, you are confused as always because you refuse to look at the whole picture. In post #526, I listed eight different threats of rebellion, insurrection, secession, nullification & treason. All were opposed by our Founders and early presidents, none were tolerated as, in Gen. Scott's words, "depart in peace, wayward sisters."

Joey is constitutionally-challenged, believing, like all "good" progressives, that the Constitution is a living document, rather than a legal document.

The only thing that matters to a supporter/defender of the Constitution is what is written in the Constitution, and the manner in which it was constructed during the debates. This is Scalia:

"My brand of legal interpretation—which today is called, in some quarters derisively, originalism—is not too far removed from the principles that Lincoln articulates in these two speeches. It is the view that the Constitution, like other legal documents, must be interpreted fairly according to its text, in light of the history of its adoption, and the tradition of its application. And that while the Constitution may have to be applied to new phenomena, in its application to phenomena extant when it was adopted, it does not change."
[Antonin Scalia, "Scalia Speaks." Crown Forum, 2017]

Keep in mind that Lincoln spoke out of both sides of his mouth. Scalia was referring to what Lincoln said, not what he meant.

So, what does the Constitution say about secession? It says that all states have the right to secede BECAUSE secession clauses of three of the states were accepted, as follows:

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]

Secession is not just a right, it is the Supreme Law.

Regarding your list, since secession is a retained right under the Constitution, any opposition to a peaceful succession is an act of tyranny. The first 5 incidents in your list were not peaceful, nor were they secession, so we can discard those. The same could be said for the 6th, the Hartford Convention incident, sorta. But, as usual, Joey removed all historical context to make it appear to fit his narrative. This is the context:

"To be defied by the cities as well as the states of New England was more than the administration could endure. To assert federal authority in both cases, Monroe ordered the 23d and the 25th Infantry regiments into Connecticut for recruiting over the winter. Both these regiments consisted largely of New Englanders who had fought creditably in the last campaign on the Niagara Peninsula. As he did this, Monroe, on November 26, also withdrew part of Izard's army from Plattsburg back to Greenbush in New York. Greenbush was an established army camp, but its location was conveniently close to the western boundaries of both Connecticut and Massachusetts. If the administration should need to intervene in New England or to dissolve the Hartford Convention, the forces were thus near at hand."
"To the commander of the 25th Infantry regiment, Colonel Thomas Jessup, Monroe gave special instructions. The Secretary feared that while the Hartford Convention was meeting, the British forces might attack New York on two fronts—one at Buffalo and the other at Long Island. Such an attack could also be part of a prearranged campaign with the New England Federalists, whose part in it would be to raise the standard of rebellion against the United States. Jessup was therefore ordered to observe closely both the activities of the convention and the British fleet presumed to be hovering off Long Island Sound. If he suspected the slightest intention to disrupt or to invade the Union, he was to seize the federal armory at Springfield, Massachusetts, and to call on General Brown and Governor Tompkins of New York for assistance. Should it be necessary to use force, Monroe advised Jessup to employ it, if possible, only against the enemy and not against American citizens. He was also to keep in constant touch with the Republican leaders of New England, both to assure them that the administration would not allow treason to prosper and to protect them against attack."
[J. C. A. Stagg, "Mr. Madison's War: politics, diplomacy, and warfare in the early American republic, 1783-1830." Princeton University Press, 1983, pp.477-478]

Obviously, there was a lot going on at that time, and a peaceful secession was not one of them.

Regarding the the 7th incident, which occurred in 1832-1833, Jackson abandoned Jeffersonian principles, as well as the Convention adoption of the aforementioned secessions clauses; so he was therefore clearly wrong. Further, there is no authorized power given to the federal government to "preserve the union," nor is there an authorized power given to the federal government to enforce an unconstitutional law. If the federal government can implement and enforce unconstitutional laws under the guise of "preserving the Union," there is no Union, and there is no Constitution. [Note: bullies and thugs everywhere will disagree with that statement.]

Read the authorized powers for yourself in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution:

U. S. Constitution: Article I, Section 8

Only those laws made pursuant to exercising the authorized powers in the Constitution can be classified as "Laws of the Union;" all others are appropriately classified as usurpations of power, which are, in fact, "Laws of Disunion."

South Carolina's patriotism -- their love of the Constitution rather than the glory and patronage of mere men -- forced a compromise.

Regarding the the 8th incident, Utah was not a state in 1857, and therefore could not secede.

Mr. Kalamata

>>Kalamata wrote: "But the reasons for the first secession, in a nutshell, were the tentacles of crony capitalism, only one of which threatened slavery; the most dangerous of which was the Morrill Tariff. "
>>BroJoeK, the Drama Queen, wrote: "In fact, no secessionist ever said anything about "crony capitalism", period -- that is pure Lost Causer fantasy."

Crony capitalism was called patronage in those days:

"But the most formidable of all the obstacles the source of the vast and corrupting surplus, with its host of extravagant and unconstitutional expenditures the protective tariff, still remained in full force, and obstructed any further progress in the reaction that had commenced. By what decided and bold measures it was overcome is well known to all, and need not be told on this occasion. It is sufficient to say, that, after a long and desperate struggle, the controversy terminated in the Compromise Act, which abandoned the protective principle, and has, I trust, closed for ever what has proved in this Government a most prolific source of power, patronage, and corruption."...
"Having taken these steps, every measure of prominence originating in the principles and policy of the National Federal school will become obliterated, and the Government will have been brought back, after the lapse of fifty years, to the point of original departure, when it may be put on its new tack. To guard against a false steerage thereafter, one important measure, in addition to those enumerated, will be indispensable: to place the new States, as far as the public domain is concerned, in a condition as independent of the Government as the old. It is as much due to them, as it is indispensable to accomplish the great object in view. The public domain, within these States, is too great a stake to be left under the control of this Government. It is difficult to estimate the vast addition it makes to its power and patronage, and the controlling and corrupting influence which it may exercise over the Presidential election, and through that, the strong impulse it may receive in a wrong direction. Till it is removed, there can be no assurance of a successful and safe steerage, even if every other sinister influence should be removed."...
"On this question of patronage, let me add, in conclusion, that, according to my conception, the great and leading error in Hamilton and his school originated in a mistake as to the analogy between ours and the British system of Government. If we were to judge by their outward form, there is, indeed, a striking analogy between them in many particulars; but if we look within, at their spirit and genius, never were two free Governments so perfectly dissimilar. They are, in fact, the very opposites. Of all free governments that ever existed no, 1 will enlarge the proposition of all governments that ever existed, free or despotic, the British Government can bear the largest amount of patronage the greatest exaction and pressure on the people, without changing its character, or running into revolution. The greater, in fact, its patron age, the stronger it is till the pressure begins to crush the mass of population with its superincumbent weight. But directly the opposite is the case with ours. Of all governments that ever existed, it can stand under the least patronage, in proportion to the population and wealth of the country, without changing its character, or hazarding a revolution. I have not made these assertions lightly. They are the result of much reflection, and can be sustained by conclusive reasons drawn from the nature of the two Governments; but this is not the proper occasion to discuss the subject."
[On the Bill to prevent the Interference of certain Federal Officers in Elections, delivered in the Senate, February 22d, 1839, in Cralle, Richard K., "The Works of John C. Calhoun Vol III - Speeches." D. Appleton & Company, 1867, pp.396-403]

This historian mentioned the word, in passing:

"The Northerner feels redeemed, for he, being human, tends to rewrite history to suit his own deep needs; he may not, in fact, publish this history, but it lies open on a lectern in some arcane recess of his being, ready for his devotional perusal... When one is happy in forgetfulness, facts get forgotten. In the happy contemplation of the Treasury of Virtue it is forgotten that the Republican platform of 1860 pledged protection to the institution of slavery where it existed, and that the Republicans were ready, in 1861, to guarantee slavery in the South, as bait for a return to the Union. It is forgotten that in July, 1861, both houses of Congress, by an almost unanimous vote, affirmed that the War was waged not to interfere with the institutions of any state but only to maintain the Union. The War, in the words of the House resolution, should cease "as soon as these objects are accomplished." It is forgotten that the Emancipation Proclamation, issued on September 23, 1862, was limited and provisional: slavery was to be abolished only in the seceded states and only if they did not return to the Union before the first of the next January. It is forgotten that the Proclamation was widely disapproved and even contributed to the serious setbacks to Republican candidates for office in the subsequent election. It is forgotten that, as Lincoln himself freely admitted, the Proclamation itself was of doubtful constitutional warrant and was forced by circumstances; that only after a bitter and prolonged struggle in Congress was the Thirteenth Amendment sent, as late as January, 1865, to the states for ratification; and that all of Lincoln's genius as a horse trader (here the deal was Federal patronage swapped for Democratic votes) was needed to get Nevada admitted to statehood, with its guaranteed support of the Amendment. It is forgotten that even after the Fourteenth Amendment, not only Southern states, but most Northern ones, refused to adopt Negro suffrage, and that Connecticut had formally rejected it as late as July, 1865. It is forgotten that it was not until 1870 that the Negro finally won his vote—or rather, that very different thing, the right to vote.
[Warren, Robert Penn, "The Legacy of the Civil War." Harvard University Press, 1961, pp.59-60]

Mr. Kalamata