Replies

continuing with Kalamata's lengthy post #645:

Kalamata repeating a previous claim: "The Confederacy was a foreign nation when Lincoln invaded, and could not possibly have committed insurrection or rebellion."

To my knowledge no US legal body has ever recognized Confederate secession as legitimate.
Your argument is rejected.

Kalamata: "As usual, Joey is glossing over Lincoln's tyranny."

Just like today's Democrats Mr. Olive knows he can't re-assassinate Republican President Lincoln, he can't even impeach Lincoln, all Democrats like Dan-bo can do is muddy up a Republican President with laughable accusations, but why?

Well, if we take today's Democrats as following the same template, then the answer is obvious -- today we have the most successful Republican president (since who? Reagan? Coolidge? TR? Grant?) and Republican success reduces Democrats to irrelevancy.
Republican success exposes Democrat uselessness and risks for them mass desertions of core constituencies -- white women, black men, Hispanics, blue collar workers, etc.
So, if you are a Democrat leader faced with existential threats from Republican successes, how do you hold onto your base?

Obviously, you dirty up Republicans as much as you possibly can, with accusations however exaggerated, however ridiculous & false, it doesn't matter, just keep the accusations flowing.

So today we see yet another generation of young Democrats being taught that their Republican president is... well... the devil -- a tyrant, a dictator, a Nazi, a racist, sexist, homophobe, whatever dirt they can throw to distract attention from a genuine Republican doing what all Republicans promise to do but only seldom accomplish.

As a child, young Dan-bo was abused by Democrats who filled his little mind with lies, nonsense & hatreds just as they do today with yet another innocent young generation.

Kalamata: "In April of 1861, Lincoln found a previously unknown presidential power to suspend habeas corpus, which he then used to arrest and imprison anyone who opposed his political theory and ambitions, with particular animosity toward those who expressed support for the original construction of the U. S. Constitution."

That's total nonsense.
The truth is, the US Constitution authorizes the Federal government to suspend habeas corpus "in cases of rebellion or insurrection" and there was no law or court ruling before Lincoln that such authority was restricted to Congress, even in emergencies.

The truth is, those arrested were all pro-Confederates who had declared war against the United States Constitution, hoping to replace it with their own Confederate constitution.

Kalamata: " Lincoln's politics had now become the Constitution of the United States, which included a new-found presidential power to charge with treason those who opposed his politics.
The Lincoln Constitution of United States, debated and ratified by Abraham Lincoln the instant he was inaugurated, had become the Supreme Law of the Land in 1861."

That is pure gibberish, typical of Democrat anti-American propaganda.

Kalamata: "Fact: Lincoln formally declared war against the South on April 19, 1861 (less than a week after the Fort Sumter surrender) when he ordered the blockade of Southern ports.
Fact: By blockading Southern ports, Lincoln was either admitting the Confederacy was a foreign power, or admitting to his own treason.
Take your pick."

And yet more cockamamie nonsense.
In fact, General Winfield Scott's "Anaconda Plan" had been prepared many years earlier as a standard response to potential rebellion.
There was no Union declaration of war, no admission of Confederate sovereignty, no "treason" by Lincoln against those who were waging war on the United States.

Kalamata: "Fact: Maryland legislators were threatened to avoid debating the issue of secession, or else; so naturally the majority secessionists eventually lost the vote:"

The real truth is that Kalamata here quotes at length from Maryland's machinations without ever mentioning the most important fact about it: on April 29, 1861 the Maryland legislature voted 53-13, four to one, against secession.
That was before the Confederates' May 6, 1961 Declaration of War on the United States.
After their D.O.W. Maryland pro-Confederate legislators were arrested -- about 1/3 in total.
In short, there was never a majority of Marylanders supporting secession.
Maryland was always a Union state.

All of the events regarding Winans and Merryman happened after Confederates formally declared war against the United States.

Kalamata: "Joey is lying.
Lincoln usurped power from the Congress when he suspended habeas corpus, which was the most dangerous usurpation of power against the citizens of the United States in its history."

Total nonsense.
Congress reviewed Lincoln's actions at length and authorized them.
At the same time the Confederate Congress authorized Jefferson Davis to suspend habeas corpus, which he did in proportionately the same numbers as Lincoln.

Kalamata: " Chief Justice Taney followed the Constitution in his ruling, and, yet, Joey, always playing the role of the big-government progressive, misdirects by throwing an ad hominem at the judge, rather than condemning his tyrannical, big-government, white supremacist hero, Abraham Lincoln."

Here our Dan-child simply repeats what he learned as a baby about The Devil Lincoln.
The truth is Crazy Roger Taney was a raging anti-human lunatic as illustrated in his 1857 Dred Scott decision.
During the Civil War, as Professor Neely points out (starting at minute 33), Crazy Roger had already prepared rulings effectively declaring the entire Civil War unconstitutional, from its funding to conscription.

Such rulings were never issued because no related case was brought to Crazy Roger's court.

Kalamata: "Greeley was just as annoyed with the limitations in the Constitution as Lincoln; and, yet, according to Joey, Taney was the bad guy for not sheepishly relinquishing his constitutionally-authorized position to a power-hungry mad-man."

Crazy Roger Taney was the "power-hungry mad-man" having found in the Constitution in 1857 "penumbras and emanations" regarding Dred Scott which no Founder ever intended.
In 1861 Crazy Roger, like our own Dan-bo, fantasized that the US Constitution intended to let rebellion, insurrection, invasion and treason destroy the US Constitution militarily, while Supreme Court rulings effectively hobbled Federal government.

Kalamata: "The Congress was packed with pro-crony-capitalism, pro-central-planning "republicans" who rubber-stamped any power Lincoln decided to add to his new Lincoln Constitution.
I wonder if the remaining democrats were intimidated by Lincoln's thuggery?
Just askin' . . ."

And yet again Kalamata exposes his true nature as an anti-Republican Democrat.
These are the facts: after Crazy Roger's 1857 Dred Scott ruling, Republican strength in Congress increased every election, peaking in the 40th Congress, from 1867-69.
Then, as more & more Democrat states returned, Republicans still held majorities in both houses until 1875, after which by 1879 Democrats again controlled both houses, ending Reconstruction and enshrining Jim Crow in the South.

So, during those long years of Democrat insanity (which have sadly now returned), American voters understood that Republicans were the keepers & protectors of their Constitutional government, while Democrats fought absurdly to destroy it.

Kalamata: "That is a common lie spread by the Lincoln cultists.
Davis relied on the Congress to authorize the suspension, which occurred only infrequently, and then for non-sweeping purposes.
Lincoln, on the other hand, had Hitler-like power.
He could do as he pleased, and he did."

When it suits Dan-bo's purposes he quotes Penn State Professor Neely, but in this case Neely tells us that Kalamata is totally wrong.
In fact, the proportion of pro-Union Confederates arrested by Davis was roughly the same as pro-Confederate Union citizens arrested by Lincoln.
Both Davis & Lincoln used habeas corpus, both were authorized by their Congress, but only Lincoln's drive the Dan-child to paroxysms of senseless accusations.

Enough for now, more later...

>>Kalamata wrote: "The Confederacy was a foreign nation when Lincoln invaded, and could not possibly have committed insurrection or rebellion."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "To my knowledge no US legal body has ever recognized Confederate secession as legitimate. Your argument is rejected."

It appears Joey is in bed with judicial activists. The only way a Supreme Court judge could not recognize the right of secession by a state would be to make spurious claims about the Constitution, as is the case with all judicial activism. A strict construction shows no power over secession authorized to the federal government, and no prohibition to the states. Therefore, that power belongs exclusively to the several states.

This is not rocket science, but it is not ideology or imagination, either. The written Constitution is the Supreme Law, not the opinions of 5 politically-appointed lawyers, as the progressives promote.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "As usual, Joey is glossing over Lincoln's tyranny."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Just like today's Democrats Mr. Olive knows he can't re-assassinate Republican President Lincoln, he can't even impeach Lincoln, all Democrats like Dan-bo can do is muddy up a Republican President with laughable accusations, but why?"

Spoken like a true progressive. You ask why we wish to give Lincoln his proper hanging? To restore our nation to the free republic state that existed prior to Lincoln. In those days, prior to Lincoln, a strong and honorable President could tell a meddlesome tyrant like John Marshall to pound sand.

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

>>BroJoeK wrote: "Well, if we take today's Democrats as following the same template, then the answer is obvious -- today we have the most successful Republican president (since who? Reagan? Coolidge? TR? Grant?) and Republican success reduces Democrats to irrelevancy."

And, we are still saddled with over $200 trillion in debt because of progressives, like you, and the legacy of an uncontrollable government inherited from Lincoln.

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

>>BroJoeK wrote: "Republican success exposes Democrat uselessness and risks for them mass desertions of core constituencies -- white women, black men, Hispanics, blue collar workers, etc. So, if you are a Democrat leader faced with existential threats from Republican successes, how do you hold onto your base?"

It is not the ballots that counts, but who counts the ballots. Ask your bud, Soros. He will explain how it works.

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

>>BroJoeK wrote: "Obviously, you dirty up Republicans as much as you possibly can, with accusations however exaggerated, however ridiculous & false, it doesn't matter, just keep the accusations flowing."

Lincoln and the revisionist, progressive historians -- those who pretend Lincoln was a republican -- have dirtied up the republican name.

However, there is hope. We have a tremendous advocate in the White House against crony capitalism; plus the natural Jeffersonian Republican spirit is rising up more and more in the populace. In modern times, States have already threatened and actually nullified a couple of unconstitutional laws. It would have been much nicer if the nullifications were for gun laws, rather than medical marijuana, but it is a good start.

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

>>BroJoeK wrote: "So today we see yet another generation of young Democrats being taught that their Republican president is... well... the devil -- a tyrant, a dictator, a Nazi, a racist, sexist, homophobe, whatever dirt they can throw to distract attention from a genuine Republican doing what all Republicans promise to do but only seldom accomplish."

Those teachers would be the Lincolnites, who control almost every aspect of our children's history education. Did you happen to catch the article by Foner on President Trump? Here it is again:

Eric Foner: White Nationalists, Neo-Confederates, and Donald Trump

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

>>BroJoeK wrote: "As a child, young Dan-bo was abused by Democrats who filled his little mind with lies, nonsense & hatreds just as they do today with yet another innocent young generation."

Child.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "In April of 1861, Lincoln found a previously unknown presidential power to suspend habeas corpus, which he then used to arrest and imprison anyone who opposed his political theory and ambitions, with particular animosity toward those who expressed support for the original construction of the U. S. Constitution."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "That's total nonsense."

My statement is an absolute fact! But you are welcome to prove me wrong. None of your useless opinions, please. Facts, only.

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

>>BroJoeK wrote: "The truth is, the US Constitution authorizes the Federal government to suspend habeas corpus "in cases of rebellion or insurrection" and there was no law or court ruling before Lincoln that such authority was restricted to Congress, even in emergencies."

That is 100% baloney! The U.S. Constitution authorizes ONLY the Congress to suspend habeas corpus. The same authorization was part of the Constitutional debates in the Federal Convention. The president (executive) was not mentioned:

"The privileges and benefit of the writ of habeas corpus shall be enjoyed in this government in the most expeditious and ample manner: and shall not be suspended by the Legislature except upon the most urgent and pressing occasions, and for a limited time not exceeding ? months." [Max Farrand, "The Records Of The Federal Convention Of 1787 Vol 02." 1911, p.334]

Joey's posts are always deceptive.

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

>>BroJoeK wrote: "The truth is, those arrested were all pro-Confederates who had declared war against the United States Constitution, hoping to replace it with their own Confederate constitution."

The truth is, Lincoln usurped power from the Congress, who were the elected (House) and chosen (Senate) representatives of the states and the people, which is tyranny.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: " Lincoln's politics had now become the Constitution of the United States, which included a new-found presidential power to charge with treason those who opposed his politics. The Lincoln Constitution of United States, debated and ratified by Abraham Lincoln the instant he was inaugurated, had become the Supreme Law of the Land in 1861.

For the record, Lincoln's usurpations -- his tyrannical acts -- read like a Hitler horror show. He arrested thousands, shut down numerous newspapers, interfered in elections and state legislative acts, and even arrested and deported an Ohio congressman. Nice guy.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Fact: Lincoln formally declared war against the South on April 19, 1861 (less than a week after the Fort Sumter surrender) when he ordered the blockade of Southern ports. Fact: By blockading Southern ports, Lincoln was either admitting the Confederacy was a foreign power, or admitting to his own treason. Take your pick."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "And yet more cockamamie nonsense."

When Joey spouts off like that, you can be assured that he couldn't find anything in Wikipedia to contradict me, and he is too lazy to study history. Personally, I enjoy history, and I found this about the blockade:

"By a proclamation of April 19 Mr. Lincoln clamped a blockade on the ports of the seceded states, a measure hitherto regarded as contrary to both the Constitution and the law of nations except when the government was embroiled in a declared, foreign war. On April 20 he ordered a total of nineteen vessels to be added immediately to the Navy "for purposes of public defense," and a few days later the blockade was extended to the ports of Virginia and North Carolina." [Clinton Rossiter, "Constitutional Dictatorship: Crisis Government in the Modern Democracies." Princeton University Press, 1948, p.226]

No matter. With a few strokes of a pen, Lincoln rewrote the Constitution and the Laws of Nations in his own image.

By the way, you can count on Joey to pretend he knows more about Civil War history and political science than Professor Rossiter.

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

>>BroJoeK wrote: "In fact, General Winfield Scott's "Anaconda Plan" had been prepared many years earlier as a standard response to potential rebellion."

Do you have a reference for the Anaconda Plan?

Speaking of General Scott, according to Edwin Stanton, Scott seemed to favor withdrawing the troops from Fort Sumter. Obviously, that advice, and the advice of others, was ignored by Lincoln, and a million died:

"I am perfectly satisfied that Major Anderson will be withdrawn. Scott agrees with Anderson as to the force required to relieve Sumter, and evidently favors withdrawal of the troops. The same thing will no doubt be done in respect to Fort Pickens. The Montgomery Commissioners have not yet applied for an audience. Various conjectures are made in respect to whether they will be received. I am also convinced by the general tone prevailing here that there is not the least design to attempt any coercive measure. A continuation of your policy to avoid collision will be the course of the present administration." [From Edwin M. Stanton to James Buchanan, Washington, Sunday, 10 March, 1861, in John Bassett Moore, "The Works of James Buchanan Vol 11." J. B. Lippencott & Co., 1910, pp.163-164]

Your dogmatic proclamations are getting annoying, Joey. How about some references?

Mr. Kalamata