[BroJoeK]

Kalamata: "All you know is what your brain has absorbed from decades of left-wing/neo-conservative propaganda; and it appears you have no desire to hear an alternate view.
I, personally, seek to read and hear both sides.
Nothing personal; it is just the way I am."

Those are total lies, in fact Kalamata is a committed Lost Cause propagandist who instantly dismisses any facts or ideas not consistent with his own.

Kalamata's weapons of ideological warfare include an impressive library of accurate quotes, but only quotes which can be used to support his own constructs and always bolstered by generous helpings of personal attacks, mocking & insulting lies against anyone who disagrees.

Kalamata: "Lincoln was a politician and a white supremacist, so he was obliged to speak out of both sides of his mouth from time to time.
For example, Lincoln supported the Illinois Black Codes, and the Illinois Constitution which prohibited the immigration of blacks into the state."

Nearly all American voters were "white supremacists" in those days, but some like Lincoln advocated more freedom for African Americans than others would permit.
Lincoln had a long personal history in opposition to slavery, a history well known by secessionist Fire Eaters in states like South Carolina.
It's why they seceded.

Kalamata: "I believe Lincoln was saying that if Illinois had the power to grant citizenship to a fugitive slave, he would oppose it.
Is that what you read? "

And yet less than seven years later Lincoln was murdered for proposing exactly that.

"On April 11, Booth attended Lincoln's speech at the White House in which Lincoln promoted voting rights for blacks;[18]
Booth said 'That means nigger citizenship ... That is the last speech he will ever give.' "

Kalamata: "Illinois did, after all, restrict the immigration of blacks into the state:"

And yet US census numbers show that Illinois' freed black population increased between 1820 and 1860 at a higher percentage rate than any other state in the Union, North or South.
From 1840 to 1860, during the time of Illinois' 1848 constitution, its freed-blacks doubled, only Ohio's grew faster and by 1860 several states, North and South, even had declining freed-black populations.

Bottom line: whatever Illinois' law said, freed-blacks continued to flock there.

Kalamata: "There is no evidence his views changed.
That is not to say his politics did not change from time to time, depending on how the wind blew."

The largest piece of evidence supporting Lincoln's change of mind regarding full citizenship for freed-blacks is the .41 caliber steel ball and Deringer pistol John Wilkes Boothe used to shoot him in the head:

Kalamata: "The historical facts are, the secessionists tried to leave the United States in peace, and Lincoln would have none of it. "

And yet more lies from Kalamata, he can't stop it, can't control it, they just flow out of him.
The facts are there was nothing peaceful about secession, Confederates began immediately waging a low-level war against the United States, actions which President Buchanan warned them in February 1861 would lead to armed conflict.

Lincoln was totally willing to tolerate Southern independence, but not at the expense of submitting to Confederate military actions against the United States.

Kalamata: "You are unfamiliar with the history of secession, the constitutional and ratification convention debates, and the constitutionally-enshrined concept of retained rights.
The states had power over secession, until the tyrant Lincoln usurped it.
That is also a historical fact."

No, it's a pack of historical lies, from beginning to end.
The real historical fact is that the Union did nothing to stop secession or Confederacy until Confederates provoked, started, formally declared and began waging war against the United States.

Kalamata: "Senator Toombs sounds furious, and rightly so!"

A lot of political hyperbole for a tariff that originally intended to return rates to the levels Southern Democrats themselves had supported in 1846, and which they defeated in 1860, and could still have defeated -- or forced compromises on -- in 1861 had they not seceded.

Kalamata: "Again, it was all about economics..."

Sure, the economics of slavery, but not just economics, also ethics, morality & laws related to slavery.

Kalamata: "If slavery alone was the issue, Lincoln would have not waited several years before making a big deal out of it; and he would never have appointed a slave-holder and/or slave-benefactor as the commander of the armies he was sending to wipe out the slave-holders and non-slave-holders of the South."

Complete insane nonsense, proving yet again that nothing rational goes on between Kalamata's ears.

Kalamata: " In fact, many northern soldiers were aghast when Lincoln announced the Emancipation Proclamation, protesting that they joined to preserve the Union, not to help abolish slavery.
The result was over 200,000 deserted, and many others evaded the draft.
This is McPherson:"

Desertions during the Civil War totaled about 300,000 for the Union (12%), 150,000 for Confederates (15%), or roughly 6,000 per month Union, 3,000 Confederates, but the monthly numbers went up & down depending on fortunes of war.
The fall of 1862 & winter of 1863 seemed especially bleak for the Union side under "Little Mack" McClellan.
Major Union defeats at the time included Hartsville Tennessee, Fredericksburg Virginia, Chickasaw Bayou Mississippi and Galveston Texas.
Desertions are said to have increased, but no numbers anywhere support Kalamata's 200,000 figure.

Kalamata: "And don't forget to mention the beam in the eyes of the northern leaders and populace:"

Here Kalamata quotes a historian in 1965 saying 1860 era Republicans didn't believe in full rights for freed slaves.
And yet in six Northern states freed-blacks did vote, so it is not true that every Northerner was just as troglodytic as typical Southern slaveholders.

Kalamata: "So much for the so-called party of freedom."

In 1860 the Republican party of freedom offered more freedom for blacks than the Democrats' slavery party.
By 1870 Republicans passed the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments, granting full citizenship.
Sadly, it took the Union Army in former Confederate states to enforce those Amendments and when Democrats negotiated the army's withdrawal in 1877, Southern Democrats were soon enough able to reassert their own Black Laws, Jim Crow, segregation and KKK terrorist enforcement, thus effectively nullifying the Republican full-citizenship Amendments for the next 100 years.

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: "All you know is what your brain has absorbed from decades of left-wing/neo-conservative propaganda; and it appears you have no desire to hear an alternate view. I, personally, seek to read and hear both sides. Nothing personal; it is just the way I am."
>>Joey wrote: "Those are total lies, in fact Kalamata is a committed Lost Cause propagandist who instantly dismisses any facts or ideas not consistent with his own."

Child.

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

>>Joey wrote: "Kalamata's weapons of ideological warfare include an impressive library of accurate quotes, but only quotes which can be used to support his own constructs and always bolstered by generous helpings of personal attacks, mocking & insulting lies against anyone who disagrees."

You are welcome to challenge my statements with your own facts, Joey. However, just as a reminder, temper-tantrums are not facts.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Lincoln was a politician and a white supremacist, so he was obliged to speak out of both sides of his mouth from time to time. For example, Lincoln supported the Illinois Black Codes, and the Illinois Constitution which prohibited the immigration of blacks into the state."
>>Joey wrote: "Nearly all American voters were "white supremacists" in those days, but some like Lincoln advocated more freedom for African Americans than others would permit. Lincoln had a long personal history in opposition to slavery, a history well known by secessionist Fire Eaters in states like South Carolina. It's why they seceded."

Are you referring to Lincoln's attempt to permanently enshrine slavery within the Constitution via an Amendment; his support for the Fugitive Slave Law; or his many claims that the Constitution supported the right to own slaves? Just curious . . .

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "I believe Lincoln was saying that if Illinois had the power to grant citizenship to a fugitive slave, he would oppose it. Is that what you read? "
>>Joey wrote: "And yet less than seven years later Lincoln was murdered for proposing exactly that."

If Lincoln had not won HIS war, he and every one of his thugs would have been charged with war crimes. Are you familiar with this book?

"[H]ad the Confederates somehow won, had their victory put them in position to bring their chief opponents before some sort of tribunal, they would have found themselves justified (as victors generally do) in stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command for violation of the laws of war, specifically for waging war against noncombatants."

[Lee B. Kennett, "Marching Through Georgia: Story of Soldiers and Civilians During Sherman's Campaign." HarperCollins, 2001, p.286]

This one places the psychopath's, Sherman and Sheridan, into proper perspective:

"Lincoln's embracing of 'hard war' may have had consequences more far-reaching even than defeat of the South. Union general Philip Sheridan, in Germany to observe that empire's conquest of France in 1870, told Otto von Bismarck that defeated civilians "must be left nothing but their eyes to weep with over the war." The chancellor was said to have been shocked by the unsolicited advice. But the kind of warfare practiced by the Federal military during 1861-65 turned America-and arguably the whole world-back to a darker age. "It scarcely needs pointing out," wrote Richard M. Weaver, "that from the military policies of [William T.] Sherman and Sheridan there lies but an easy step to the total war of the Nazis, the greatest affront to Western civilization since its founding."'

"In war, as in peace," observed Weaver, "people remain civilized by acknowledging bounds beyond which they must not go." Echoing the words of Lee, Weaver understood no necessary contradiction in the term "Christian" as applied to the profession of arms. "The Christian soldier must seek the verdict of battle always remembering that there is a higher law by which he and his opponent will be judged, and which enjoins against fighting as the barbarian."

[Walter Brian Cisco, "War Crimes Against Southern Civilians." Pelican Publishing Company, 2008]

Weaver's quote about the Nazis came from here:

"It scarcely needs pointing out that from the military policies of Sherman and Sheridan there lies but an easy step to the total war of the Nazis, the greatest affront to Western civilization since its founding." [Curtis & Thompson, "The Southern Essays of Richard M. Weaver." Liberty Press, 1987, p.169]

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

Joey wrote: "On April 11, Booth attended Lincoln's speech at the White House in which Lincoln promoted voting rights for blacks;[18] Booth said 'That means nigger citizenship ... That is the last speech he will ever give.' "

That is what Powell claimed, but the execution of Lincoln by Booth may have been a consolation prize. Are you familiar with the kidnapping plot?

"A series of meetings between the [Booth and Surratt] followed. These were highly vexatious. Booth attempted to draw information from Surratt without revealing his purpose. Surratt determined to give nothing away until he understood what Booth really wanted. Surratt still feared that he might be a spy. To Booth, at this point, Surratt was only a friend of Harbin's who was a friend of Mudd's who was a friend of Thompson's who was a friend of Queen's who was a friend of Martin's who was a friend of Kane's.

"Exasperated, Surratt finally exclaimed, 'You know well I am a Southern man. If you cannot trust me, we will separate.'

"His hand called, Booth could delay no longer. He spoke of the suffering of Southern soldiers in Northern prisons and of the critical need of the South for these men. He had an undertaking at hand that would lead to their exchange. These words were followed by a long and, it seemed to Surratt, an ominous pause.

"Well, sir, what is your proposition?" demanded Surratt, breaking the silence.

"Booth rose and looked under the bed, inside the wardrobe, out the door, and down the passage. 'We have to be careful. Walls have ears.' Drawing his chair close to Surratt, he whispered, 'It is to kidnap President Lincoln and carry him off to Richmond.'"

[Terry Alford, "Fortune’s Fool: the life of John Wilkes Booth." Oxford University Press, 2015, pp.205-206]

This is from a 1926 interview with an acquaintance of Booth named (I believe) Hannah Cook:

"'Father and a few of the neighbors and Booth blathered about the store stove and discussed the feasibility of removing Lincoln from the Presidency,' said Hannah in an interview given about 1926. 'His murder was not considered, but the kidnapping and removal to the Far South was tentatively agreed upon. There he was to be held for a king's ransom, all for the Southern cause.' When pressed for details about the abduction plot, Hannah demurred, 'Oh, well, the war is ended.'"

[Ibid. pp.208-209]

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Illinois did, after all, restrict the immigration of blacks into the state:"
>>Joey wrote: "And yet US census numbers show that Illinois' freed black population increased between 1820 and 1860 at a higher percentage rate than any other state in the Union, North or South. From 1840 to 1860, during the time of Illinois' 1848 constitution, its freed-blacks doubled, only Ohio's grew faster and by 1860 several states, North and South, even had declining freed-black populations. Bottom line: whatever Illinois' law said, freed-blacks continued to flock there."

Why do I get the feeling you are trying to whitewash the sins of the North, Joey? It was obviously "impossible" to keep blacks out, but there may have been an alternate purpose for the legislations:

"Although seldom invoked, the anti-immigration laws reminded Negroes of their inferior position in society and provided whites with a convenient excuse for mob violence and frequent harassment of the Negro population. Perhaps the authors of such legislation had no more than this in mind. An Ohio legislative committee reported in 1838 that "it was never believed that the law would ever be complied with, nor was it intended by the makers that it ever should be. It's evident design was to drive this portion of our population into other states. It was an unrighteous attempt to accomplish, indirectly and covertly, what they would shrink from doing openly and frankly."

"Ohio provided a classic example of how anti-immigration legislation could be invoked to harass Negro residents. That state's restrictive statutes, enacted in 1804 and 1807 as part of the Black Laws, compelled Negroes entering the state to post a $500 bond guaranteeing their good behavior and to produce a court certificate as evidence of their freedom. No extensive effort was made to enforce the bond requirement until 1829, when the rapid increase of the Negro population alarmed Cincinnati. The city authorities announced that the Black Laws would be enforced and ordered Negroes to comply or leave within thirty days. The local Negro population promptly obtained a time extension, sent a delegation to Canada to find a suitable location for resettlement, and petitioned the legislature for repeal of "those obnoxious black laws."

"Impatient for results, white mobs roamed through Cincinnati's Negro quarters, spreading terror and destruction. Subsequently, the Negro delegation sent to Canada returned with a cordial invitation from the governor of Upper Canada. "Tell the Republicans on your side of the line," he declared, "that we royalists do not know men by their color. Should you come to us you will be entitled to all the privileges of the rest of His Majesty's subjects." An estimated 1,100 to 2,200 Negroes departed from the city, most of them apparently settling in Canada."

[Leon F. Litwack, "North of Slavery: The Negro in the Free States, 1790-1860." University of Chicago Press, 1965, pp.72-73]

The purpose of those laws could have been to maintain blacks as 2nd class citizens, Joey. It certainly kept most of them from voting:

"By 1840, some 93 per cent of the northern free Negro population lived in states which completely or practically excluded them from the right to vote. Only in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine could Negroes vote on an equal basis with whites. In New York, they could vote if they first met certain property and residence requirements. In New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut, they were completely disfranchised, after having once enjoyed the ballot…

"In addition to the dictates of political, economic, and social necessity, white manhood suffragists maintained that public opinion demanded color distinctions. A Pennsylvania constitutional convention delegate found, in passing through nearly half his state in 1837, "almost unanimous" opposition to Negro suffrage from members of both political parties. "There can be no mistaking public opinion on this subject," he declared. "The people of this state are for continuing this commonwealth, what it always has been, a political community of white persons."

[Ibid. pp.75, 77]

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "There is no evidence his views changed. That is not to say his politics did not change from time to time, depending on how the wind blew."
>>Joey wrote: "The largest piece of evidence supporting Lincoln's change of mind regarding full citizenship for freed-blacks is the .41 caliber steel ball and Deringer pistol John Wilkes Boothe used to shoot him in the head:

Do you have any hard evidence that Lincoln sought full citizenship for all blacks, or even suffrage? Lincoln was a white supremacist his entire life who believed the races should not mix; and there is no evidence, that I am aware of, that he ever changed his mind.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "The historical facts are, the secessionists tried to leave the United States in peace, and Lincoln would have none of it. "
>>Joey wrote: "And yet more lies from Kalamata, he can't stop it, can't control it, they just flow out of him. The facts are there was nothing peaceful about secession, Confederates began immediately waging a low-level war against the United States, actions which President Buchanan warned them in February 1861 would lead to armed conflict."

How so, Joey?

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

>>Joey wrote: "Lincoln was totally willing to tolerate Southern independence, but not at the expense of submitting to Confederate military actions against the United States."

There were no Confederate military actions against the United States, Joey, until Lincoln committed acts of war against them.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "You are unfamiliar with the history of secession, the constitutional and ratification convention debates, and the constitutionally-enshrined concept of retained rights. The states had power over secession, until the tyrant Lincoln usurped it. That is also a historical fact."
>>Joey wrote: "No, it's a pack of historical lies, from beginning to end. The real historical fact is that the Union did nothing to stop secession or Confederacy until Confederates provoked, started, formally declared and began waging war against the United States."

No, Joey. I know you want to believe that; but Lincoln provoked the war, and then performed the first acts of war, including acts of war against non-secessionist states, such as Maryland. Study the historical timeline.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Senator Toombs sounds furious, and rightly so!"
>>Joey wrote: "A lot of political hyperbole for a tariff that originally intended to return rates to the levels Southern Democrats themselves had supported in 1846, and which they defeated in 1860, and could still have defeated -- or forced compromises on -- in 1861 had they not seceded."

That is deceptive baloney, Joey. You have been posting trash economics since early in in this thread. The 1846 tariff was acceptable to the South BECAUSE it eliminated the crony-capitalist item-by-item rates carved out by special interests:

"As president he delivered on his promise in 1846 when, under the guidance of Treasury Secretary Robert J. Walker, Congress adopted a comprehensive overhaul of the tariff system featuring a moderate downward revision of rates and, importantly, the standardization of tariff categories on a tiered ad valorem schedule.

"This final feature was intended to improve the transparency of the tariff system by consolidating the somewhat convoluted list of tariff items, itself the product of many decades of lobbying and the carving out of highly specialized categories as political favors for specific companies and industries. By converting the tariff from a system that relied primarily on itemized specific duties or individually assigned ad valorem rates to a formal tiered schedule of ad valorem categories in which tariffs were assessed as a percentage of the import's declared dollar value, Walker further limited the ability of special interests of all stripes to disguise tariff favoritism in units of volume and measurement—different tariff rates assessed by tons of iron, gallons of alcohol, yards of cord and so forth.

"The Walker reforms helped to stabilize many years of fluctuating tariff politics by instituting a moderately free trade Tariff-for-revenue system that lasted, subject to a further uniform reduction of rates in 1857, until the eve of the Civil War…

"Between December 1858 and March 1860, Morrill was inundated with letters from manufacturers and industrialists requesting favorable protective tariff rates against their foreign competitors. Many of these petitions were copied verbatim into the text of the tariff bill. The Morrill schedule also replaced the ad valorem schedule system of Walker with the reintroduction of item-by-item rates. The new schedule utilized an ad hoc mixture of individual ad valorem rates and specific duties, assessed by import units rather than volume, making its administration less transparent. While it is difficult to measure the full effect of the revisions given this change of assessment, Morrill's equivalent rates pushed most items well above the 1846 schedule and, in several instances, to near-parity with the Black Tariff levels of 1842."

[Phillip W. Magness, "Tariffs and the American Civil War." Essential Civil War Curriculum, 2017, pp.6,8]

This article includes a warning that the South might secede if the bill was passed:

"In February, 1861, the Senate was petitioned by the Chamber of Commerce of New York not to pass the Morrill Bill. It was argued that it would seriously affect commerce and the revenue, and that the growing sentiment for its repeal would deter manufacturers from erecting new mills and buying new machinery. An equally important objection was that the passage of the bill would widen the existing breach between the North and the South. It is well known that commercial and financial capital in the North was, on the whole, strongly opposed to Lincoln 's election. Merchants were apprehensive that it might result in cancellation of orders from the South, and bankers expected the repudiation of Southern debts amounting to over $200,000,000, if the South should secede."

[Richard Hofstadter, "The Tariff Issue on the Eve of the Civil War." American Historical Review, Vol.44, No.1; October, 1938, p.54]

This article is from one of the top Economic Journals:

"Constitutions are not repositories for the inconsequential. Indeed, constitutions are the paramount legal and political institutions in societies. A constitution contains a society's fundamental rules, specifying the constraints placed on governments and individuals that establish a society's incentive structure for the future. Constitutional rules are not to be taken lightly. The Confederacy's constitutional 'cap' on import tariffs was not explicit, however. Rather, the cap follows inescapably from juxtaposing a straightforward economist's perspective on the Confederate Constitution's tariff-enabling clause with the historical record. An intriguing by-product of this juxtaposition is the proposition that the 'tariff ' might have been even more important to the Confederacy's 'founding fathers' than historical economists currently acknowledge...

"The Morrill Tariff of 1861, which returned overall tariff protections to its 1846 level [actually, above,] is usually thought of as a Civil War finance measure. However, raising U.S. tariffs had been a paramount objective of the Republican party and their protectionist allies at least since the Panic of 1857 and was a key plank in the August 1860 Republican party platform. Moreover, the U.S. House of Representatives actually passed the Morrill tariff in its 1859-60 session, prior to the departure of southern congressmen from the House of Representatives. This vote took place on 10 May 1860, well before Lincoln's election, Confederate secession, and Lincoln's inauguration…

"The handwriting was on the wall for the South, and ultimately for the Confederacy, after the Panic of 1857. On the eve of secession and the Civil War, northern politicians overall wanted dramatically higher tariff rates; Southern politicians did not. The Confederates certainly had important reasons to attach constitutional significance to 'low' tariff rates…

"The last three decades of the antebellum period were marked by the objections of various Southerners to high tariffs, especially in South Carolina. Many Southerners perceived that high tariffs subsidized northern manufacturing at the expense of the South. Given the South's high demand for manufactured imports and sizable exports of raw materials circa 1860, it should not be surprising that on the eve of secession and the Civil War many southern (and consequently Confederate) interests supported low tariff rates. For the Confederacy to permit high tariffs constitutionally would raise the specter of the Confederacy voluntarily subsidizing northern manufacturing. Such a possibility is highly unlikely.

"Our objective, noted early on, has been to show that the constitutional expression of this Confederate preference for low tariffs effectively constrained its lawmakers to the lower end of the Laffer relationship. This we have demonstrated by joining a straightforward supply and demand perspective on the Confederate tariff clause with the historical record. Whether the Confederate framers knew of the Laffer relationship is not relevant; their behavior was consistent with it.

"The Confederacy's founding fathers obviously did not specify the exact tariff rates that defined the lower end of the Laffer relationship. Why should one expect the Confederate founders to have special insight on the exact shape of the relationship for various tariffs? Even if they had such insight, why would they put it in their constitution? What the Confederacy did do, however, is worthy of special notice. A de facto constitutional mandate that tariffs lie on the lower end of the Laffer relationship means that the Confederacy went beyond simply observing that a given tax revenue is obtainable with a 'high' and 'low' tax rate, à la Alexander Hamilton and others. Indeed, the constitutional action suggests that the tariff issue may in fact have been even more important in the North–South tensions that led to the Civil War than many economists and historians currently believe."

[Mcguire & Cott, "The Confederate Constitution, Tariffs, and the Laffer Relationship." Economic Inquiry, Vol.40, Iss.3; July, 2002, pp.428,435,437]

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Again, it was all about economics..."
>>Joey wrote: "Sure, the economics of slavery, but not just economics, also ethics, morality & laws related to slavery."

Childish ideologue.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "If slavery alone was the issue, Lincoln would have not waited several years before making a big deal out of it; and he would never have appointed a slave-holder and/or slave-benefactor as the commander of the armies he was sending to wipe out the slave-holders and non-slave-holders of the South."
>>Joey wrote: "Complete insane nonsense, proving yet again that nothing rational goes on between Kalamata's ears."

Childish ideologue wearing heavy-duty historical blinders.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: " In fact, many northern soldiers were aghast when Lincoln announced the Emancipation Proclamation, protesting that they joined to preserve the Union, not to help abolish slavery. The result was over 200,000 deserted, and many others evaded the draft. This is McPherson:"
>>Joey wrote: "Desertions during the Civil War totaled about 300,000 for the Union (12%), 150,000 for Confederates (15%), or roughly 6,000 per month Union, 3,000 Confederates, but the monthly numbers went up & down depending on fortunes of war. The fall of 1862 & winter of 1863 seemed especially bleak for the Union side under "Little Mack" McClellan. Major Union defeats at the time included Hartsville Tennessee, Fredericksburg Virginia, Chickasaw Bayou Mississippi and Galveston Texas. Desertions are said to have increased, but no numbers anywhere support Kalamata's 200,000 figure."

The low-ball number of 200,000 was for that particular time, Joey, not for the entire war. Can you not at least provide a source for you incoherent hodgepodge?

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "And don't forget to mention the beam in the eyes of the northern leaders and populace:"
>>Joey wrote: "Here Kalamata quotes a historian in 1965 saying 1860 era Republicans didn't believe in full rights for freed slaves. And yet in six Northern states freed-blacks did vote, so it is not true that every Northerner was just as troglodytic as typical Southern slaveholders."

As usual, Joey provides no source.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "So much for the so-called party of freedom." In 1860 the Republican party of freedom offered more freedom for blacks than the Democrats' slavery party. By 1870 Republicans passed the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments, granting full citizenship. Sadly, it took the Union Army in former Confederate states to enforce those Amendments and when Democrats negotiated the army's withdrawal in 1877, Southern Democrats were soon enough able to reassert their own Black Laws, Jim Crow, segregation and KKK terrorist enforcement, thus effectively nullifying the Republican full-citizenship Amendments for the next 100 years."

As usual, Joey approached this matter with the narrowest of narrow-minds. This is before the war:

"On the eve of the Civil War, even this toehold was at risk, an ominous fact not lost on the enemies of black freedom. James Gordon Bennett's Herald intoned the results of the 1860 federal census like a proslavery sermon. The marked decrease in New York's black population since mid-century, the fact that only 85 of the city's 10,000-plus blacks owned real estate, and the almost complete absence of blacks among the ranks of the city's artisans, were, in Bennett's rendering, incontrovertible evidence that "the true position of the negro in the United States is one of servitude" and that "as a slave" the African American was "happy and contested, as a freeman despised and contemned." Such diasporic conditions, and indeed, all of the trials of black life in New York, argued Bennett, were blacks' own fault, a necessary result of what he conceived of as blacks' innate inferiority and unfitness for freedom. It is no surprise that Bennett came to demand the reenslavement of all Northern blacks."

"Such arguments calculatedly ignored the extent to which black New Workers' plight stemmed from the vast power of white proslavery culture and the endless ridicule from arbiters of "respectable" opinion such as Bennett. In the proslavery campaign to demonize black culture, no weapon was more powerful than the increasingly fashionable "scientific racism" that maintained that African Americans were permanently and biologically inferior to white – indeed, a separate species more akin to apes and monkeys than humans in the scale of creation. Proslavery culture and scientific racism gave prestige and sanction to recently arrived Irish immigrants' efforts to drive blacks into the most unskilled and repugnant jobs. Ironically, before the draft riots, Democratic editors and orators raised the specter of brutalized black hordes flooding into New York City in the wake of emancipation to steal white jobs and violate white women when, in fact, the Irish had pushed blacks out of many trades, especially after the massive migration of the Great Irish Famine. Black New Yorkers had to contend both with the fact of their fragmented and waning physical presence in the city and with a grossly distorting proslavery racism that insisted that blacks' predicament was an inevitable result of their own alleged deficiencies."

[Berlin & Harris, "Slavery in New York." The New York Press, 2005, p.299]

Did you notice the introduction of Social Darwinism and the apes-to-man myth into the mix?

Frankly, Joey, I am becoming more and more convinced every day that Southern race relations were corrupted by the Northern Republican "reconstructionists" who brought their Northern "Black Codes" with them to the South. This doesn't mention them directly, but certainly implicates them. Notice how both black and white Southerners are getting along well into the century, to the astonishment of visiting Northerners:

"In writing of slavery under the old regime it is common for historians to draw distinctions between the treatment of slaves in the upper and older South and their lot in the lower South and the newer states. In the former their condition is generally said to have been better than it was in the latter. It is worth remarking an analagous distinction in the treatment of the race in the era of segregation. It is clear at least that the newer states were inclined to resort to Jim Crow laws earlier than the older commonwealths of the seaboard, and there is evidence that segregation and discrimination became generally practiced before they became law. Even so, there are a number of indications that segregation and ostracism were not nearly so harsh and rigid in the early years as they became later.

"In his study of conditions in Mississippi, Vernon Wharton reveals that for some years 'most of the saloons served whites and Negroes at the same bar. Many of the restaurants, using separate tables, served both races in the same room... On May 21, 1879, the Negroes of Jackson, after a parade of their fire company, gave a picnic in Hamilton Park. On the night of May 29, "the ladies of the [white] Episcopal Church" used Hamilton Park for a fete. After their picnic the Negroes went to Angelo's Hall for a dance. This same hall was used for white dances and parties, and was frequently the gathering place of Democratic conventions... Throughout the state, common cemeteries, usually in separate portions, held the graves of both whites and Negroes.' Wharton points out, however, that as early as 1890, segregation had closed in and the Negroes were by that date excluded from saloons, restaurants, parks, public halls, and white cemeteries.

"At the International Exposition in New Orleans in 1885 Charles Dudley Warner watched with some astonishment as 'white and colored people mingled freely, talking and looking at what was of common interest... On "Louisiana Day" in the Exposition the colored citizens,' he reported, 'took their full share of the parade and the honors. Their societies marched with the others, and the races mingled in the grounds in unconscious equality of privileges.' While he was in the city he also saw 'a colored clergyman in his surplice seated in the chancel of the most important white Episcopal church in New Orleans, assisting the service.'

"A frequent topic of comment by Northern visitors during the period was the intimacy of contact between the races in the South, an intimacy sometimes admitted to be distasteful to the [Yankee] visitor. Standard topics were the sight of white babies suckled at black breasts, white and colored children playing together, the casual proximity of white and Negro homes in the cities, the camaraderie of maidservant and mistress, employer and employee, customer and clerk, and the usual stories of cohabitation of white men and Negro women. The same sights and stories had once been favorite topics of comment for the carpetbaggers and before them of the abolitionists, both of whom also expressed puzzlement and sometimes revulsion. What the Northern traveler of the 'eighties sometimes took for signs of a new era of race relations was really a heritage of slavery times, or, more elementally, the result of two peoples having lived together intimately for a long time and learned to like and trust each other—whatever their formal relations were, whether those of master and slave, exploiter and exploited, or superior and inferior."

[C. Vann Woodward, "The Strange Career of Jim Crow." Oxford University Press, Rev Ed, 1957, pp.22-25]

I did not really understood the term "Damn Yankee" until I started studying Civil War history, Joey. I was living a very sheltered life.

Mr. Kalamata