Lincoln's Gettysburg Address

YouTube ^ | March 20, 2008 | Abraham Lincoln via cparsons2005 on YouTube

[Bratch]

Gettysburg Address as recited by Jeff Daniels.

Lincoln's Gettysburg Address

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata: "I see Joey is back with his “Perpetual Slander Machine.”
Joey cannot debate the issues without slandering someone.
It is in his progressive blood."

Rubbish.
I gave you full credit for being semi-sane as opposed to your good-buddy Roberts who's clearly stark raving mad.
You should be thanking me.

Kalamata: "Joey labeled me a holocaust denier during our last “conversation” after I challenged Joey’s “love-affair” with the far-left, climate-change promoting, conservative-hating atheist named Michael Shermer (plus, I mocked his religion of evolutionism.)"

Nonsense.
I labeled you correctly a delusional liar, who uses the same debating tactics as the worst of Holocaust deniers I disputed at length, about 20 years ago.
I've wondered out loud where people learn such techniques -- is it from a Denier University somewhere, or is it simply an example of convergent methods randomly evolving among people attempting to make reality seem fake and fantasies seem real?

Kalamata: "Joey has never debated a holocaust denier; but if you challenge his leftist ideology he will label you one, and then pretend he is debating a holocaust denier."

All lies, and which school teaches you such things?

Kalamata: "From what I have read from you, that school is your Alma Mater, Joey."

Naw, I was taught to tell the truth while you learned to lie constantly.
Who taught you that?

Kalamata: "LOL! Joey is one of those scientifically-challenged types who believes everything is evidence of the nutty theory of evolution."

LOL! Danny is one of those scientifically-challenged types who believes nothing is evidence of the scientific theory of evolution.

Kalamata: "The best way for you to help stop dishonest debate, Joey, is for you to quit debating."

I give Danny boy credit for four things worth noting:

1. Although he does sometimes grossly abuse quotes, I've never seen him post fake quotes.

2. He has the largest inventory of quotes I've seen, at least on some subjects.

3. His language, while extremely insulting, is not often vulgar.

4. Unlike most of us, Kalamata seems to have unlimited time available for lengthy posts.

Beyond that his arguments are bogus to the max, often to the point of L.S.S. -- Lying Sack of Schiff.

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata: "The editor, Roy Basler, commented:

"The truth is that Lincoln had no solution to the problem of slavery except the colonization idea which he had inherited from Henry Clay, and when he spoke beyond his points of limiting the extension of slavery, of preserving the essential central idea of human equality, and of respecting the Negro as a human being, his words lacked effectiveness." [Ibid. p.23]"

No, the truth is quite different.
The truth is Lincoln hated slavery and wished to abolish it everywhere he lawfully could -- in Northern states and Western territories.

As for what was then called "recolonization", that was first proposed by Thomas Jefferson and had been official US government policy since the time of President Monroe, circa 1820.
For decades both Federal and state governments voted large sums to support voluntary recolonization of freedmen to Liberia and elsewhere.
These efforts proved very disappointing -- hugely expensive with meager results.
By 1860 many, especially freed-blacks themselves, had grown disillusioned with recolonization, but Lincoln was determined to give it another try.

President Lincoln's efforts on a vastly larger scale than attempted before also failed and in the end he gave up on recolonization.
The real truth is that most freedmen wanted to remain in the country where they were born, and Lincoln came to realize that having such people as reliable Republican voters would be a good thing.

Curiously, so it's sometimes said, that's what got Lincoln assassinated.

Kalamata: "What is a Neo-Confederate?"

I think for purposes of these threads: Neo-Confederate = Pro-Confederate = Southron = secessionist = anti-American.

Kalamata: "That is not the way Andrew Jackson presented it.
He clamed the rich money-grabbers were those, like Clay, who pushed for a national bank:"

And most curiously, both Jackson and Clay were New Englanders, from those Northeastern states of Tennessee and Kentucky.
And they were initially joined by that other uber-Northerner, John C. Calhoun, from Northern South Carolina, in proposing the 1828 Tariff of Abominations against strong objections from other New England states like Massachusetts, Connecticut, etc.

And this proves it was "Northern oppression" which drove Southern lunatics to secede over tariffs in 1828... oh, wait...

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: “I see Joey is back with his “Perpetual Slander Machine.” Joey cannot debate the issues without slandering someone. It is in his progressive blood.”
>>Joey wrote: “Rubbish. I gave you full credit for being semi-sane as opposed to your good-buddy Roberts who’s clearly stark raving mad. You should be thanking me.”

Roberts is not my buddy, Joey; and I would have to be stark-raving mad (or, at least, remarkably naive) to believe you.

******************
>>Kalamata wrote: “Joey labeled me a holocaust denier during our last “conversation” after I challenged Joey’s “love-affair” with the far-left, climate-change promoting, conservative-hating atheist named Michael Shermer (plus, I mocked his religion of evolutionism.)”
>>Joey wrote: “Nonsense.”

That is exactly the way it happened, Joey. This is the thread, in case you forgot:

https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3769318/posts

******************
>>Joey wrote: “I labeled you correctly a delusional liar, who uses the same debating tactics as the worst of Holocaust deniers I disputed at length, about 20 years ago.”

LOL! Joey has never debated a holocaust denier; and, like me, he has probably never met one.

******************
>>Joey wrote: “I’ve wondered out loud where people learn such techniques — is it from a Denier University somewhere, or is it simply an example of convergent methods randomly evolving among people attempting to make reality seem fake and fantasies seem real?”

I don’t know, Joey. I do know that your hero, the atheist Michael Shermer, uses the memory of the Holocaust to slander conservatives in one of his books, as do you when you get in serious trouble during debates.

******************
>>Kalamata wrote: “Joey has never debated a holocaust denier; but if you challenge his leftist ideology he will label you one, and then pretend he is debating a holocaust denier.”
>>Joey wrote: “All lies, and which school teaches you such things?”

Research Joey’s posts if you want to see how a liar operates.

******************
>>Kalamata wrote: “From what I have read from you, that school is your Alma Mater, Joey.”
>>Joey wrote: “Naw, I was taught to tell the truth while you learned to lie constantly. Who taught you that?”

Joey gets seriously frustrated when he is caught lying.

******************
>>Kalamata wrote: “LOL! Joey is one of those scientifically-challenged types who believes everything is evidence of the nutty theory of evolution.”
>>Joey wrote: “LOL! Danny is one of those scientifically-challenged types who believes nothing is evidence of the scientific theory of evolution.”

I am a scientist, so I will believe any empirical evidence that supports evolution. However, as a scientist, I am also obliged to reject just-so stories disguised as science. Joey, on the other hand, believes every just-so story with religious fervor, and if you don’t believe like he believes then you MUST be a science denier, a holocaust denier, and/or any other denier-label he can think of at the time (although he is careful not to label us climate-deniers, like his buddy Michael Shermer does!)

******************
>>Kalamata wrote: “The best way for you to help stop dishonest debate, Joey, is for you to quit debating.”
>>Joey wrote: “I give Danny boy credit for four things worth noting:
>>Joey wrote: “Although he does sometimes grossly abuse quotes, I’ve never seen him post fake quotes.
>>Joey wrote: “He has the largest inventory of quotes I’ve seen, at least on some subjects.
>>Joey wrote: “His language, while extremely insulting, is not often vulgar.
>>Joey wrote: “Unlike most of us, Kalamata seems to have unlimited time available for lengthy posts.
>>Joey wrote: “Beyond that his arguments are bogus to the max, often to the point of L.S.S. — Lying Sack of Schiff.”

Child.

Mr. Kalamata

[DoodleDawg]

The tariff issue was on-going. Lincoln's support for a high tariff was very unpopular in most of the South.

And yet when Henry Benning of Georgia was trying to convince the Virginia secession convention to vote to join the Confederacy he promised them tariffs as high as U.S. ones were. And then he went a step further: "If it be found that Virginia requires more protection than this upon any particular article of manufacture let her come in the spirit of a sister, to our Congress and say, we want more protection upon this or that article, and she will, I have no doubt, receive it. She will be met in the most fraternal and complying spirit." So obviously tariffs weren't that big of a concern.

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata: "Roberts is not my buddy, Joey; and I would have to be stark-raving mad (or, at least, remarkably naive) to believe you."

And yet here you are defending Roberts' arguments.
By your own Michael Shermer logic, that makes lunatic Roberts your hero & good buddy.

Kalamata on the charge of "holocaust denier": "That is exactly the way it happened, Joey.
This is the thread, in case you forgot:"

See... there's an example of how I know you are a natural born liar, seemingly you love to lie, even when you don't have to.
In this particular example, I never said you are a Holocaust denier, only that your tactics in denying reality are the same I experienced nearly 20 years ago debating real Holocaust deniers.
I even spelled out for you exactly what those tactics are -- generic tactics which can be applied to pretty much any subject.

But you never once addressed the reasons why you use denier tactics, you only repeatedly claimed I said you are a Holocaust denier.

Kalamata: "LOL! Joey has never debated a holocaust denier; and, like me, he has probably never met one."

And there it is again!
You have no knowledge of who I debated, when or how, and yet you chose to lie, saying it never happened.
It's true I never met the main deniers, just as I've not met other posters to Free Republic.
But they are the ones who first taught me the tactics of denial, tactics which you seem naturally born to.

Kalamata: "I don’t know, Joey.
I do know that your hero, the atheist Michael Shermer, uses the memory of the Holocaust to slander conservatives in one of his books, as do you when you get in serious trouble during debates."

So your hero Roberts slanders anyone of integrity, as do you when you get in serious trouble during debates.

Kalamata: "Research Joey’s posts if you want to see how a liar operates."

Research Danny’s posts if you want to see how a liar operates.

Kalamata: "Joey gets seriously frustrated when he is caught lying."

Danny lies for the sheer joy of it and doesn't even care how often he's caught at it.

Kalamata: "I am a scientist, so I will believe any empirical evidence that supports evolution.
However, as a scientist, I am also obliged to reject just-so stories disguised as science.
Joey, on the other hand, believes every just-so story with religious fervor, and if you don’t believe like he believes then you MUST be a science denier, a holocaust denier, and/or any other denier-label he can think of at the time (although he is careful not to label us climate-deniers, like his buddy Michael Shermer does!)"

All lies.

Kalamata: "Child."

Child.

[Kalamata]

BroJoeK to Kalamata; rockrr; x

>>Kalamata wrote: “The editor, Roy Basler, commented: “The truth is that Lincoln had no solution to the problem of slavery except the colonization idea which he had inherited from Henry Clay, and when he spoke beyond his points of limiting the extension of slavery, of preserving the essential central idea of human equality, and of respecting the Negro as a human being, his words lacked effectiveness.” [Ibid. p.23]”
>>Joey wrote: “No, the truth is quite different.The truth is Lincoln hated slavery and wished to abolish it everywhere he lawfully could — in Northern states and Western territories.”

Do you have a source for that?

***************
>>Joey wrote: “As for what was then called “recolonization”, that was first proposed by Thomas Jefferson and had been official US government policy since the time of President Monroe, circa 1820. For decades both Federal and state governments voted large sums to support voluntary recolonization of freedmen to Liberia and elsewhere. These efforts proved very disappointing — hugely expensive with meager results. By 1860 many, especially freed-blacks themselves, had grown disillusioned with recolonization, but Lincoln was determined to give it another try.”

Do you have a source for that?

***************
>>Joey wrote: “President Lincoln’s efforts on a vastly larger scale than attempted before also failed and in the end he gave up on recolonization.”

Do you have a source for that?

***************
>>Joey wrote: “The real truth is that most freedmen wanted to remain in the country where they were born, and Lincoln came to realize that having such people as reliable Republican voters would be a good thing.”

Do you have a source for that?

***************
>>Joey wrote: “Curiously, so it’s sometimes said, that’s what got Lincoln assassinated.”

Do you have a source for that?

************
>>Kalamata: “What is a Neo-Confederate?”
>>Joey wrote: “I think for purposes of these threads: Neo-Confederate = Pro-Confederate = Southron = secessionist = anti-American.”

I am pro-American, which means I support our Christian heritage, Christian prayer in public schools, and the teaching of the Word of God as history.

How about you? What do you support? The phony “separation of church and state” doctrine of the ACLU? Of course you do.

************
>>Kalamata: “That is not the way Andrew Jackson presented it. He clamed the rich money-grabbers were those, like Clay, who pushed for a national bank:”
>>Joey wrote: “And most curiously, both Jackson and Clay were New Englanders, from those Northeastern states of Tennessee and Kentucky.”

Are you off your meds?

************
>>Joey wrote: “And they were initially joined by that other uber-Northerner, John C. Calhoun, from Northern South Carolina, in proposing the 1828 Tariff of Abominations against strong objections from other New England states like Massachusetts, Connecticut, etc.”

I will assume, for the sake of brevity, that you are off your meds.

************
>>Joey wrote: “And this proves it was “Northern oppression” which drove Southern lunatics to secede over tariffs in 1828... oh, wait... “

Silly Child.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: "The tariff issue was on-going. Lincoln's support for a high tariff was very unpopular in most of the South.
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "And yet when Henry Benning of Georgia was trying to convince the Virginia secession convention to vote to join the Confederacy he promised them tariffs as high as U.S. ones were. And then he went a step further: "If it be found that Virginia requires more protection than this upon any particular article of manufacture let her come in the spirit of a sister, to our Congress and say, we want more protection upon this or that article, and she will, I have no doubt, receive it. She will be met in the most fraternal and complying spirit." So obviously tariffs weren't that big of a concern."

That was his opinion:

"Then the question is, will you have protection necessary to accomplish this result? I say I think you will. I do not come here, as I said at the outset, to make promises; but I will give my opinion, and that is that the South will support itself by duties on imports. It has certainly begun to do that. We have merely adopted the revenue system of the United States so far, and are now collecting the revenue under an old law. Our Constitution has said that Congress should have the power to lay duties for revenue, to pay debts and to carry on the government, and therefore there is a limit to the extent that this protection can go, and within that the South can give protection that will be sufficient to enable you to compete with the North. We have got to have a navy, and an army, and we have got to make up that army speedily. It must be a much larger army than we have been accustomed to have in the late Union-it must be large in proportion to the armv that it will have to meet. These things will require a revenue of about 10 per cent, which will yield an aggregate of about $20,000,000, and with this per cent, it would be in the power of Virginia to compete, in a short time, with all the nations of the earth in all the important branches of manufacture. Why? Because manufacturing has now been brought to such perfection by the invention of new machinery. The result will be the immigration of the best men of the North; skilled artizans and men of capital will come here and establish works among you. You have the advantage of longer days and shorter winters, and of being nearer to the raw material of a very important article of manufacture. I have no idea that the duties will be as low as 10 per cent. My own opinion is that we shall have as high duty as is now charged by the General Government at Washington. If that matter is regarded as important by this Convention, why the door is open for negotiation with us. We have but a provisional and temporary government so far. If it be found that Virginia requires more protection than this upon any particular article of manufacture let her come in the spirit of a sister, to our Congress and say, we want more protection upon this or that article, and she will, I have no doubt, receive it. She will be met in the most fraternal and complying spirit." [Henry L. Benning, "Speech of Henry Benning to the Virginia Convention." Proceedings of the Virginia State Convention, Vol.1, pp. 62-75., 1861]

As it turned out, the Confederate Constitution prohibited the promotion of one branch of industry over another, e.g., no crony capitalism allowed:

"[The Congress shall have power] To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for revenue, necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States; but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry; and all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States." ["Constitution of the Confederate States." Avalon Project, March 11, 1861, Article I, Sec. 8.1]

That should have been the original intent of the framers of the U. S. Constitution. Instead we ended up with this sort of mystifying mishmash:

"Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counterbalanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.

"It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, 'in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four.' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them."

[Alexander Hamiltion, Federalist No. 21, "Other Defects of the Present Confederation," Dec 12, 1787, in Bill Bailey, "The Complete Federalist Papers." The New Federalist Papers Project, p.102]

I seriously doubt Alexander Hamilton was that stupid; rather he was hoping everyone else was.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: "Roberts is not my buddy, Joey; and I would have to be stark-raving mad (or, at least, remarkably naive) to believe you."
>>Joey wrote: "And yet here you are defending Roberts' arguments."

One or two.

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

>>Joey wrote: "By your own Michael Shermer logic, that makes lunatic Roberts your hero & good buddy."

No, that is another bit of your illogic, Joey.

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

>>Kalamata on the charge of "holocaust denier": "That is exactly the way it happened, Joey. This is the thread, in case you forgot:"
>>Joey wrote: "See... there's an example of how I know you are a natural born liar, seemingly you love to lie, even when you don't have to. In this particular example, I never said you are a Holocaust denier, only that your tactics in denying reality are the same I experienced nearly 20 years ago debating real Holocaust deniers. I even spelled out for you exactly what those tactics are -- generic tactics which can be applied to pretty much any subject."

Your tactics are called "slander by innuendo;" and, again, you have never debated a holocaust denier.

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

>>Joey wrote: "But you never once addressed the reasons why you use denier tactics, you only repeatedly claimed I said you are a Holocaust denier."

Those are your inventions, Joey. That is why they fit you so well.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "LOL! Joey has never debated a holocaust denier; and, like me, he has probably never met one."
>>Joey wrote: "And there it is again! You have no knowledge of who I debated, when or how, and yet you chose to lie, saying it never happened."

If you didn't lie so much, Joey, you would be more believable.

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

>>Joey wrote: "It's true I never met the main deniers, just as I've not met other posters to Free Republic. But they are the ones who first taught me the tactics of denial, tactics which you seem naturally born to."

Those are the kind of statements that make you unbelievable, Joey. My life-long system of acquiring knowledge is evidence-based, which you cannot seem to grasp. In my line of work I couldn't get away with making stuff up; nor would I have wanted to.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "I don’t know, Joey. I do know that your hero, the atheist Michael Shermer, uses the memory of the Holocaust to slander conservatives in one of his books, as do you when you get in serious trouble during debates."
>>Joey wrote: "So your hero Roberts slanders anyone of integrity, as do you when you get in serious trouble during debates."

Roberts is not my hero, Joey. You, on the other hand, specifically stated you admire and respect Shermer the Bigot .

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Research Joey’s posts if you want to see how a liar operates."
>>Joey wrote: "Research Danny’s posts if you want to see how a liar operates."

I welcome it. I also welcome a scholarly debate. In the meantime, I will continue debating you.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Joey gets seriously frustrated when he is caught lying."
>>Joey wrote: "Danny lies for the sheer joy of it and doesn't even care how often he's caught at it."

Joey lies so much it has become pathological.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "I am a scientist, so I will believe any empirical evidence that supports evolution. However, as a scientist, I am also obliged to reject just-so stories disguised as science. Joey, on the other hand, believes every just-so story with religious fervor, and if you don’t believe like he believes then you MUST be a science denier, a holocaust denier, and/or any other denier-label he can think of at the time (although he is careful not to label us climate-deniers, like his buddy Michael Shermer does!)"
>>Joey wrote: "All lies."

No, that is all true. This is proof of the last part:

Michael Shermer: Why Climate Skeptics Are Wrong

Make note that Shermer pushs the 97% myth about mid-article. He knows better:

Forbes: '97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong

Shermer and his right-hand man, Donald Prothero, make a good-living exposing "science-deniers," who are defined as those who find it hard to swallow the junk science of climate-changeism and evolutionism.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Child."
>>Joey wrote: "Child."

LOL! Silly Child!

Mr. Kalamata

[DoodleDawg]

As it turned out, the Confederate Constitution prohibited the promotion of one branch of industry over another, e.g., no crony capitalism allowed:

The Confederate Constitution also mandated a supreme court. How did that work out? It basically prohibited the Confederate government from interfering with slavery but that didn't stop Davis from sending emissaries to Europe promising an end to slavery in exchange for recognition. The Confederate constitution was not something the Confederate government had much respect for.

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: "Roberts is not my buddy, Joey; and I would have to be stark-raving mad (or, at least, remarkably As it turned out, the Confederate Constitution prohibited the promotion of one branch of industry over another, e.g., no crony capitalism allowed:"
>> DoodleDawg wrote: "The Confederate Constitution also mandated a supreme court. How did that work out? It basically prohibited the Confederate government from interfering with slavery but that didn't stop Davis from sending emissaries to Europe promising an end to slavery in exchange for recognition. The Confederate constitution was not something the Confederate government had much respect for."

You make no sense. The Supreme Court is NOT the constitution, and constitutions can be amended:

"ARTICLE V, Section I. (I) Upon the demand of any three States, legally assembled in their several conventions, the Congress shall summon a convention of all the States, to take into consideration such amendments to the Constitution as the said States shall concur in suggesting at the time when the said demand is made; and should any of the proposed amendments to the Constitution be agreed on by the said convention, voting by States, and the same be ratified by the Legislatures of two- thirds of the several States, or by conventions in two-thirds thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the general convention, they shall thenceforward form a part of this Constitution. But no State shall, without its consent, be deprived of its equal representation in the Senate." ["Constitution of the Confederate States." Avalon Project, March 11, 1861]

Show your sources.

Mr. Kalamata

[DoodleDawg]

You make no sense. The Supreme Court is NOT the constitution, and constitutions can be amended...

I suggest you reread the document. Article III, Section 1: "The judicial power of the Confederate States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish."

Source

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: "You make no sense. The Supreme Court is NOT the constitution, and constitutions can be amended..."
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "I suggest you reread the document. Article III, Section 1: "The judicial power of the Confederate States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish."

That is virtually word-for-word out of the U.S. Constitution, which reads:

"Article III. The Judicial Branch, Section 1 - Judicial powers: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

This was your original assertion:

"The Confederate Constitution also mandated a supreme court. How did that work out? It basically prohibited the Confederate government from interfering with slavery but that didn't stop Davis from sending emissaries to Europe promising an end to slavery in exchange for recognition. The Confederate constitution was not something the Confederate government had much respect for."

Frankly, your assertion and followup make no sense. What is your point?

Mr. Kalamata

[DoodleDawg]

Frankly, your assertion and followup make no sense. What is your point?

My point is that the Davis government and the Confederate congress ignored their constitution and refused to establish a supreme court. If they're going to ignore it in that major area, and if Davis is willing to ignore it by promising to the European countries that he would end slavery in exchange for recognition, then the fact that the constitution contained a clause against protective tariffs is meaningless. Protective tariffs were promised, the tariff passed by the Confederate congress in May 1861 contained tariffs on imported goods that protected local manufacturers, there is no reason that protective tariffs would not have continued.

[x]

I have read all of that, and, frankly, I think he is absolutely nuts on that issue. But his analysis of the "tariffs against the South" is on the money.

We used to have a guy here who kept posting some Latin words that translated to something like "That which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence." I'll spare everybody the Latin, but it applies here. Roberts assumes that secession couldn't have been about slavery and then just ignores the evidence to the contrary. If you don't already believe that tariffs were the cause of the war, he gives you no reason to believe that.

The tariff issue was on-going. Lincoln's support for a high tariff was very unpopular in most of the South.

Protective tariffs were more central to the Whig party platform than to the Republicans. Republicans had old protectionist Whigs and old free trading Democrats in their membership, but the Whig party was built around high tariffs. Yet Southerners and those of Southern origin voted for the Whigs and even ran as Whig presidential candidates. The Whigs were competitive in Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee and North Carolina. That wouldn't have happened if tariffs were such a big bugaboo in the South.

What is a Neo-Confederate?

If you think slavery wasn't the main reason for secession, you just might be neo-Confederate yourself.

There was no threat from Lincoln that would cause slave holders to lose their slaves.

...

Perhaps you will be so kind as to show us references that explain what you are referring to.

This is your lucky day. I have plenty of evidence and put it on my freep page. If you want more, you can go to James Epperson's site, or read Alexander Stephens's Cornerstone Speech or Jefferson Davis's April 29th Message to the Confederate Congress or Charles Dew's book, Apostles of Disunion.

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata: "Do you have a source for that?"

Kalamata: "Do you have a source for that?"

Kalamata: "Do you have a source for that?"

Kalamata: "Do you have a source for that?"

Kalamata: "Do you have a source for that?"

Yes.

Kalamata: "I am pro-American, which means I support our Christian heritage, Christian prayer in public schools, and the teaching of the Word of God as history."

Which means you oppose everything the US has become as a result of our Declaration and Constitution -- in short, you're anti-American.

Kalamata: "How about you?
What do you support?
The phony “separation of church and state” doctrine of the ACLU?
Of course you do."

Private & home schools teach what & how they wish, while public schools are subject to constitutional limitations.
I support voluntary prayers & religion classes in public schools, but not the teaching of certain religions as if they were science or history.

Kalamata: "Are you off your meds?"

Kalamata: "I will assume, for the sake of brevity, that you are off your meds."

I will assume, for sake of brevity, that when the Lord was passing out funny-bones, he skipped over Kalamata.

Kalamata: "Silly Child."

Silly Child

[Kalamata]

>>DoodleDawg wrote: "My point is that the Davis government and the Confederate congress ignored their constitution and refused to establish a supreme court."

Refused? That is an interesting observation. Are you familiar with this?

"In the Department of Justice, which includes the Patent Office and Public Printing, some legislative provisions will be required, which will be specifically stated in the report of the head of that Department. I invite the attention of Congress to the duty of organizing a Supreme Court of the Confederate States; in accordance with the mandate of the Constitution." [Davis to Congress of the Confederate States, Richmond, February 25, 1862, in Monroe & McIntosh, "The Papers of Jefferson Davis." Louisiana State University Press, 1971, Vol.8, pp. 58-64]

It doesn't appear Davis was shirking his duties. Are you familiar with this?

"In spite of the constitutional requirement for the establishment of a supreme court within the judicial structure of the Confederacy, in spite of the historical need for a court of supreme jurisdiction, the supreme court authorized by the Confederate Constitution never came into being... The Confederacy was a short-lived experiment and, in so far as a test to determine the need for a supreme court is concerned, it was an experiment conducted in an inadequate laboratory. That its life was unhindered by the absence of a supreme court was due more to the necessity for mutual assistance and support at a time when the nation's existence was at stake than to the ability of a group of states to coexist without a national court of last resort. That the nation could have continued to exist so unhindered in times of peace is a question still open to debate. And so the query, so often posed by so many people, as to the necessity for a supreme court in our system of democratic government must, in so far as the experience of the Confederacy is concerned, remains unanswered." [Jose M. Cabanillas, "A Nation Without a Supreme Court." University of Richmond Law Review, Vol.2, Iss.2, Art.6, 1964, pp.94, 98-99]

Do you have a source for your assertion that "the Davis government and the Confederate congress ignored their constitution and refused to establish a supreme court"?

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

>>DoodleDawg wrote: "If they're going to ignore it in that major area, and if Davis is willing to ignore it by promising to the European countries that he would end slavery in exchange for recognition, then the fact that the constitution contained a clause against protective tariffs is meaningless."

I will agree the Constitution of the United States was meaningless to the tyrant Abraham Lincoln; but I am unconvinced of your argument about Davis. Do you have any sources that provide context in support of your argument?

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

>>DoodleDawg wrote: "Protective tariffs were promised, the tariff passed by the Confederate congress in May 1861 contained tariffs on imported goods that protected local manufacturers, there is no reason that protective tariffs would not have continued"

Protective tariff? Was the tariff used to promote or foster any branch of industry, or was it used strictly to raise revenue? What is your source?

Assuming the topic at hand remains "the cause of the war," what does any of this have to do with the topic at hand?

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: "I have read all of that, and, frankly, I think he is absolutely nuts on that issue. But his analysis of the "tariffs against the South" is on the money."
>>x wrote, "We used to have a guy here who kept posting some Latin words that translated to something like "That which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence."

I agree 100%. That is why I reject any notion that slavery was the cause of secession or the Civil War. I have seen no evidence to support it. I used to see it; but once you un-see it, you can never see it again.

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

>>x wrote, "I'll spare everybody the Latin, but it applies here. Roberts assumes that secession couldn't have been about slavery and then just ignores the evidence to the contrary. If you don't already believe that tariffs were the cause of the war, he gives you no reason to believe that."

One thing is for certain: there is not a shred of evidence that Lincoln started the war because of slavery. Slavery was certainly a major part of the American economy of those days, and a major source of funding for the crony capitalists. But it makes no sense that Lincoln would want to eliminate a major source of funding for his pet projects (e.g., for the Trans-continental Railroad,) nor does it make sense that the Southern political leaders were dumb enough to believe that Lincoln would want to destroy a major source of his funding. Slavery definitely played a role, but it was for Southern propaganda purposes, and not much else.

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

>>Mr. Kalamata wrote: "The tariff issue was on-going. Lincoln's support for a high tariff was very unpopular in most of the South."
>>x wrote, "Protective tariffs were more central to the Whig party platform than to the Republicans. Republicans had old protectionist Whigs and old free trading Democrats in their membership, but the Whig party was built around high tariffs."

True. Lincoln is on record as a devout Henry Clay supporter:

"In politics Lincoln spent most of his public life in Henry Clay's conservative Whig Party, the opposition to leveling radical Jacksonism. He reluctantly left that organization in 1856 when it disintegrated and affiliated with the more moderate wing of the Republican Party, always frowning on abolitionism and various plans to hurry along changes in the American social system. In his famed Cooper Institute Address of 1860 he stood on solidly conservative ground, criticized John Brown, and harked back to the Founding Fathers."

[Luthin, Reinhard H., "The Real Abraham Lincoln: a complete one volume history of his life and times." Prentice Hall, 1960, pp.127-128]

But Lincoln, being the consummate politician, was careful not to alert the free-traders of his motives:

"The tariff, a major issue in pivotal, protectionist-minded Pennsylvania and smaller New Jersey, two of the doubtful states, proved a source of supreme strength to Lincoln. He had a long record as a disciple of Henry Clay, whose cardinal principles had included demands that Congress enact higher import rates in order to protect American industry."

"Lincoln made known his high-tariff past to at least one Pennsylvanian, but cautioned him not to agitate the issue, lest it drive away the former 'free trade' Democratic element of the Republican Party. To Edward Wallace, of Philadelphia, Lincoln in October, 1859, wrote: 'I was an old Henry Clay Tariff Whig. In old times I made more speeches on that subject than on any other. I have not changed my views... Still, it is my opinion that, just now, the revival of that question will not advance the cause itself, or the man who revives it.'"

[Ibid. p.207]

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

>>Mr. Kalamata wrote: "Yet Southerners and those of Southern origin voted for the Whigs and even ran as Whig presidential candidates. The Whigs were competitive in Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee and North Carolina. That wouldn't have happened if tariffs were such a big bugaboo in the South."

That is over-simplified. There were areas of the South that supported or tolerated a protectionist tariff, provided they were not overtly harmed, or were being protected.

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

>>Mr. Kalamata wrote: "What is a Neo-Confederate?"
>>x wrote, "If you think slavery wasn't the main reason for secession, you just might be neo-Confederate yourself."

You have to be historically challenged to believe slavery was the main reason for secession; so count me in.

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

>>Mr. Kalamata wrote: "There was no threat from Lincoln that would cause slave holders to lose their slaves."

Lincoln's motives were strictly financial. He was a power-hungry politician, period; and money is power.

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

>>Mr. Kalamata wrote: "Perhaps you will be so kind as to show us references that explain what you are referring to."
>>x wrote, "This is your lucky day. I have plenty of evidence and put it on my freep page. If you want more, you can go to James Epperson's site, or read Alexander Stephens's Cornerstone Speech or Jefferson Davis's April 29th Message to the Confederate Congress or Charles Dew's book, Apostles of Disunion."

You could have picked a more reliable source than Guelzo to open your list.

Pick any one of your source quotes, and let's analyze it.

Mr. Kalamata

[x]

I agree 100%. That is why I reject any notion that slavery was the cause of secession or the Civil War. I have seen no evidence to support it. I used to see it; but once you un-see it, you can never see it again.

Once you start "un-seeing" things that are really there, you have a problem.

That is over-simplified. There were areas of the South that supported or tolerated a protectionist tariff, provided they were not overtly harmed, or were being protected.

So you agree with me. The tariff wasn't such a big deal in the South as a whole and wouldn't have produced such an uproar on its own.

Lincoln's motives were strictly financial. He was a power-hungry politician, period; and money is power.

Neo-confederate caricature.

Pick any one of your source quotes, and let's analyze it.

You asked for sources repeatedly, like a parrot. I provided you with sources that you ignore - like you ignore most of the evidence of the conflict over slavery - and now you ask me to repackage everything for your own bloody convenience and more rounds of your blathering. You are not seriously interested in the actual history. Do not post to me again.

[DoodleDawg]

Refused? That is an interesting observation. Are you familiar with this?

A correct observation.

"In the Department of Justice, which includes the Patent Office and Public Printing, some legislative provisions will be required, which will be specifically stated in the report of the head of that Department. I invite the attention of Congress to the duty of organizing a Supreme Court of the Confederate States; in accordance with the mandate of the Constitution."

And what happened? Nothing. No court was established. No justices nominated. Nothing. Our system of government is based on the checks and balances provided by three branches of government - legislative, executive, and judicial. Davis and the Confederate congress chose to eliminate the one branch which might have provided oversight even though their constitution required it.

And so the query, so often posed by so many people, as to the necessity for a supreme court in our system of democratic government must, in so far as the experience of the Confederacy is concerned, remains unanswered.'

What nonsense is this? All of Lincoln's actions were subject to judicial review and none of Davis's were, which allowed him to make patently unconstitutional promises. During the four years of the Davis government he had four Secretaries of State despite the fact that no nations recognized the Confederacy as a sovereign nation, three Treasury secretaries, five War secretaries despite the fact that Davis ran the war himself, six Attorney-Generals despite not having a judiciary, and one each Postmaster General and Navy secretary. Davis and the Confederate congress could keep his revolving door of a cabinet staffed but not a third branch of government. National life was unhindered by the lack of a supreme court but apparently would have completely fallen apart without an Attorney-General. It is an idiotic argument.

[DoodleDawg]

I will agree the Constitution of the United States was meaningless to the tyrant Abraham Lincoln; but I am unconvinced of your argument about Davis. Do you have any sources that provide context in support of your argument?

LOL! If the ones I've provided to date has not made a dent in your blind Southron shell then probably not.