Lincoln's Gettysburg Address

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?

The Confederate tariff act passed May 1861. Link

I have read his works; and I cannot imagine anyone, other than perhaps a devout Marxist, who would not believe Rossiter is a devout Lincolnite.

LOL! I have yet to meet a Southron support who doesn't resort to name calling once cornered. If that is how you wish to continue then you can play with yourself.

>>Kalamata wrote: “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.”
>>Joey wrote: “Which means you oppose everything the US has become as a result of our Declaration and Constitution — in short, you’re anti-American.”

Don’t be silly, Joey. The United States became great because of its Judeo-Christian heritage. The Declaration and Constitution were offshoots of that heritage, and they are meaningless without it.

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

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

You have been brainwashed by the Marxism/Evolutionism cults.

Mr. Kalamata

>>Kalamata wrote: “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: “Once you start “un-seeing” things that are really there, you have a problem.”

I wouldn’t know. I do know that about 15 years ago I believed like you do now, and never gave it a second thought.

*****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “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.
>>x wrote: “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.”

No, I don’’t agree with your mischaracterization. The tariff was by far the most serious issue of the antebellum period.

*****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “Lincoln’s motives were strictly financial. He was a power-hungry politician, period; and money is power.
>>x wrote: “Neo-confederate caricature.”

That is a Marxist caricature of those who refuse to idolize Lincoln.

*****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “Pick any one of your source quotes, and let’s analyze it.”
>>x wrote: “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.”

I am willing to discuss any of your references for historical accuracy and revelancy. Pick one.

*****************
>>x wrote: “You are not seriously interested in the actual history. Do not post to me again.”

Very well.

Mr. Kalamata

>>Kalamata wrote: "Refused? That is an interesting observation."
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "A correct observation."
>>Kalamata wrote: "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."
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "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."

Perhaps they were a little busy. In any case, I have not seen a source that states Davis and the congress refused to implement a Supreme Court; only that it didn't get done.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "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."
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "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."

Nonsense back at ya'. Lincoln's actions were NOT subject to judicial review. Rather, they were subject to a do anything you want to do as long as you don't arrest us review.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "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."

An idiotic argument would be one containing the pretense that any member of the federal government, outside Lincoln's circle of thugs, had any say-so whatsoever.

Mr. Kalamata

>>Kalamata wrote: “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: “LOL! If the ones I’ve provided to date has not made a dent in your blind Southron shell then probably not.”

I’ll take that as a NO!

Mr. Kalamata

>>Kalamata wrote: “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?”
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “The Confederate tariff act passed May 1861. Link”

Do you consider that to have been a protective tariff?

Mr. Kalamata

>>Kalamata wrote: “I have read his works; and I cannot imagine anyone, other than perhaps a devout Marxist, who would not believe Rossiter is a devout Lincolnite.”
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “LOL! I have yet to meet a Southron support who doesn’t resort to name calling once cornered.

I will assume you do not believe Rossiter is a devout Lincolnite, despite his widespread attempts to place Lincoln in the best possible light.

How would you characterize the use of the words “Southron” and “Neo-Conservative”? Name-calling?

**************
>>DoodleDawg wrote: “If that is how you wish to continue then you can play with yourself.”

Very well.

Mr. Kalamata