On this date in 1864 President Lincoln receives a Christmas gift.

[Bull Snipe]

"I beg to present you as a Christmas gift the City of Savannah, with one hundred and fifty heavy guns and plenty of ammunition and about twenty-five thousand bales of cotton." General William T. Sherman's "March to the Sea" was over. During the campaign General Sherman had made good on his promise d “to make Georgia howl”. Atlanta was a smoldering ruin, Savannah was in Union hands, closing one of the last large ports to Confederate blockade runners. Sherman’s Army wrecked 300 miles of railroad and numerous bridges and miles of telegraph lines. It seized 5,000 horses, 4,000 mules, and 13,000 head of cattle. It confiscated 9.5 million pounds of corn and 10.5 million pounds of fodder, and destroyed uncounted cotton gins and mills. In all, about 100 million dollars of damage was done to Georgia and the Confederate war effort.

[HandyDandy]

Please remove me from your “To:” list. TIA

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: "Are you naturally a sanctimonious jerk"
>>x wrote: "No, that seems to be your department."

Well, aren't you clever?

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "They had me fooled for the better part of my life. I see you are still fooled."
>>x wrote: "I used to think as you did. Then I read some real history and grew up."

When are you going to share that "real history" with us?

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "In conclusion, Foner's statement is historically accurate, according to the historical documents referenced."
>>x wrote: "Nonsense. You write a lot of opaque gobbledygook, but so far as I can figure out what you are saying, it basically supports my point. Foner uses a letter written at the end of May, after Sumter, to characterize the mood of the business community at the end of March, before Sumter. I don't have his lying Marxist book in front of me, so I don't know if you left anything out, but if the book is as you've excerpted it, Foner was being deceptive."

I find it hard to believe you do not understand what Foner and the Refs are saying, which is, by the end of March, the mood of the merchants had changed from a peaceful solution to war. There is no ambiguity, but I will dissect it for you, anyway:

"By the last week in March, the vast majority of New York business men saw clearly that it was no longer an issue involving "vagabond negroes" or a "patch of territory."

Translation: by the end of March, most businessmen believed war was inevitable.

"The war of the tariffs had cleared away the clouds of confusion, and in so doing, it brought home to each business man the real issue in the crisis. Lincoln had put his finger on the issue when he said in his inaugural address that "physically speaking," the North and South could not separate, and that no "impassable wall" could be erected between the sections. No merchant could sit by idly and watch the South destroy a business system which had been built up over so many years. It was no longer an issue, for him, of slavery, states' rights, nullification or secession."

Translation: the businessmen had also changed their understanding of the economic consequences if the South was allowed to secede, and survive. If that occurred, the Northern commercial industry would die.

"[August Belmont] had hitherto championed the cause of peaceful separation,"

Translation: in the footnote we find that before the merchants gave up on peace, a peaceful solution was the major issue at the the March Democratic state convention, which August chaired. It also occurred in private conversations which August was privy to.

"It is now a question of national existence and commercial prosperity," wrote August Belmont, "and the choice cannot be doubtful."

August wrote that letter in May, after he had given up on a peaceful solution.

So, in summary, the merchants were, generally speaking, hoping for a peaceful solution until the end of March, but gave up hope thereafter.

It appears you have a reading comprehension problem. That could explain your misunderstanding of history, at least in part.

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

>>x wrote: "I don't have the time or the inclination to put up with your b.s.. BroJoe, you seem to have a higher tolerance for this clown. Maybe you could look into this."

If you want to take your toys and run home, again, that is fine with me. But try to learn some manners before posting to me again.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

Please remove me from your “To:” list. TIA

Done.

[OIFVeteran]

Did you read the entire orders from Andrew Jackson to his secretary of war? And will you know rescind your spurious claim that Jackson would not have used force to suppress “secession” in South Carolina in 1832?

[BroJoeK]

x to Kalamata: "I don't have the time or the inclination to put up with your b.s.
BroJoe, you seem to have a higher tolerance for this clown.
Maybe you could look into this."

I have a lot of tolerance & patience, but sadly, also not so much time.
But let's see what we can make of this...

In his post #1,558 Kalamata quotes for us the very New York financial elites who DiogenesLamp likes to refer to as "Northeastern Power Brokers", and though Kalamata quotes them in jumbled sequence, if you sort his quotes by date, you see how New York elites flipped from originally highly sympathetic to the Southern cause -- some even wanted to secede themselves -- to supporting the Union war effort, from which both Kalamata and DiogenesLamp tell us: "follow the money".

But as always with Democrats, there are both small and big lies mixed in with their presentation of "facts", and the biggest of them is hidden in plain sight.
DiogenesLamp tells us these "Northeastern Power Brokers" were pulling Lincoln's strings, that Lincoln was their puppet, mere putty in their hands -- so "follow the money".

And now comes Kalamata, seemingly taught as a child to lie with enthusiasm, but a rather poor student who occasionally mixes in, ahem, "inconvenient truth" with his lunatic diatribes against Lincoln.
In this case the truth of the entire matter is "hidden" in Kalamata's quotes, for everyone to see:

"...the majority of the people of New York, and all the respectable people, were disgusted at the election of such a fellow as Lincoln to be President, and would back the Southern States, if it came to a split....
...Although they admitted the Southern leaders had meditated "the treason against the Union" years ago, they could not bring themselves to allow their old opponents, the Republicans now in power, to dispose of the armed force of the Union against their brother democrats in the Southern States."

Like Kalamata and DiogenesLamp, these people were all Democrats who hated their new Republican president just as much as Democrats today hate President Trump.
So claiming such "Northeastern Power Brokers" pulled Lincoln's strings is like pretending Pelosi or New Yorkers Schumer & Blumberg today pull President Trump's strings.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

The real story here is that in 1860 these Democrat "Northeastern Power Brokers" represented a deep well of sympathy for Confederates which could have been nurtured, fertilized and helped to grow into effective political opposition to Republican President Lincoln.
In today's terms, think of secessionists as our AOC-wing radicals and "Northeastern Power Brokers" as Joe Biden-type "moderates."
Combined they represent a powerful & dangerous political force, and they know it, it's why they stick together so loyally.

But in 1861, the radical secessionists thoroughly screwed over & politically divorced their "moderate" Northern wing, and the result was the vast majority of Northern Democrats joined in the Republican war effort.
But their divorce didn't last long, within just a few years after the war Northern & Southern Democrats remarried, ending Reconstruction, nullifying the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments and bringing on nearly 100 years of terror against African Americans.

Democrats, not Republicans.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "You are dodging the point.
The point is that Court rulings are not proof of anything because often times the Courts are ran by kooks.
A court that makes abortion legal under a 14th amendment pretense is not qualified to "rule" on anything."

So let's see how this adds up:
On the one side we have the opinions of DiogenesLamp, self-confessed pro-Confederate, anti-American, anti-Federalist & anti-Republican who wants only one thing: to destroy the USA.

On the other side we have three constitutional branches of government, all supporting President Lincoln.
We also have at least 90% of all historians.
Last and most important, by 1864 over 70% of voters voted Republican and by 1866 that rose over 80%.
No majorities since then have ever reversed those voters' judgments.

So, let's see... DiogenesLamp's anti-American fantasies versus the weight of history...?
Sorry, but it's not a close call.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "See? It's this unnecessary commentary that makes your long winded posts so tedious to read.
This is why I often skip your writing.
I don't want to wade through a bunch of ad hominems that don't impress anyone to get to whatever point you are trying to make."

But Kalamata's posts are awash in ad hominems, so you should not feel sorry when he gets back what he dishes out.
More important, like all Democrats, our Lost Causers' thinking is often pathological (pro-Confederate, anti-American, anti-Constitution, anti-Republican, etc.) and so correcting your facts and reasons really only treats the symptoms, not your underlying psychosis.

Of course nobody here is qualified to deal with Democrat pathologies, but we can at least point in the direction we think they originated, and in Kalamata's case that seems pretty clearly his politically abused childhood.

Yes, DiogenesLamp is a different story, beginning with the fact that you are usually quite good about not attacking other FReepers with ad hominems.
That suggests you likely weren't abused as a child, politically, in the same way Kalamata seems to have been.
So, if it wasn't childhood anger that drove you insane, what was it?
Well, my best guess is the second most powerful human emotion, sometimes said to defeat the most powerful (anger), and often attributed to why people "lose it" -- love.
I'm guessing there was a pretty Southern girl who stole your heart and would not give it back, and so to please her you'd do just about anything, right?

My mother was such a girl and my Dad didn't stand a chance... ;-) They lived a long life together and raised a big family, but Mom's original family were Southern Unionists and so my Dad didn't have to go nuts to please her.

Think about that -- not everyone south of the Mason Dixon buys into Lost Cause lies.
Plenty of other fish in that sea.

[BroJoeK]

Ohioan: "Brexit is, of course, a validation of the right to secede from a compact between sovereigns. Jefferson clearly understood the issues involved in his position as our Secretary of State."

There are serious differences between Brexit and 1860, including:

1. Unlike the US Constitution,
   "Withdrawal from the European Union is governed by Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union.
   It was originally drafted by Lord Kerr of Kinlochard,[81] and introduced by the Treaty of Lisbon at the insistence of the United Kingdom.[citation needed]
   The article states that any member state can withdraw "in accordance with its own constitutional requirements" by notifying the European Council of its intention to do so.[82]"

2. Unlike 1861 Confederates, the Brits have seized no property belonging to the European Union.

3. Unlike 1861 Confederates, the Brits have threatened no EU officials, or demanded their surrender.

4. Unlike 1861 Confederates, the Brits have fired on no EU ships.

5. Unlike 1861 Confederates, the Brits have "reduced" no EU forts.

6. Unlike 1861 Confederates, the Brits have sent no military units to seize properties in other EU countries.

7. Unlike 1861 Confederates, the Brits have not formally declared war on the European Union.

In short, so far it seems the Brits are setting a pretty good example of how such things should be done, unlike 1860 Confederates.

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata to central_va: "...the South could pay to ship protected manufactured goods down from the North, OR pay tariffs on imports.
The imports, even with the tariffs, were typically cheaper than heavily-protected Northern goods, so the South paid a high percentage of the tariffs."

This is Kalamata's version of DiogenesLamp's fantasy about "Northeastern Power Brokers" and "money flows from Europe" -- the alleged "real reasons" the Union went to war.
And as with DiogenesLamp's version, it's nonsense.
Here are the facts (see also my post #1,251):

1. In 1860 total US imports were $376 million, about $24 million less than total exports, including gold & silver.

2. Of the $376 million total imports, about $353 million arrived in Union state ports, $23 million (6%) arrived in Confederate state ports, of which $17 million (75% of the 6%) arrived in New Orleans.

3. So, only 6% of US imports came directly to Confederate state ports and less than 2% to CSA ports other than New Orleans.

4. However, the South did "import" $200 million in manufactured products from the North.
   Two-thirds of that was cloth products -- wool, cotton & silk -- another 10% was iron, from rail to stoves, and the rest a wide assortment of miscellaneous from hats to soap, tea & musical instruments.

5. Notice the two numbers: the South imported about $23 million directly from foreign countries, and "imported" $200 million from the North.
   In other words, 90% of what Southerners did not produce themselves they purchased from the North.

6. That 90% is the commerce threatened by Confederacy, but notice that Confederates did not intend to destroy that commerce, only to tariff it, expecting that to yield over $20 million in revenues for Montgomery.

Kalamata "It is easy to get side-tracked by assuming the tariffs would affect the Northern consumer equally.
But when you read the newspapers and speeches of that day, both North and South, they are almost unanimous in pointing to the North as the beneficiary of the tariffs, and the South as the victim."

The North benefitted by "exporting" $200 million in manufactured products to the South.
All those "exports" included the tariff costs on imported raw materials, for examples:

Commodity	1846 Tariff	1857 Tariff	Morrill
Woolens	30	24	37
Brown Sugar	30	24	26
Cotton	25	19	25
Iron mfg	30	24	29
Tobacco	40	30	25
Wines	40	30	40
Average:	33	25	30

Of course those tariffs protected not just Northern manufactured items but also Southern exports like cotton, sugar and tobacco.

Kalamata "...followed by a complete overhaul in 1846, which mirrored the additional clause of the future Confederate Constitution by removing item-by-item rates and replacing them with an ad valorem schedule:"

Here our FRiend Kalamata is just babbling nonsense.
In fact the 1846 change from specified charges to ad valorem had nothing to do with the Confederate constitution, but was intended to increase revenues by reducing "mistakes" and by charging higher amounts (a fixed percent) when prices went up.
But the new 1861 Morrill tariff went back to the old way (pre-1846) of fixed amount charges because:

Morrill "...replaced the existing ad valorem tariff schedule with specific duties and drastically increased tariff rates on goods produced by popular "protected" industries, such as iron, textiles, and other manufactured goods.
Economic historian Frank Taussig argued that in many cases, the substitution of specific duties was used to disguise the extent of the rate increases.
Supporters of the specific rates argued that they were necessary, though, because European exporters were routinely providing their American customers with phony invoices showing lower prices for goods than were actually paid.
Specific rates made such subterfuge pointless."

The problem was cheating and by 1860 experience showed the old method actually worked better.

Kalamata quoting Magnus 2017: "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."

Sure, after Democrats' secession, Republicans passed higher rates.
But Southern Democrats defeated Morrill in 1860 and could have again in early 1861, or at least negotiated lower rates on critical items, had they not seceded.
Even then, Morrill rates were not that much higher on biggest import items -- they were roughly 1846 levels.

Kalamata: "So, the division doesn't appear to be about tariffs, per se, but about crony capitalism, a.k.a., corporate welfare, a.k.a. political favoritism.
When we see the word "tariff" dominating the antebellum literature, we tend to scratch our heads and wonder why it was such a big deal.
But the politicians and businessmen of that day understood that the word typically meant political favoritism that helped the North, and hurt the South."

Except that Southern Democrats ruled in Washington, DC, almost continuously from the election of 1800 until secession in 1861.
In all those years Southern Democrats passed seven different tariffs into law:

1. Tariff of 1816 (Madison)
2. Tariff of 1824 (Monroe)
3. Tariff of 1828 "Abomination" (Adams/Jackson)
4. Tariff of 1832 (Jackson)
5. Tariff of 1833 (Jackson)
6. Tariff of 1846 "Walker" (Polk)
7. Tariff of 1857 (Buchanan)

In all that time only one tariff was passed by Whigs, in 1842 "the Black Tariff", and that was quickly replaced by Democrats in 1846.

Bottom line: whatever "corruption" was involved in US tariffs, it was the corruption of Southern Democrats who ruled almost continuously in Washington from 1800 to 1861.

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata to DiogenesLamp: "Are you aware that Lincoln campaigned in favor of a national bank throughout his career?
This is one of his earliest stump speeches, if not the earliest:

'Fellow-Citizens: I presume you all know who I am.
I am humble Abraham Lincoln.
I have been solicited by many friends to become a candidate for the Legislature.
My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance.
I am in favor of a national bank.
I am in favor of the internal improvement system, and a high protective tariff.
These are my sentiments and political principles.
If elected, I shall be thankful; if not it will be all the same.'[1]

Kalamata: "Lincoln's campaign platform is straight out of Henry Clay's rulebook."

Also, arguably, from the playbook of nearly every Republican president since then, most notably Donald Trump.

[rockrr]

Kalamari’s campaign platform is straight out of Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals.

[Kalamata]

>>x to Kalamata: "I don't have the time or the inclination to put up with your b.s. BroJoe, you seem to have a higher tolerance for this clown. Maybe you could look into this."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "I have a lot of tolerance & patience, but sadly, also not so much time. But let's see what we can make of this..."

Petulant children.

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

>>BroJoeK wrote: "In his post #1,558 Kalamata quotes for us the very New York financial elites who DiogenesLamp likes to refer to as "Northeastern Power Brokers", and though Kalamata quotes them in jumbled sequence..."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "...the majority of the people of New York, and all the respectable people, were disgusted at the election of such a fellow as Lincoln to be President, and would back the Southern States, if it came to a split.......Although they admitted the Southern leaders had meditated "the treason against the Union" years ago, they could not bring themselves to allow their old opponents, the Republicans now in power, to dispose of the armed force of the Union against their brother democrats in the Southern States."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Like Kalamata and DiogenesLamp, these people were all Democrats who hated their new Republican president just as much as Democrats today hate President Trump."

Joey's posts are always deceptive. He is confounding the names "republican" and "democrat" of those days with similar modern names; but there is no comparison. The New York merchants of those days promoted free trade, and were naturally opposed to the Whig ("republican") policies of crony-capitalist protective tariffs; while the manufacturers, like the ever-nasty Thaddeus Stevens, who reaped the benefits of the protective tariffs of the "republicans," were vehement supporters.

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

>>BroJoeK wrote: "So claiming such "Northeastern Power Brokers" pulled Lincoln's strings is like pretending Pelosi or New Yorkers Schumer & Blumberg today pull President Trump's strings. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

That is extraordinarily deceptive; and extraordinary deception requires extraordinary discovery.

As aforementioned, there were two power brokers: the manufacturers who benefited from protective tariffs, and the free traders who made money off of shipping and merchandising. Think of it this way: if fewer goods come into ports due to high tariffs, the protected manufacturers make more money by selling at higher prices. If more goods come in due to free trade or low tariffs, the merchants and shipping industry makes more money. The power-brokers pulling Lincoln's strings (besides Lincoln, himself) where the crony-capitalist protectionists -- the "republicans."

From what I have read in the literature, even the Northern merchants and shippers turned toward war once they understood the potential impact of relatively free trade in the South. Read carefully:

"On April 12, 1861, Fort Sumter was fired upon by the guns of the Southern confederacy. Three days later, President Lincoln issued a proclamation calling forth "the militia of the several states of the Union... to suppress combinations" in seven states, "too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings."

"On that very day, the Richmond Examiner inquired editorially: Will the City of New York "kiss the rod that smites her," and at the bidding of her Black Republican tyrants war upon her Southern friends and best customers? Will she sacrifice her commerce, her wealth, her population, her character in order to strengthen the arms of her oppressors?"

"A few journals in New York ventured to assure the Examiner, as well as many others in the South, that the answer to this question would be in the negative. The Daily News was convinced that there would be peace within a week, for the New York merchants would refuse to support the war. "The wealthy," it emphasized, "will not supply means to depreciate the rest of their property by prolonging this unnatural war." The Herald was even more positive. On April 14, two days after the firing on Fort Sumter, it reported that the business men were already taking steps to oppose the war."

"The leading merchants, traders, and professional men of the City of New York [it announced] intend to hold a preliminary meeting tomorrow, preparatory to a grand mass meeting, to be held in the Park some day during the week, to declare in favor of peace and against civil war and coercion."

"The editors of the Herald were shortly required to eat their words. On April 16, Bennett's organ reported, "A meeting of prominent citizens was held yesterday... to make arrangements for a grand mass meeting at an early day to strengthen the hands of the administration in repressing the Southern revolution."

"Had the editors of the Herald troubled themselves to read the reports of their financial and commercial writers, they would not have misjudged the reactions of the merchants at the outbreak of the war. For on April 14 and 15, these writers emphasized in their reports that the inauguration of armed conflict caught very few of the business men by surprise, and that the vast majority regarded it "as an event which had long been inevitable, and as a not unwelcome termination to a period of intolerable suspense." At the very least, it would end the "dreadful uncertainty" created by the conflict of the tariffs, as well as the danger of the loss of both the Southern and the Western trade. "Wall Street, as far as we can judge," they concluded, "is ready to sustain the government heartily and liberally." E. K. Alburtis, a leading merchant who had voted for Breckenridge in 1860, fought for compromise, and advocated peaceful separation until very late in March, summarized the attitude of the vast majority of the business men, when he wrote: "The action of the government has given confidence."

[Philip Sheldon Foner, "Business & slavery: the New York merchants & the irrepressible conflict." Russell & Russell, 1968, pp.304-305]

A good narrative on those events comes from the diary of British journalist William Howard Russell. In this first segment he is dining with Secretary of State William Seward:

"[March 26, 1861] I dined at Mr. [Henry Sheldon] Sanford's, where I was introduced to Mr. Seward, Secretary of State; Mr. Truman Smith, an ex-senator, much respected among the Republican party; Mr. Anthony, a senator of the United States, a journalist, a very intelligent-looking man, with an Israelitish cast of face; Colonel Foster of the Illinois railway, of reputation in the States as a geologist; and one or two more gentlemen… After dinner [Seward] told some stories of the pressure on the President for place, which very much amused the guests who knew the men, and talked freely and pleasantly of many things—stating, however, few facts positively. In reference to an assertion in a New York paper, that orders had been given to evacuate Sumter, "That," he said, "is a plain lie — no such orders have been given. We will give up nothing we have—abandon nothing that has been intrusted to us. If people would only read these statements by the light of the President's inaugural, they would not be deceived." He wanted no extra session of Congress. "History tells us that kings who call extra parliaments lose their heads," and he informed the company he had impressed the President with his historical parallels."

"All through this conversation his tone was that of a man very sanguine, and with a supreme contempt for those who thought there was anything serious in secession... "You are all very angry," [Seward] said, "about the Morrill tariff. You must, however, let us be best judges of our own affairs. If we judge rightly, you have no right to complain; if we judge wrongly, we shall soon be taught by the results, and shall correct our error. It is evident that if the Morrill tariff fulfils expectations, and raises a revenue, British manufacturers suffer nothing, and we suffer nothing, for the revenue is raised here, and trade is not injured. If the tariff fails to create a revenue, we shall be driven to modify or repeal it."

[William Howard Russell, "My Diary, North and South, Vol I." Bradbury and Evans, 1863, pp.49-51]

Apparently the sincerity and determination of Seward helped change the minds of the merchant class, because, later, after the war began, Russell wrote this in his diary:

"[July 2nd] As long as there was a chance that the struggle might not take place, the merchants of New York were silent, fearful of offending their Southern friends and connections, but inflicting infinite damage on their own government and misleading both sides. Their sentiments, sympathies, and business bound them with the South; and, indeed, till "the glorious uprising" the South believed New York was with them, as might be credited from the tone of some organs in the press, and I remember hearing it said by Southerners in Washington, that it was very likely New York would go out of the Union! When the merchants, however, saw that the South was determined to quit the Union, they resolved to avert the permanent loss of the great profits derived from their connection with the South by some present sacrifices. They rushed to the platforms—the battle-cry was sounded from almost very pulpit—flag raisings took place in every square, like the planting of the tree of liberty in France in 1848, and the oath was taken to trample Secession under foot, and to quench the fire of the Southern heart for ever."

"The change in manner, in tone, in argument, is most remarkable. I met men to-day who last March argued coolly and philosophically about the right of Secession. They are now furious at the idea of such wickedness—furious with England [August Belmont, perhaps?], because she does not deny their own famous doctrine of the sacred right of insurrection. "We must maintain our glorious Union, sir." "We must have a country." "We cannot allow two nations to grow up on this Continent, sir." "We must possess the entire control of the Mississippi." These "musts," and "can'ts," and "won'ts," are the angry utterances of a spirited people who have had their will so long that they at last believe it is omnipotent. Assuredly, they will not have it over the South without a tremendous and long sustained contest, in which they must put forth every exertion, and use all the resources and superior means they so abundantly possess."

"It is absurd to assert, as do the New York people, to give some semblance of reason to their sudden outburst, that it was caused by the insult to the flag at Sumter. Why, the flag had been fired on long before Sumter was attacked by the Charleston batteries! It had been torn down from United States' arsenals and forts all over the South; and but for the accident which placed Major Anderson in a position from which he could not retire, there would have been no bombardment of the fort, and it would, when evacuated, have shared the fate of all the other Federal works on the Southern coast. Some of the gentlemen who are now so patriotic and Unionistic, were last March prepared to maintain that if the President attempted to re-inforce Sumter or Pickens, he would be responsible for the destruction of the Union. Many journals in New York and out of it held the same doctrine."

"One word to these gentlemen. I am pretty well satisfied that if they had always spoke, written, and acted as they do now, the people of Charleston would not have attacked Sumter so readily. The abrupt outburst of the North and the demonstration at New York filled the South, first with astonishment, and then with something like fear, which was rapidly fanned into anger by the press and the politicians, as well as by the pride inherent in slaveholders."

[Russell, Vol II, pp.111-113]

Again, follow the money.

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

>>BroJoeK wrote: "But in 1861, the radical secessionists thoroughly screwed over & politically divorced their "moderate" Northern wing, and the result was the vast majority of Northern Democrats joined in the Republican war effort. But their divorce didn't last long, within just a few years after the war Northern & Southern Democrats remarried, ending Reconstruction, nullifying the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments and bringing on nearly 100 years of terror against African Americans. Democrats, not Republicans."

That is revisionist lunacy. The so-called "Reconstruction" was an even darker blot on American History than Lincoln's war crimes. While Carpetbaggers and Skalawags continued the plunder of the South that began during the war, the hateful Northern "Black Codes" were introduced in the South, along with the doctrine of turning blacks against the whites, and vice versa. "Divide and conquer is the maxim," as Freneau wrote in 1792; the Lincoln-Left continues to promote that doctrine to this very day.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata to central_va: "...the South could pay to ship protected manufactured goods down from the North, OR pay tariffs on imports. The imports, even with the tariffs, were typically cheaper than heavily-protected Northern goods, so the South paid a high percentage of the tariffs."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "This is Kalamata's version of DiogenesLamp's fantasy about "Northeastern Power Brokers" and "money flows from Europe" -- the alleged "real reasons" the Union went to war. And as with DiogenesLamp's version, it's nonsense. Here are the facts (see also my post #1,251):

As usual, Joey's numbers are deceptive and useless. Read the literature of those days to determine the impact of protective tariffs on the non-protected agriculturalists.

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

>>Kalamata wrote "...followed by a complete overhaul in 1846, which mirrored the additional clause of the future Confederate Constitution by removing item-by-item rates and replacing them with an ad valorem schedule:"
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Here our FRiend Kalamata is just babbling nonsense. In fact the 1846 change from specified charges to ad valorem had nothing to do with the Confederate constitution, but was intended to increase revenues by reducing "mistakes" and by charging higher amounts (a fixed percent) when prices went up. But the new 1861 Morrill tariff went back to the old way (pre-1846) of fixed amount charges because: Morrill "...replaced the existing ad valorem tariff schedule with specific duties and drastically increased tariff rates on goods produced by popular "protected" industries, such as iron, textiles, and other manufactured goods. conomic historian Frank Taussig argued that in many cases, the substitution of specific duties was used to disguise the extent of the rate increases... "
>>BroJoeK wrote: "The problem was cheating and by 1860 experience showed the old method actually worked better."

At times, it seems Joey is writing for no other reason than the pure "pleasure" of throwing an ad-hominem, or two. He is certainly not interested in the truth. This is Taussig:

"When protectionists make a change of this kind, they almost invariably make the specific duties higher than the ad-valorem, duties for which they are supposed to be an equivalent..." [Taussig, Frank W., "The Tariff History of the United States." G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1892, p.158]

Taussig is paraphrasing the Constitution in the last clause, which requires tariffs to be uniform, across the board. Specific duties can be made uniform, but that was not the goal of the crony-capitalist protectionist. The wanted their stuff, and that of their friends, to be more protected than the stuff of the other guys. The businessmen that relied almost exclusively on exports, like the cotton growers, were left out of the scheme.

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

>>Kalamata quoting Magnus 2017: "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."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Sure, after Democrats' secession, Republicans passed higher rates. But Southern Democrats defeated Morrill in 1860 and could have again in early 1861, or at least negotiated lower rates on critical items, had they not seceded. Even then, Morrill rates were not that much higher on biggest import items -- they were roughly 1846 levels."

As usual, Joey's posts are deceptive. First, I was quoting Phillip Magness, and this is the quote in full:

"As president [James Polk, who defeated the Whig protectionist Henry Clay,] 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."

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

As you can see, the Whig ("republican") protective tariff was loaded with "pork," also called "earmarks." Those earmarks were removed under the Polk administration.

The next-to-last highlighted statement reminds me of a federal court case during which the written words of the ACLU were copied verbatim into the opinion of a corrupt federal "judge."

The last highlighted statement contradicts Joey's statement (above,) which reads: "Morrill rates were not that much higher on biggest import items -- they were roughly 1846 levels." I have no idea where Joey got that notion.

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

Kalamata wrote: "So, the division doesn't appear to be about tariffs, per se, but about crony capitalism, a.k.a., corporate welfare, a.k.a. political favoritism. When we see the word "tariff" dominating the antebellum literature, we tend to scratch our heads and wonder why it was such a big deal. But the politicians and businessmen of that day understood that the word typically meant political favoritism that helped the North, and hurt the South."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "Except that Southern Democrats ruled in Washington, DC, almost continuously from the election of 1800 until secession in 1861."

Not true. The crony-capitalists (in both parties, but mostly Whigs) ruled from 1824 to 1846. James K. Polk put an end to that in 1846:

"The President had reason to be gratified with the passage of this important party measure. It not only dealt a severe blow to Clay's "American System," but it put in operation a tariff policy which Polk had advocated ever since he had been in public life. Much to the disappointment of his critics no industrial calamities resulted from it, and the act was not repealed as Webster had so confidently predicted. Despite the scoffing of Evans, reduction of the tariff rates was followed by an increase in the amount of revenue; it became redundant in 1857 and was still further reduced. While it would he absurd to attribute the prosperity of this decade to the operation of the "tariff of '46," no longer could it be said that an ad valorem revenue tariff would block the wheels of industry."

"The reestablishment of the independent treasury gave additional reason for gratification, and, like the tariff bill, it caused none of the disasters which its opponents had prophesied. With few modifications, the "constitutional treasury" has continued to the present day, and it has done much to extricate national revenue from the field of party politics. With the enactment of these two measures and the settlement of the Oregon question Polk had effected three of the four items of his administrative program. There was no longer need of anxiety for the "glory" of his administration, even though Davis had talked the diplomatic appropriation bill to death."

"Having faithfully complied with the recommendations contained in the President's message, Congress believed, apparently, that the law of compensation entitled it to a free hand in "pork barrel" legislation. Despite the heavy drain on the treasury for military purposes, items were recklessly added to the river and harbor bill until it called for appropriations amounting to nearly a million and a half dollars. Clay himself could scarcely have asked for a more cordial endorsement of his internal improvement policy, and especially from a Congress controlled by Democrats. Polk promptly vetoed this bill, and his message to the House is an able statement of the Jeffersonian doctrine of strict construction. In his opinion, the measure under consideration was both unconstitutional and inexpedient, and parts of it "a disreputable scramble for the public money." ''It is not questioned, said he,"

"that the Federal Government is one of limited powers. Its powers are such, and such only, as are expressly granted in the Constitution or are properly incidental to the expressly granted powers and necessary to their execution."

"After quoting Madison's rule for determining the scope of implied power, Polk maintained that:"

"It is not enough that it may be regarded by Congress as convenient or that its exercise would advance the public weal. It must be necessary and proper to the execution of the principal expressed power to which it is an incident, and without which such principal power can not be carried into effect. The whole frame of the Federal Constitution proves that the Government which it creates was intended to be one of limited and specified powers. A construction of the Constitution so broad as that by which the power in question is defended tends imperceptibly to a consolidation of power in a Government intended by the framers to be thus limited in its authority."

"National appropriations, in his opinion, should be confined to national purposes, and Congress ought to refrain from exercising doubtful powers. He censured in particular the present attempt to include purely local items by a jugglery of words. "To call the mouth of a creek or a shallow inlet on our coast a harbor can not confer the authority to expend the public money in its improvement."

[Eugene Irving McCormac, "James K. Polk: a political biography." Russell & Russell, 1965, pp.678-679]

The cronies resumed their rule under Lincoln.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata to DiogenesLamp: “Are you aware that Lincoln campaigned in favor of a national bank throughout his career?... Lincoln’s campaign platform is straight out of Henry Clay’s rulebook.”
>>BroJoeK wrote: “Also, arguably, from the playbook of nearly every Republican president since then, most notably Donald Trump.”

They are still unconstitutional, Joey.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>rockrr wrote: “Kalamari’s campaign platform is straight out of Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals.”

I see you are still the annoying troll.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Ohioan wrote: "Brexit is, of course, a validation of the right to secede from a compact between sovereigns. Jefferson clearly understood the issues involved in his position as our Secretary of State."
>>BroJoeK wrote: "There are serious differences between Brexit and 1860, including: Unlike the US Constitution, Withdrawal from the European Union is governed by Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union."

Joey's posts are always deceptive. The right to withdraw from the Union is found in Amendments 9 and 10 of the Constitution:

"Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

"Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The construction of the Constitution, as determined in Convention, declares that powers not specifically delegated, or forbidden, DO NOT belong to the federal government. They belong to the states and the people.

Those two Amendments turn the progressive Living-Constitutionalists, such as Joey, into whiny, drooling zombies.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>DiogenesLamp wrote: “See? It’s this unnecessary commentary that makes your long winded posts so tedious to read. This is why I often skip your writing.
I don’t want to wade through a bunch of ad hominems that don’t impress anyone to get to whatever point you are trying to make.”
>>BroJoeK wrote: “But Kalamata’s posts are awash in ad hominems, so you should not feel sorry when he gets back what he dishes out.”

Don’t let Joey fool you. His posts are always deceptive. Joey and a few other freepers get very defensive when their ideology is threatened, and they irrationally resort to ad hominems and aspersions, rather than defending their ideology with data.

Joey also accuses others of doing what he does. If you trace our conversation back to the beginning, you will find Joey initially throwing ad hominems at me, while I simply threw them back at him.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>BroJoeK wrote: "On the other side we have three constitutional branches of government, all supporting President Lincoln. We also have at least 90% of all historians. Last and most important, by 1864 over 70% of voters voted Republican and by 1866 that rose over 80%. No majorities since then have ever reversed those voters' judgments."

"Consensus is the first refuge of scoundrels."

[Crichton, Michael, "Aliens Cause Global Warming." Wall Street Journal, 2003]"

Mr. Kalamata

[central_va]

We also have at least 90% of all historians Re writers of history.

Fixed it.

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata to OIFVeteran: "Summary (paraphrasing):

"I intend to colonize Blacks and Mulattos to ensure they are "free" somewhere else besides America.
I don't want those sub-humans mixing with us white folk. Until then -- while they remain here in American -- they are not free to marry and mingle with whites, to hold public office, to vote, or to serve on juries." -- A. Lincoln"

This "quote" clearly identifies Mr. Olive as Adam Schiff's twin brother, demonstrating they went to the same school for political lying and learned the same lessons there on how to attack Republicans.
Compare Olive's "quote" of Lincoln here to Shiff's "quote" of President Trump alleging an illegal phone call with the Ukrainian president.

In both cases we see Democrats so filled with hatred of Republicans they can't stifle their urges to fantasize nonsense and present it as if it happened.

The truth about Lincoln's ideas for recolonizing freed-blacks to Africa, or elsewhere, is that there were many such plans, going back to President Jefferson, and except for Jefferson's plan (which also included compensated emancipation), they were all voluntary.
Lincoln & many others then believed that freed-blacks would want to move elsewhere and Lincoln intended to offer them that opportunity.

We should also notice that Kalamata was here the first one to throw out the "N-word" (Nazi), and when called on it just doubled-down, slinging the cr*p as far & wide as he could, typical Democrat.
Included in the Schiff Dan-bo slings is the claim that Lincoln was a "central planning socialist".
The fact is that Lincoln's "central planning" consisted of three things: bank, tariffs and "internal improvements" which were also in the political agenda of Founders like Washington, Adams, even Jefferson, Madison & Monroe, for starters.

So whatever Schiff the Dan-child throws at Lincoln he's also throwing at our Founders, typical Democrat.