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.

[DiogenesLamp]

I believe you said Seward would have caused it too, or at least secession, but I wonder if anyone but Lincoln would have escalated it to war.

[BroJoeK]

quoting BJK: "And Lincoln's support for the 15th Amendment (black suffrage) is what triggered John Wilkes Booth to murder him."

jeffersondem: "By some accounts, the 15th amendment was passed by Congress in 1869 and ratified in 1870."

Some people claim I'm too long winded, so I look for ways to reduce words, as in this case.
By John Wilkes Booth's own account he was "triggered" on hearing Lincoln call for African American suffrage,

"Booth was in the crowd outside the White House when Lincoln gave an impromptu speech from his window.
Lincoln stated that he was in favor of granting suffrage to the former slaves, and Booth declared that it would be the last speech that Lincoln would ever make.[97][99][100] "

The 15th amendment covered suffrage for former slaves.

[BroJoeK]

Bull snipe: "If not, the ships were authorized to use force to land not only provisions by munitions and two companies of artillerymen."

DiogenesLamp: "And what "force" would they use?"

The Lincoln-Fox plan was to land supplies at Fort Sumter, in small boats at night ideally under cover of fog.
As such, it might have required no use of force.
The plan originated (so he claimed) from Ft. Sumter's Captain Doubleday and could have succeeded, if Maj. Anderson had held the fort long enough.

Let's also remember that on April 3 -- before Lincoln ordered the mission -- Jefferson Davis wrote Bragg to say he intended to start war at Forts Sumter and Pickens regardless of what Lincoln did or didn't do.

All of which DiogenesLamp well knows but refuses to acknowledge because it explodes his anti-Lincoln narrative.

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata: "Joey's posts are always deceptive.
In that post I simply reminded everyone that both Hitler and Lincoln sought to eliminate federalism (and States' rights,) and consolidate all power into a central government, which is the choice of all dictators."

Kalamata's posts are always lies, typically outrageous lies, in this case comparing Lincoln & Hitler.
As a typical Democrat at heart, our Kalamata doesn't care if his words are true, only hopes they serve as effective weapons against Lincoln, Republican and the United States of America.

[OIFVeteran]

No one can know for sure, but I am sure that the south would have rebelled no matter who was the Republican presidential nominee. They had threatened to rebel in 1856 if the republican nominee had won. I am also sure that pressure from the rest of America would not have allowed any of the other men to just let the south go. I think any President who did try and just let the south go would have been quickly impeached and removed from office. Hell, after Fort Sumter was fired on even spineless Buchanan supported force to put down the rebellion.

“the assault upon Sumter was the commencement of war by the Confederate states, and no alternative was left but to prosecute it with vigor on our part.” Birkner, Michael (September 20, 2005). “Buchanan’s Civil War”. Archived from the original on October 19, 2011. Retrieved December 22, 2013.

Many of the state’s legislatures issued resolutions strongly denouncing South Carolina’s secession. Here is the New York anti-secession resolution.

ANTI-SECESSION RESOLUTIONS OF THE NEW YORK LEGISLATURE
Passed by the New York State Assembly, 11 January 1861
[Text located by Sean Rogers, Furman University. Transcribed by Lloyd Benson from the New York Times, 12 January 1861]

Whereas, The insurgent State of South Carolina, after seizing the Post-offices, Custom-House, moneys and fortifications of the Federal Government, has, by firing into a vessel ordered by the Government to convey troops and provisions to Fort Sumter, virtually declared war; and

Whereas, The forts and property of the United States Government in Georgia, Alabama, and Louisiana have been unlawfully seized, with hostile intentions; and

Whereas, Their Senators in Congress avow and maintain their treasonable acts; therefore,

Resolved, (if the Senate concur,) That the Legislature of New York is profoundly impressed with the value of the Union, and determined to preserve it unimpaired; that it greets with joy the recent firm, dignified and patriotic Special Message of the President of the United States, and that we tender to him through the Chief Magistrate of our own State, whatever aid in men and money may be required to enable him to enforce the laws and uphold the authority of the Federal Government; and that, in the defence of the Union, which has conferred prosperity and happiness upon the American people, renewing the pledge given and redeemed by our fathers, we are ready to devote our fortunes, our lives, and our sacred honor.

Resolved, (if the Senate concur,) That the Union-loving citizens and representatives of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee, who labor with devoted courage and patriotism to withhold their States from the vortex of secession, are entitled to the gratitude and admiration of the whole people.

Resolved, (if the Senate concur,) That the Government be respectfully requested to forward, forthwith, copies of the foregoing resolutions to the President of the Nation, and the Governors of all the States of the Union.

And this resolution was passed prior to the firing on Fort Sumter. My opinion, and I know it’s only my opinion, war would have come no matter who was selected to be the Republican nominee for President.

[BroJoeK]

In his post #1,630 Kalamata repeats a beautiful quote from Thomas Jefferson, 1820:

"I regret that I am to die in the belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776, to acquire self-government and happiniess to their country, is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be, that I live not to weep over it.
If they would but dispassionately weigh the blessings they will throw away, against an abstract principle more likely to be effected by union than by secession, they would pause before they would perpetuate this act of suicide on themselves, and of treason against the hopes of the world.
To yourself, as the faithful advocate of the union, I tender the offering of my high esteem and respect."
-- Thomas Jefferson ltr to John Holmes 22 April 1820.

To which Kalamata responds: "Joey's statements are always deceptive.
A few years later, Jefferson wrote this:"

"On every question of [of the constitution,] carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
[Letter to William Johnson, from Monticello, June 12, 1823..."

So here, perhaps inadvertently, Kalamata posted two quotes from Thomas Jefferson which support my arguments and condemn Kalamata's.
In the first Jefferson condemns secession and praises Union.
In the second, Jefferson praises the core essence of conservatism: Founders' Original Intent.

But typical of Democrats Kalamata tells us that Jefferson praised secession, condemned the Union and insisted on meanings the Founders never expressed!

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata: "Joey's posts are always deceptive.
I have exposed his progressive, central-planning, big-government ideology over and over again. Joey has even praised the ACLU and a rogue federal judge for meddling in a local school board ruling, which was none of their stinking business!
The bottom line is, Joey is a bully and a control freak, and, accordingly, he admires other bullies and control freaks."

It appears Kalamata is off his meds and out of control.
Sure, his posted quotes are always accurate (so far as I can tell), but otherwise his words are almost entirely lies.
None of his diatribe above is true.

Kalamata: "Again, Joey's posts are always deceptive.
He and all other modern Democrats despise the chains of the Constitution, exactly like Lincoln despised them.
Rather they seek the praise of mere men above civic duty. "

And yet more lies.
Here's the truth: Kalamata doesn't deny being anti-federalist, anti-Founders, anti-Constitution, anti-Republican, anti-American.
What he wishes to "conserve" is the Old Confederacy -- not of course as it actually was, but rather as our Lost Causers fantasize it to have been.

Kalamata: "Lincoln was always trying to break those chains.
He, like all modern Democrats, reinterpreted the Commerce Clause to mean anything and everything, in order to (one day) make way for his so-called "American System" (which was actually, the corrupt, crony British Mercantilist system.)"

That's complete nonsense.
Here's the truth: every Founding President supported protective tariffs, "internal improvements" and even a national bank, as did Lincoln.
Yes, Jefferson opposed the bank, but accepted it in exchange for moving the capital city to Washington, DC.
Yes out of power, VP Jefferson also opposed Federalist internal improvements on "strict construction" grounds, but President Jefferson was happy to sign such internal improvements as the Cumberland Road, and proposed many, many more.
Madison approved tariffs and the bank, while Monroe also approved internal improvements.

That is the history of Federalists, Whigs & Republicans, including Lincoln.

[DiogenesLamp]

Lincoln stated that he was in favor of granting suffrage to the former slaves,

And this is interesting because he had previously said he was completely against this.

Why then, when it suddenly became politically advantageous for Lincoln and his Party, did he suddenly decide that giving slaves the right to vote was a good idea?

I dare say, if he could have been persuaded to believe that all freed slaves would vote for the Democrats, he would have been absolutely against the idea of enfranchising the former slaves, as he was in prior years.

Again, how is Lincoln different in this regard from Modern Day liberal Democrats who fully support both illegal immigration, and shipping in millions of third world socialism supporters simply because they know they will vote for the Democrats?

Lincoln was tampering with the existing electorate not because it was the right and moral thing to do, but he and his party did so strictly as a means of gaining further political power.

It was always about power, even when it had the side effect of doing something morally right.

[DiogenesLamp]

As such, it might have required no use of force.

So why then did the bulk of the ships consist of warships?

Let's also remember that on April 3 -- before Lincoln ordered the mission -- Jefferson Davis wrote Bragg to say he intended to start war at Forts Sumter and Pickens regardless of what Lincoln did or didn't do.

Third time you've said this to me. I look forward to you providing a copy of the text or a link to same.

All of which DiogenesLamp well knows...

Not at all. I've never heard this letter to Braxton Bragg thing before.

[DiogenesLamp]

That isn’t much of a response. It is all simply your opinion of another Freeper, and nothing in the way of evidence to support your claims.

[Kalamata]

>>BroJoeK wrote: “Kalamata’s posts are always lies, typically outrageous lies, in this case comparing Lincoln & Hitler. As a typical Democrat at heart, our Kalamata doesn’t care if his words are true, only hopes they serve as effective weapons against Lincoln, Republican and the United States of America.”

Joey’s posts are always deceptive. Like all progressives, he loves the concept of a consolidated central-planning government, like the one Lincoln and Hitler envisioned; but Joey is being a deceiver when he labels it as ‘federalism.’ Even Hitler knew better than that.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>BroJoeK wrote: "In his post #1,630 Kalamata repeats a beautiful quote [by Joey] from Thomas Jefferson, 1820:

"I regret that I am to die in the belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776, to acquire self-government and happiniess to their country, is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be, that I live not to weep over it. If they would but dispassionately weigh the blessings they will throw away, against an abstract principle more likely to be effected by union than by secession, they would pause before they would perpetuate this act of suicide on themselves, and of treason against the hopes of the world. To yourself, as the faithful advocate of the union, I tender the offering of my high esteem and respect." -- Thomas Jefferson ltr to John Holmes 22 April 1820."

>>BroJoeK wrote: "To which Kalamata responds: "Joey's statements are always deceptive. A few years later, Jefferson wrote this:"

"On every question of construction [of the constitution,] carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." [Letter to William Johnson, from Monticello, June 12, 1823]

>>BroJoeK wrote: "So here, perhaps inadvertently, Kalamata posted two quotes from Thomas Jefferson which support my arguments and condemn Kalamata's. In the first Jefferson condemns secession and praises Union. In the second, Jefferson praises the core essence of conservatism: Founders' Original Intent. But typical of Democrats Kalamata tells us that Jefferson praised secession, condemned the Union and insisted on meanings the Founders never expressed!

Like I said, Joey's posts are always deceptive. He is pretending that Jefferson was opposed to secession, but, to the contrary, Jefferson saw nullification and secession as the ONLY way to keep an out-of-control federal government in check. The greedy dictator, Abraham Lincoln, destroyed those checks and balances, leaving the nations' posterity saddled with an ever-increasing national debt (about $240 trillion, and counting,) as well as out-of-control regulations that lord over almost every aspect of our lives.

The first statement by Jefferson -- the one Joey originally posted -- is the last paragraph in a longer lamentation Jefferson wrote on the Missouri Compromise, which Jefferson saw as a usurpation of power by the federal government via its intrusion into the internal affairs of sovereign states – tyrannical actions which he believed could eventually tear the nation apart.

The letter I posted, an 1823 letter to William Johnson, reinforced Jefferson's understanding that the Constitution was not to be interpreted according to the whims of mere men -- of congress, the president, or the judiciary --, but rather according to the construction established in the Federal and State conventions.

This is Jefferson's full 1820 letter to John Holmes:

"I thank you, dear Sir, for the copy you have been so kind as to send me of the letter to your constituents on the Missouri question. It is a perfect justification to them. I had for a long time ceased to read newspapers, or pay any attention to public affairs, confident they were in good hands, and content to be a passenger in our bark to the shore from which I am not distant. But this momentous question, like a fire-bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union. It is hushed, indeed, for the moment. But this is a reprieve only, not a final sentence. A geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated; and every new irritation will mark it deeper and deeper. I can say, with conscious truth, that there is not a man on earth who would sacrifice more than I would to relieve us from this heavy reproach, in any practicable way. The cession of that kind of property (for so it is misnamed) is a bagatelle which would not cost me a second thought, if, in that way, a general emancipation and expatriation could be effected: and, gradually, and with due sacrifices, I think it might be. But as it is, we have the wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other. Of one thing I am certain, that as the passage of slaves from one State to another, would not make a slave of a single human being who would not be so without it, so their diffusion over a greater surface would make them individually happier, and proportionally facilitate the accomplishment of their emancipation, by dividing the burthen on a greater number of coadjutors. An abstinence, too, from this act of power, would remove the jealousy excited by the undertaking of Congress to regulate the condition of the different descriptions of men composing a State. This certainly is the exclusive right of every State, which nothing in the constitution has taken from them, and given to the General Government. Could Congress, for example, say, that the non-freemen of Connecticut shall be freemen, or that they shall not emigrate into any other State?"

"I regret that I am now to die in the belief, that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776, to acquire self-government and happiness to their country, is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be, that I live not to weep over it. If they would but dispassionately weigh the blessings they will throw away, against an abstract principle more likely to be effected by union than by scission, they would pause before they would perpetrate this act of suicide on themselves, and of treason against the hopes of the world. To yourself, as the faithful advocate of the Union, I tender the offering of my high esteem and respect."

[Letter to John Holmes, from Monticello, April 22, 1820, in Thomas J. Randolph, "Memoir, correspondence, and miscellanies from the papers of Thomas Jefferson Vol IV." Gray and Bowen, 2nd Ed, 1830, pp.323-324]

Like I said, Joey's posts are always deceptive.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>DiogenesLamp wrote: "I've never heard this letter to Braxton Bragg thing before."

I believe this is it:

To Braxton Bragg
Unofficial
Montgomery Ala. April 3 1861

MY DEAR GENL.

"The Secty of War communicated to you last night by telegraph our latest information and the suppositions derived from it. It is, there is much reason to believe, with a view to exhibit power and relieve the effect of the necessary abandonment of Sumter that it is proposed to reinforce Pickens, but it is also possible that it may be intended to attempt the reinforcement of both. They will it is said avoid collision with you by landing their forces upon the Island and after the garrison is sufficient will bring in supplies defying your batteries."

"You will not have failed to notice that the tone of the Northern press indicates a desire to prove a military necessity for the abandonment of both Sumter & Pickens."

"It is already asserted that your batteries will not permit the landing of supplies, and soon this may be charged among the short comings of Mr. Buchannan, Per contra there is manifested a desire to show what can be done at Pensacola as proof of what would have been done at Charleston. In the latter view they may seek to throw both men and supplies into Pickens by landing on Santa Rosa beyond the range of your guns. It is scarcely to be doubted that for political reasons the U. S. Govt, will avoid making an attack so long as the hope of retaining the border states remains. There would be to us an advantage in so placing them that an attack by them would be a necessity, but when we are ready to relieve our territory and jurisdiction of the presence of a foreign garrison that advantage is overbalanced by other considerations. The case of Pensacola then is reduced the more palpable elements of a military problem and your measures may without disturbing views be directed to the capture of Fort Pickens and the defence of the harbor. You will soon have I hope a force sufficient to occupy all the points necessary for that end. As many additional troops as may be required can be promptly furnished."

"Instruction, organization and discipline must proceed with active operations; you will appreciate the circumstances which rendered such objectionable combination an unavoidable condition. Your batteries on the main shore are I am informed nearly complete and their converging fire may I hope compensate somewhat for their too distant location from the work to be battered. To secure the time necessary for you to effect a breach will it not be necessary to embarrass the use of the guns of Pickens which bear upon your works? Can this be done by a mortar battery placed on the Island so as to take those guns in reverse? In the same connection: could you establish gun batteries on the Island so as to drive off the shipping and prevent a junction of the land and naval forces? A mortar battery could I suppose be established in a night secure from fire & from sortie when you have a sufficient force to justify a partition of your army. If that first step /the establishment of a mortar battery/ was permitted you could establish your batteries also and then carry forward your approaches until you were attacked Then all your batteries being opened shells falling in the Fort from front and from rear must prove rapidly destructive to the garrison and open to you several modes of success - 1st By surrender - Second By abandonment if you had not been able to command the shipping Third By breach of front wall or explosion of glacis mine, exposing the work to capture by assault Fourth By evacuation on the plea that the means at the disposal of their government had not been sufficient to prevent the investment of the Fort and its reduction by famine."

"I have written to you freely and hurriedly because I wished to exchange views with you and felt assured that you would understand that there was no purpose to dictate; and under an entire confidence that your judgement would control your conduct, and could only be influenced by a suggestion, in so far as it might excite a train of thought out of the channel which the constant contemplation of a particular view is apt to wear. Though you are addressed <-as a Genl,-> upon /official matters yet I wish/ you to regard this not as a letter of the President but of your old comrade in arms, who hopes much, and expects much for you, and from you. very Respectfully & truly yr's. JEFFN, DAVIS"

[Lynda Lasswell Crist, "The Papers of Jefferson Davis Vol 7, 1861." Louisiana State University Press, 1992, pp.85-86]

James McPherson interpreted that letter in this manner:

"Jefferson Davis would have been quite happy if Seward had succeeded in his efforts to get the garrison out of Sumter. But he repudiated any notion that this gesture might lead to reunion; on the contrary, he would have seen it as a recognition of Confederate sovereignty. That is how Abraham Lincoln saw it too. Fort Sumter had become the symbol of competing claims of sovereignty. So long as the American flag flew over the fort, the Confederate claim to be an independent nation was invalid. The same was true of Fort Pickens, and Davis instructed General Bragg to prepare to attack it if and when an actual attack order came." ^[7]

"But no such order ever went to Bragg. The standoff at Sumter eclipsed the situation at Pensacola in the eyes of both Northerners and Southerners. When Lincoln informed South Carolina governor Francis Pickens of his intent to resupply the garrison at Fort Sumter, he forced Davis's hand."

7. Davis to Bragg, Apr. 3, 1861, Crist, PJD, 7:85–86.

[James M. McPherson, "Embattled Rebel: Jefferson Davis as Commander in Chief." Penguin Press, 2014, p.24]

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: "Lincoln was always trying to break those chains [of the Constitution.] He, like all modern Democrats, reinterpreted the Commerce Clause to mean anything and everything, in order to (one day) make way for his so-called "American System" (which was actually, the corrupt, crony British Mercantilist system.)"
>>BroJoeK wrote: "That's complete nonsense."

Joey's posts are always deceptive. The "American System" is an Hamilton/Clay invention created solely to bypass the chains of the Constitution under the pretense that the federal government somehow has powers that were not originally authorized to it during the conventions. And, of course, everything they do is for the "good of the people," (and, an even greater good for themselves and their friends.)

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

>>BrojoeK wrote: "Here's the truth: every Founding President supported protective tariffs, "internal improvements" and even a national bank, as did Lincoln."

This is how Joey's understanding works, in a nutshell:

"Joey, you have been stealing again."

"It's okay, Mom. Charlie does it, too!"

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

>>BrojoeK wrote: "Yes, Jefferson opposed the bank, but accepted it in exchange for moving the capital city to Washington, DC. Yes out of power, VP Jefferson also opposed Federalist internal improvements on "strict construction" grounds, but President Jefferson was happy to sign such internal improvements as the Cumberland Road, and proposed many, many more. Madison approved tariffs and the bank, while Monroe also approved internal improvements. That is the history of Federalists, Whigs & Republicans, including Lincoln."

Those are the same kind of deceptive arguments that gave us the horrific Supreme Court concept of stare decisis, used to justify virtually all unconstitutional court opinions by basing them on past unconstitutional court rulings or precedent, rather than on the Constitution itself. This is how it began:

During the debates that led up to the ratification of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton explained some of the many powers reserved to the States, in this manner:

"The administration of private justice between the citizens of the same State, the supervision of agriculture and of other concerns of a similar nature, all those things, in short, which are proper to be provided for by local legislation, can never be desirable cares of a general jurisdiction. "

[Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 17, in Bill Bailey, "The Complete Federalist Papers." The New Federalist Papers Project, p.83]

So, according to Hamilton, the supervision of agriculture could NEVER properly be a federal government matter. BUT, once in power in the Washington administration, Slick Hamilton, pulled a bait-and-switch on the States:

"It is, therefore, of necessity, left to the discretion of the National Legislature to pronounce upon the objects which concern the general welfare, and for which, under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general interests of learning, of agriculture, of manufactures, and of commerce, are within the sphere of the national councils, as far as regards an application of money."

[Report on Manufactures, December 5, 1791, in Henry Cabot Lodge, "The Works of Alexander Hamilton Vol 04." G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1903, pp.151-152]

The first sentence is an absolute lie: the general welfare is simply a preamble defined and explained by the enumerated powers, such as post offices and post roads, weights and measures, etc.. Hamilton's post-Constitution definition opens to door to the "general welfare" preamble clause being applied to any imagined "general welfare" scenerio, such as Social Security, Obamacare, Welfare, and much more.

When ruling on cases relating to general welfare, commerce, and what is and is not necessary and proper, the Supreme Court never goes back to the Constitutional debates, but rather stops at the precedent laid out in Hamilton's Report on Manufactures, if not beforehand. Using that method, they have turned the Constitution from a strictly constructed legal document, into a "living constitution" that can mean anything and everything at the whim of the federal government.

In summary, the concept of precedent, or stare decisis, has been used to usurp the Constitution from the states and the people. Outlaw stare decisis, and we can take our Constitution back from those corrupt, evil, "living constitutionalists".

And, remember, just because Charlie does it, doesn't make it right.

Mr. Kalamata

[DiogenesLamp]

If that is the letter in question, I do not see in it anywhere the claim BroJoeK made which was:

"Let's also remember that on April 3 -- before Lincoln ordered the mission -- Jefferson Davis wrote Bragg to say he intended to start war at Forts Sumter and Pickens regardless of what Lincoln did or didn't do."

Perhaps BroJoeK has a different letter in mind. One in which Jefferson Davis writes that he "intended to start a war at Forts Sumter and Pickens regardless of what Lincoln did or didn't do."

Because a letter that said such a thing would lend credibility to his claim that Davis intended to start a war as a means of getting the other states to join in secession.