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

[Pelham]

You tell ‘em. George III was right about those ruffians up in 1775 Boston and their secession nonsense.

[rustbucket]

Savannah was spared the wrath of Sherman’s army because it surrendered. Once it surrendered, Sherman had no reason to make war on the city.

Tell that to Columbia, South Carolina which also surrendered to Sherman.

Link to the 1865 version of William Gilmore Simms' recounting of his own first-hand observations and those of other witnesses describing what happened to Columbia, South Carolina during Sherman's occupation of the city

[Bull Snipe]

Tell that to Columbia, South Carolina

Would hardly consider Simms and impartial observer of events. Sherman’s men burned his plantation in South Carolina and he was an ardent advocate of slavery.

According to Marion B. Lucas, author of Sherman and the Burning of Columbia, “the destruction of Columbia was not the result of a single act or events of a single day. Neither was it the work of an individual or a group. Instead it was the culmination of eight days of riots, robbery, pillage, confusion and fires, all of which were the byproducts of war. The event was surrounded by coincidence, misjudgment, and accident. It is impossible, he maintains, to determine with certainty the origin of the fire. The most probable explanation was that it began from the burning cotton on Richardson street. Columbia at this time was a virtual firetrap because of the hundreds of cotton bales in her streets. Some of these had been ignited before Sherman arrived and a high wind spread the flammable substance over the city.”

[jeffersondem]

“This procedure for the “gagging” of abolition petitions was made into a formal resolution by the House on May 26, 1836: “All petitions, memorials, resolutions, propositions, or papers, relating in any way, or to any extent whatsoever, to the subject of slavery or the abolition of slavery, shall, without being either printed or referred, be laid on the table and … no further action whatever shall be had thereon.””

That is an interesting comment. It reinforces my earlier comments.

In 1836 there were relatively few hard-shell abolitionist Congressmen - North or South. The few abolitionists members of Congress were, as you noted, voted down.

The state-by-state allocation of congressional seats was then, as now, based on population. The hard truth is that many non-southern Congressmen voted to table petitions regarding slavery.

But they did it for what they considered good reasons: it was in their district's own economic and political best self-interest.

The 1836 rule was rescinded in 1844 but, to my knowledge, no proposed constitutional amendment was ever introduced to abolish slavery peacefully prior to Lincoln's invasion of the South. Not even Congressman Lincoln introduced an abolition amendment.

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: "I provided references. If you are too lazy to look them up, that is your problem, not mine."
>>DoodleDawg wrote: "You provided nothing because you have nothing. Not surprising."

Your comments are not surprising.

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

>>DoodleDawg wrote: "The figure of 14,000 political prisoners comes from Mark E. Neely Jr., The Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties. I have Neely's book and he does not identify 14,000 "political prisoners" unless you classify "political prisoner" as anyone who supported the Southern rebellion."

No doubt that Neely is a devout Lincoln apologist who went out of his way to place the Lincoln administration in the most favorable light. But he did not seem to doubt there were over 13,000 political prisoners, which he associated with the number of arrests:

"[T]he statistical record proves that Seward by no means crushed dissent. From a study of the Official Records, from the Democratic Almanac for 1867, from the American Annual Cyclopaedia, from Seward's unpublished papers, and from published reminiscences of political prisoners, one can ascertain that the secretary of state presided over the arrest of only 864 civilians. Most modern estimates of the total number of civilians arrested by federal military authority during the entire Civil War have put the number at over thirteen thousand, and the figure for Seward's period of control certainly looks modest by comparison. Whatever the accuracy of the traditional estimate of some thirteen thousand arrests of civilians for the whole war, one thing seems certain: William H. Seward did not administer the internal security system in its harshest period. That would come later under the supervision of the War Department" [Mark E. Neely Jr., "The Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties." 1992, p.23]

He also admits that far more than 13,500 civilians were arrested:

"There is no point in going further with this exercise. It is clear that far more than 13,535 civilians were arrested. And it is clear that, wherever the prison was located, most of its civilian prisoners came in as victims of the war's incidents and friction. On one point, anyone familiar with the records must agree with Colonel Ainsworth: no one will ever know exactly how many citizens were arrested by military authority during the Civil War. But to answer the question most historians have been asking does not require knowledge of that total." [Ibid. p.131]

That said, I highly recommend Neely's book for the sheer volume of information on Lincoln's atrocities; but leave your Rose-colored glasses on the desk if you desire history over propaganda. Whatever you do, don't confuse Neely's ideological bias with historical facts. For example, this is Neely rejecting the wide-spread belief that Lincoln acted like a dictator:

"The dominant popular view today has been forged outside the historical profession, where literary critics, political scientists, and historical novelists unembarrassedly assume that Abraham Lincoln was a dictator. Such an assumption underlies the influential works of the eminent literary critic Edmund Wilson and of his less-able intellectual offspring, Dwight C. Anderson, Gore Vidal, and William Safire.

"Wilson set the stage in 1962 in his widely read book Patriotic Gore, which compared Lincoln to Bismarck and Lenin. Like them, Wilson argued, Lincoln united a great national power, became an uncompromising dictator in the process, and was "succeeded by agencies which continued to exercise this power and to manipulate the peoples he had been unifying in a stupid, despotic and unscrupulous fashion." Wilson was fascinated by Freudian psychology, and in a remarkably influential section of the book, he argued that Lincoln foresaw the tyrant he would become in the speech (discussed in Chapter 10) that the youthful Illinois lawyer delivered in 1838 before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield. Psychohistorians found Wilson's work stimulating and later focused obsessively on the warning against a tyrant in the Lyceum speech. The root of Wilson's interest in the speech was his personal fear of the growth of the power of the federal government. The ultimate source of his view that the Civil War president wielded Bismarckian or Leninist powers was Wilson's own extremist theories of individual freedom."

[Ibid. p.231]

Let's analyze:

First, Wilson's "extremist" theories of individual freedom seem to be those of Thomas Jefferson, which are no doubt extreme to central-planning crony-marxists. Bill Clinton labeled conservatives who wanted to reduce the amount of deficit spending as extremist.

Next, Neely makes use of the "you are not a historian unless you believe like me" ad hominem. That smear is common among academics who engage in indoctrination and suppression, rather than education; and no doubt the History Establishment will make life miserable for historians who do not kiss the ring of Lincoln.

Last, Neely's insinuation that no one "inside the historical profession" believes Lincoln was a dictator, rings hollow. This is the late Clinton Rossiter on Lincoln as a dictator:

"This last point deserves consideration. It was a judicious resolution of the President not to have convoked a divided Congress in the period between his inauguration and the fall of Sumter. It was a rather arbitrary decision not to have done so immediately after April 12. It can only be interpreted as a considered determination to crush the rebellion swiftly without the vexatious presence of an unpredictable Congress to confuse the narrow issue. It is highly probable that Lincoln expected the whole thing to be over by July 4. Whatever the judgment as to the rationale and wisdom of this audacious stroke, its significance for history cannot be doubted. He was allowed to proceed without external check to a series of unusual measures which he alone deemed necessary to lay the rebellion. Unlike Cincinnatus, this great constitutional dictator was self-appointed…"

"Although he had been able to point to statutory authority allowing him to call out the militia of the several states, his proclamation of May 3 (appealing for "42,034 volunteers to serve for the period of three years" and enlarging the regular army by 23,000 and the navy by 18,000) was an out-and-out invasion of the legislative power of the Congress of the United States, an invasion hardly mitigated by the President 's declared purpose of submitting these increases for the approval of Congress as soon as it should assemble. This amazing disregard for the words of the Constitution, though considered by many as unavoidable, was considered by nobody as legal…"

"What the Supreme Court held was simply this: that the President of the United States has the constitutional power, under such circumstances as he shall deem imperative, to brand as belligerents the inhabitants of any area in general insurrection. In other words, he has an almost unrestrained power to act toward insurrectionary citizens as if they were enemies of the United States, and thus place them outside the protection of the Constitution. This, it seems hardly necessary to state, is dictatorial power in the extreme. The Constitution can be suspended after all by any President of the United States who ascertains and proclaims a widespread territorial revolt. "In the interval between April 12 and July 4, 1861 a new principle thus appeared in the constitutional system of the United States, namely, that of a temporary dictatorship…"

"In all this suspension of civil liberty he had the acquiescence of Congress and the overwhelming support of the loyal population [my comment: "weasel words."] This does not mask the fact that he was exercising dictatorial power. It was not until the Act of March 3, 1863 that Congress itself authorized the President to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, and incidentally ratified his past actions in this regard. As far as Lincoln was concerned, this statute was simply an expression of congressional opinion, having no effect on his past or future activities."

[Clinton Rossiter, "Constitutional Dictatorship: Crisis Government in the Modern Democracies." Princeton University Press, 1948, pp.225-226, 230, 236]

To be fair, Rossiter was a devout Lincolnite, and did kiss Lincoln's ring (sorta):

"These actions are the sum total of "the Lincoln dictatorship," an extraordinary eleven weeks of presidential activity unparalleled in the history of the United States. By the time Congress had come together, he had set on foot a complete program executive, military, legislative, and judicial for the suppression of the insurrection. When it is considered what forms of government have in recent years been labeled "dictatorships," the application of this word to Mr. Lincoln's few weeks of unrestrained power is a blatant exaggeration. Yet it cannot be denied that he had proceeded to acts of a radical, dictatorial, and constitutionally questionable character." [Ibid. p.228]

But a few pages later, he reverted back to being a historian:

"THE President not only asserted that the crisis brought him unique executive, legislative, and even constituent power; he further assumed authority of a judicial nature[my words: that is the very definition of a dictator]. Throughout the war the governmental control of individual liberty, such as it was, was almost completely in his hands, not because Congress had decided that this would be a good policy, but because he as President undertook such responsibility on his own initiative. The entire program to suppress treason was based on the presidential suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. Although Lincoln had invited congressional ratification of his suspensions during the eleven weeks dictatorship, he had also made clear that he considered this dictatorial power to belong to him as well as to Congress under the terms of the Constitution. He was able to maintain this stand in defiance of Chief Justice Taney and all precedent; nor was Congress itself ever able effectively to gainsay this claim. His most sweeping cancellation of the writ, on September 24, 1862, was effected without even a reference to Congress. This proclamation is all the more remarkable in its assertion of presidential power to institute martial law proceedings for persons indicted for aiding the rebellion." [Ibid. p.235]

The late historian James Ford Rhodes also claimed Lincoln was a dictator:

"The Federal government may be called a dictatorship. Congress and the people surrendered certain of their powers and rights to a trusted man." [James Ford Rhodes, "History of the Civil War, 1861-1865." The MacMillan Company, 1919, p.394]

"'One of the most interesting features of the present state of things,' wrote Schleiden to Sumner,"is the illimited power exercised by the government. Mr. Lincoln is, in that respect, the equal, if not the superior, of Louis Napoleon. The difference consists only in the fact that the President rests his authority on the unanimous consent of the people of the loyal States, the emperor his on the army." Lincoln was strong with Congress; he was stronger still with the people. The country attorney of Illinois had assumed the power of a dictator. Congress agreed that the times needed one, and the people backed their President. Yet there was method in this trust, for never had the power of dictator fallen into safer and nobler hands." [James Ford Rhodes, "History of the United States from the compromise of 1850 Vol III, 1860-1862." Harper & Brothers, 1895, p.442]

The late James Garfield Randall likewise pointed to Lincoln as a dictator:"

"This question of the dictatorship, however, should not be passed over lightly, and some of Lincoln's arguments in his own defense may have gone beyond the limits which sound legal reasoning would recognize. Lincoln's defense was two-fold: first, that the national safety imperatively demanded that these vigorous measures be taken; and second (and here is the doubtful part), that as he had not exceeded the power of Congress, he supposed that all would be made right by subsequent legislative approval. Lincoln's course was undoubtedly patriotic, capable, and forceful, for which reasons it has been generally applauded; and yet it argues a curious commingling of legislative and executive functions for a President to perform an act which he adjudges to be within the competence of Congress and then, when the measure has been irrevocably taken, to present Congress with an accomplished fact for its subsequent sanction. For not only is there the well-known principle that a legislature may not delegate legislative powers, but the possession of a constitutional power implies the right to withhold as well as the right to perform it. In other words, when a certain branch of the Government is given an optional, not a mandatory, power, it is thereby given full discretion to decide whether or not the power shall be used; and if the decision is in the affirmative it has discretion as to the circumstances, the extent, and the method of its use. This much of legislative discretion is entirely denied when Congress is confronted with an accomplished fact for its approval." [James G. Randall, "Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln." D. Appleton & Company, 1926, pp.57-58]

"If Lincoln was a dictator, it must be admitted that he was a benevolent dictator. Yet in a democracy it is a serious question how far even a benevolent dictatorship should be encouraged." [James G. Randall, "Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln." D. Appleton & Company, 1926, p.47]

That aside, the more I read the Lincolnite books, the more I realize that a common theme among them is, the Southern states were rebellious (which falls under federal power,) rather than secessionists (which was a retained power.) There is no other way to "justify" Lincoln's usurpations without resorting to sophistry. There will never be a way to justify his blood-thirsty terrorism against non-combatants.

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

>>DoodleDawg wrote: "It should be noted that "political prisoner" as used by the federal government during the Civil War is not the same definition used today. People arrested for running the blockade, smuggling goods to the Confederacy, refugees from the Confederacy or people slipping across the border were all classified as "political prisoners" by the administration."

Newspaper publishers, local politicians, judges, congressmen, and even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court were political prisoners under 'Lincoln Rules.'

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

>>DoodleDawg wrote: "Neely details, had either you or Bulla bothered to read the book, that these kind of people make up the large majority of people arrested. Arrests for opposing the government, i.e. political prisoner as we define it today, were by far the minority."

I suggest you read the book; but this time while keeping in mind that Neely could never win a Pulitzer Prize on "Lincoln" by bashing Lincoln – not within this cult-like culture. He could have bashed any other president, but not Lincoln.

As for Bulla, this is his curriculum vitae:

https://www.davidbulla.com/cv.html

His 19-page paper that I referenced is well-sourced with 74 footnotes. You can pretend he is irrelevant, but that will only render you irrelevant.

Have you read this statement from the back cover of Neely's book?

"Neely depicts Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus as a well-intentioned attempt to deal with a floodtide of unforeseen events—from the disintegrating public order in the border states to the outcry against the first draft in U.S. history. Drawing on letters from prisoners, records of military courts and federal prisons, memoirs, and federal archives, he paints a vivid picture of how Lincoln responded to these problems, how his policies were actually executed, and the virulent political debates that followed. Lincoln emerges from this account with his legendary statesmanship intact—mindful of political realities and prone to temper the sentences of military courts, concerned not with persecuting his opponents but with prosecuting the war efficiently." [Mark E. Neely Jr., "The Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties." 1992, Back Cover]

LOL! As you can see from that statement, and from practically every paragraph of the book, Neely's work is not about history, but protecting Lincoln's image. Ironically, Neely has co-authored at least two books on Lincoln's image.

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

>>DoodleDawg wrote: "And Neely wrote a companion piece to The Fate of Liberty titled Southern Rights: Political Prisoners and the Myth of Confederate Constitutionalism. His findings make it clear that on a percentage of population basis one was far more likely to be jailed without trial for political reasons in the Jeff Davis Confederacy than in Abe Lincoln's U.S."

You didn't provide a reference, so I cannot evaluate your claim. If you provide the page number(s,) perhaps I can look up the reference for you.

It appears you are claiming that if the South suppressed political freedom, that would justify Lincoln's abuses. Strange. . .

No matter. I question your premise and your claim. Have you read this by David Herbert Donald?

"It is true that in January, 1862, the Confederate Congress did pass a law forbidding the publication of unauthorized news of troop movements, but even this slight regulation was bitterly protested and flagrantly ignored. No Southern newspaper was ever suppressed by the Confederate government for its opinions, however critical or demoralizing. The ardent wish of Secretary of War George W. Randolph was realized: that"this revolution may be... closed without suppression of one single newspaper in the Confederate States." More significant militarily was the Confederacy's insistence upon maintaining the cherished legal rights of freedom from arbitrary arrest and upon preserving due process of law. This sentiment was so strong that, though the Confederacy was invaded and Richmond was actually endangered, President Davis did not dare institute martial law until he had received the permission of his Congress. While General George B. McClellan was about to assault the Confederate capital in 1862, the Southern Congress debated the question and concluded that their President was "subject to the Constitution and to the laws enacted by Congress in pursuance of the Constitution. He can exert no power inconsistent with law, and, therefore, he cannot declare martial law." Grudgingly Congress permitted Davis to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus for three brief periods—once when McClellan was within sight of Richmond, again during the Fredericksburg- Chancellorsville threat, and once more when Grant was pushing through the Wilderness. Even then he was allowed to suspend the writ only in limited areas, not throughout the Confederacy. When he came to Congress for a renewal of his authority during the grim winter of 1864-1865, he was refused, lest too much power in the hands of a dictatorial president curb the democratic rights of the people." [David Herbert Donald, "Why the North Won the Civil War." Collier Books, 1962, p.85]

That doesn't sound like a lot of suppression of political freedom in the South. Donald also wrote this about the curtailment of Northern civil liberties and the imprisonment of dissidents:

"Yet, in comparison with the Confederacy, the Union government did curtail civil liberties. As soon as the fighting started, President Lincoln, without delaying to consult Congress, suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, at first for a small area in the East, later for the entire nation. At a subsequent date he reported his fait accompli to Congress: "These measures, whether strictly legal or not, were ventured upon, under what appeared to be a popular demand, and a popular necessity; trusting then, as now that Congress would readily ratify them." Congress had little choice but to ratify, and the disloyal citizen no alternative but to acquiesce. At least 15,000 civilians were imprisoned in the North for alleged disloyalty or sedition. They were arrested upon a presidential warrant and were kept incarcerated without due process of law. It did the disaffected citizen no good to go to court for a writ of habeas corpus to end his arbitrary arrest. On orders from President Lincoln himself, the military guard imprisoning him refused to recognize a judicial writ even when it came from Chief Justice Roger B. Taney." [Ibid. pp.86-87]

Incredible! Donald also wrote this about the suppression of Northern newspapers:

"Freedom of the press was also seriously abridged in the North. To be sure, Northern editors abused President Lincoln as "a slang-whanging stump speaker," a "half-witted usurper," a "mole-eyed" monster with "soul... of leather," "the present turtle at the head of the government," of "the head ghoul at Washington"—but they did so at the acknowledged risk of having their papers suppressed and going to prison. Over three hundred (300!) Northern newspapers were suppressed, for varying periods, because they opposed the administration's policies or favored stopping the war." [Ibid. p.87]

David Herbert Donald was awarded two Pulitzer Prizes.

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

>>DoodleDawg wrote: "Abraham Lincoln and Press Suppression Reconsidered." I'm not paying $44 to access the paper. But assuming you have can you list the 300 papers he's talking about?"

Not in your lifetime.

Donald, who was also a Lincolnite, mentions them in the quote above. Perhaps you will trust his numbers. If not, you can rest assured knowing that Bulla also erred on the side of the Lincolnites:

"[F]reedom of the press was not something that could merely be an idea on paper. It had to be something lived, something that was part and parcel of the constitutional fabric of the nation. Freedom of the press in theory only was mere rhetoric. Lincoln set dangerous precedents by allowing interference with the press, but in the long run [Lincoln] understood that the nation could never be a democratic republic without the rule of law. That meant easing back on repressive measures." [David W. Bulla, "Abraham Lincoln and Press Suppression Reconsidered." American Journalism, Vol.26, Iss.4; Fall, 2009, p.29]

Frankly, Lincoln didn't give a rat's behind about the rule of law, but there is a army of people who believe he did.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: “I am pro-science, pro-history, pro-American, pro-Christian, and, most of all, PRO-TRUTH.
Joey wouldn’t know the truth if it whopped him upside the head.”
>>Joey wrote: “All of that is false, only remotely true in Kalamata’s own mind through the magic of redefining words to suit his own purposes.”
>>Joey wrote: “For example he defines “science” as “whatever I, Kalamata, believe” and defines everything else as “false religion”.”

I define science as the study of the world by way of observation and empirical evidence, in a nutshell.

*****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “He defines the Enlightenment as “everything Kalamata thinks was bad in the 18th century.”

I define Enlightenment as a word commonly name-dropped to make a person appear intellectual.

*****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “Whatever he thinks good... well, that was our Christian heritage, etc.”

I need a translator for that one.

*****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “The fact is that Kalamata’s thinking is both deep and broad, spanning the range from Lost Cause to Young Earth Creationism, I can’t think of another poster like him.”

You need to get out more, Joey.

*****************
>>Kalamata wrote: “And as you can tell by his posts here, he’s also a royal jerk, loves to insult & lie, apparently for the sheer joy it, and so is unlikely to win friends or influence anyone who’s not already committed to his unique outlooks.”

I am a counter-puncher. Follow my posts from the beginning of threads, and you will see that I only attack beligerent blow-hards, like Joey, who attack me first.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>OIFVeteran you wrote: “Thank you for your reply. The statement you have him make talks about people dividing and ruling over us, rather than represent us. I think that gets to the heart of the matter. Many in the North felt that the slavocracy had ruled over the entire country for most of it’s history. They had even enforced a gag rule in congress in 1836 that tabled any petitions for the abolition of slavery. This procedure for the “gagging” of abolition petitions was made into a formal resolution by the House on May 26, 1836: “All petitions, memorials, resolutions, propositions, or papers, relating in any way, or to any extent whatsoever, to the subject of slavery or the abolition of slavery, shall, without being either printed or referred, be laid on the table and … no further action whatever shall be had thereon.”

I am familiar with that rule. From what I have read, another obstacle to the abolutionists, perhaps the biggest obstacle, were the colonizationists, like Henry Clay and then Lincoln. The colonizationists were generally virulent racists and supremacists who simply didn’t want blacks living in their country and taking “their” jobs.

Clay was somewhat of an enigma. He was both a slave-holder and colonizationist. Lincoln was a colonizationist who married into a slave-holding family, in which some of the members were also colonizationists. It was quite a web.

*****************
>>OIFVeteran you wrote: “So much for the constitutional right to petition the government for the redress of grievances.”

The Congress couldn’t lawfully do anything about slavery without an Amendment, and I have read there was no support for one by either the northern or southern congressmen. I have also read that the abolutionists were a small (but vocal) percentage of the population of the North; but the general population didn’t want anything to do with people of color.

I have also read that over 100,000 petitions were sent to congress. The right to petition government doesn’t give you a right to be a pest on an issue that would require 3/4 of the state legislatures to change and would almost certainly be defeated.

But, I guess if it makes you feel good, do it (just kidding!)

Mr. Kalamata

[DoodleDawg]

Your comments are not surprising.

You can certainly shut those comments down by listing the newspapers. I won't even ask for all 300; 150 will do.

No doubt that Neely is a devout Lincoln apologist who went out of his way to place the Lincoln administration in the most favorable light.

And there we have it. You quote Neely without ever having read any of his works, and once it's pointed out to you that he doesn't in fact support your claims he becomes a "Lincoln apologist". Not surprising.

[BroJoeK]

WIJG: "In our country, I personally believe government must be bound by law (not law and morality); insofar as we allow some undefined concept of morality to modify the law, the law becomes of no effect."

So let's start here: every law, without exception, embodies somebody's ideas of morality and "doing the right thing", even if "doing right" means only "doing right by me".
Law enforcement then, by definition, is a matter of enforcing morality.

So, is there morality outside law enforcement?
Sure, because any number of acts which are not necessarily illegal can still be immoral.
Cheating on a non-consenting spouse comes to mind.
But government has no laws and therefore no duty to enforce marital fidelity.
However, if the cheating spouse then attacks & kills the other, now government certainly does have a role "enforcing morality".

So, bottom line, everything illegal is also in some sense immoral, but not everything immoral is necessarily illegal.
Are we agreed so far?

WIJG: "In terms of Mr. Lincoln’s service as president, I think that I’ve consistently tried to frame my opinions in terms of his legal obligations (i.e., did the Constitution of 1860 actually prohibit State secession – or not?)."

It did not, but it did require that Congress, not Confederates, must control and dispose of Federal properties -- forts, ships, arsenals, mints, lighthouses, etc.
Confederates' repeated unauthorized seizures of Federal properties were, in themselves, acts of war against the United States.

WIJG: "...if the Southern States were acting within their constitutional rights (as they existed at that specific time) when they seceded, which has been the foundation of my argument, then..."

It's still important to remember that neither President Buchanan nor Lincoln took any military action to stop secession until after Confederates provoked, started, declared and began waging war against the United States.

WIJG: " I think we might all agree that Mr. Lincoln was a human being, not the Second Coming of the Messiah…"

Sure, but I think Lincoln did the best he could with the situation he inherited.
His mistakes chiefly involve selecting and firing a long list of incompetent generals before finally promoting the ones who knew how to win... win... and never grow tired of winning.

My kind of guy, like our current President. ;-)

[Who is John Galt?]

Thanks, sir!

[BroJoeK]

WIJG: "Hopefully you’re aware that Ronald Reagan was at one time a Democrat.
Did Mr. Reagan change in some radical way, before joining the Republican Party?
He may have matured a bit, and certainly became more knowledgable, and much more experienced.
But his values apparently remained largely consistent; as he put it (quoting from memory), ”I didn’t leave the Democrat Party – the Democrat Party left me!”"

Sure, and in some sense it's true -- FDR's Democrats were solidly supported by solidly racist Southerners who were also generally conservative on such matters as taxes, spending & regulations.
Curiously however, those allegedly conservative Southern Democrats were not conservative enough to stop, or even slow down, FDR's mad rush towards socialism.
Nor did FDR's tolerance for Communists in Hollywood, for example, phase them at the time.

But by the 1960s, when national Democrats were rejecting their racist Southern brethren, they also expelled their only serious economic & constitutional conservatives and thus, in Ronald Reagan's mind, Democrats left him.

But the whole truth is that as a trade-union leader, Reagan had fought against (not for) Hollywood Communists and in embracing Barry Goldwater in 1964, Reagan went to a level of conservatism that no FDR New Deal Democrat had ever been.

WIJG: "Simply put, today’s political parties are NOT the same parties that existed 50, 100, or 150 years ago.
The names may not have changed, but the foundational beliefs certainly have. (Just to emphasize that point, here’s a bit of historical trivia: Karl Marx supported the Union! ;>)"

No, from Day One Democrats have always been the same party they are today, only constituencies have changed.
Democrats began as the anti-Federalist party voting against the Constitution in 1788.
The anti-Federalist party became the anti-G.Washington-Administration party, the party of nullification, interposition, fugitive slave laws, secession, Civil War against the USA, Black Laws, segregation, KKK terrorists, and at all times the party of government big enough to enforce special privileges for Democrat voters at the expense of hard-working Americans.

WIJG: "Actually, I may well have been voting conservative longer than you’ve been alive. "

Wow, that's interesting, so you supported Taft's choice, Ohio Republican Governor Bricker for President in 1944?
He was the only serious conservative in that race, but had to take VP under Dewey for President.
Let's see... that would make you... at least 96 years old, my you sure don't look it! ;-)

WIJG: "Come, now – if that were true, there would be no debates on FreeRepublic, and no competing Republican candidates in the party’s primaries. "

Seriously, my "theory of the crime" here is that there are many, many people who think of themselves as conservative Republicans who were actually raised as liberal/progressive Democrats and still think like Democrats, meaning first and foremost, it's all about telling the Big Lies.
To be a Democrat you have to lie, lie with conviction, lie with authority, lie with passion and never ever back down.

Republicans by contrast are supposed to be truth-tellers, true to the Constitution, true to traditional values, consistent with our religious beliefs, etc.
It means, first & foremost, we don't accept Democrat lies, or the assumptions they're based on, but also that where truth is not entirely clear, we don't replace it with our own lies.
Truth is what it is, even if it's not on our side.

WIJG: " A more accurate description (obviously still subject to debate) would be that some “constitutionalists” or “strict constructionists” support nullification, as do some scoff-law Leftists.
As I believe rockrr noted, it’s not a ‘cookie cutter’ issue."

With all due respect to rockrr, alleged "nullification" of new gun-control laws in one or two states is a minor distraction from the Democrats' centuries long nullification of laws they disliked (think 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments and today's "sanctuary cities"), contrasted with their later strict enforcement of laws they do like (think Civil Rights Acts).

Nothing Republicans have ever contemplated remotely compares to Democrats' massive long-term efforts to nullify, secede and/or wage war against the US Constitution.

WIJG: " I believe I posted here on FR my opinion that, if that ever happened, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat Party leadership would be the first to demand that the US military invade the State, without delay, and shoot the ring-leaders. (As noted, the parties have changed! ;>)"

Nancy Pelosi, typical Democrat, will never knowingly do anything to diminish her own political powers.
Impeachment, for one thing, shows her secessionist constituents that disunion is not necessary.

[Who is John Galt?]

Republicans by contrast are supposed to be truth-tellers, true to the Constitution, true to traditional values, consistent with our religious beliefs, etc.
It means, first & foremost, we don't accept Democrat lies, or the assumptions they're based on, but also that where truth is not entirely clear, we don't replace it with our own lies.
Truth is what it is, even if it's not on our side.[underlining mine]

Unfortunately, the Republican Party and Republican politicians do not always do what they are "supposed" to do. I previously offered the example of G.H.W. Bush, who not only essentially 'lied' about tax increases, but instituted 'gun control' restrictions as well.

The same is true of Republican voters; they do not always do the 'right' thing. We've discussed the situation in Virginia; that is reportedly the direct result of only 40% of the registered voters in Virginia, actually going to the polls last November. And with regard to 'gun control' specifically, it's been my personal observation over the last several decades, that gun owners are more likely to spend $2000 on an over-priced 'assault weapon' AFTER a ban is passed, than they are to donate $20 to the NRA or a Republican canfidate BEFORE the ban.

All in all, it may be that we should put less emphasis on the traditional party names, and more emphasis on actual performance. Someone else once observed (and I think it's quite appropriate) that today's major political parties might well be referred to as "the Dishonest Party" and "the Stupid Party".

Thanks again for the reply!

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Secession was a peaceful act.
The newly formed Confederacy sought to be left alone and to have peaceful relations with the United States.
It was President Lincoln and his political and economic backers that sought war."

Sorry, but except for the documents themselves, there was nothing peaceful about secession.
It was preceded & accompanied immediately with escalating use of force and threats of violence against Federal properties, ships and officials.
These culminated in the Confederate attack on and forced surrender of Fort Sumter, soon followed by a formal declaration of war against the United States.

In the Civil War's first year Confederates fought more battles and suffered more casualties in Union states than Confederate states.

So there was nothing peaceful about secession.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "For the purpose of this post, let's stipulate that you are correct: at some point Lincoln began to use war to violently overthrow slavery provisions of the United States Constitution."

No, I'd rather stipulate that jeffersondem lies constantly and refuses to tell the truth under any circumstances.
But I can tell it, and here it is:

Lincoln never abolished slavery in states that remained loyal to the Union.
States in rebellion were subject to the Emancipation Proclamation during the war and afterwards all states came under the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments.

jeffersondem: "We know before the war Lincoln did not have the necessary votes in Congress to peacefully pass a constitutional amendment ending slavery but after all the war killings, redefining states as military districts, and disbarments of voters, he did."

No, after Confederates declared themselves no longer US voters, non-Confederates in those states voted ratification of the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments.

jeffersondem: "This is a problem for anyone who claims to support the original intent of our founders.
The founders included in the constitution a peaceful amendment process, but not a provision to use the military to violently overthrow the constitution."

No, the original intent of our Founders was that any war against the United States, rebellion (Whiskey), treason (Burr) or unauthorized secession (Burr, Hartford Convention) should be defeated & punished.
But those slave-states which refused to secede did not see their slavery abolished until that peaceful amendment process was completed.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "I thought you had made a New Year's Resolution to make issue-based arguments to support your deeply held opinions and to avoid visceral, personal attacks.
You made it to January 2.
It is not too late to turn away from the personal attacks."

If you've read Kalamata's posts, you know I'm grossly understating my critique of them and him.

[OIFVeteran]

Peaceful act? I don't think so.

State of Alabama: On 3 January 1861 Governor A. B. Moore directed the Alabama militia to seize the Mount Vernon Arsenal and Forts Morgan and Gaines, which controlled the entrance to Mobile Bay. The Arsenal was seized on the 4th, and the two forts a day later. Alabama didn’t succeed from the Union until 11 January.

State of Arkansas: On 8 February 1861 Arkansas militia volunteer companies seized the Little Rock Arsenal at the direction of the governor. On 6 May the Arkansas Secession Convention passed the state’s Ordnance of Secession. The Convention elected not to submit the Ordnance to the people of Arkansas in a referendum for their approval.

State of Florida: On 6 January 1861 the Florida militia seized the U.S. arsenal at Apalachicola, the sole Federal arsenal in the state. On 7 January the Florida militia seized Fort Marion at St. Augustine. And, on 8 January Federal troops at Fort Barrancas, guarding the entrance to the harbor at Pensacola, fired on a party of Florida militia who had demanded the surrender of that fort. The next day, Lieutenant Adam J. Slemmer gathered the 50 men in his company from Forts Barrancas and McRee, dumped 20,000 pounds of gunpowder into the bay, and spiked his guns at those two forts. With the help of sailors from the Warrington Navy Yard, he moved all of his remaining supplies across the bay to Fort Pickens, which the Federal Army retained for the balance of the war. On 10 January the Florida Secession Convention passed the state’s Ordnance of Secession. The Ordnance was not submitted to the people of Florida for their approval in a referendum.

State of Georgia: The Georgia Secession Convention passed its ordnance of secession on 19 January 1861 and the state withdrew from the Union. The Georgia militia seized the Augusta Arsenal on 24 January, and on the 27th Oglethorpe Barracks and Fort James Jackson at Savanah were also seized. In response to a demand from the state government for surrender of the Arsenal, Captain Arnold Elzey, the commander, had asked the War Department for instructions. Acting Secretary of War Holt had responded on 23 January that “The governor of Georgia has assumed against your post and the United States an attitude of war. His summons is harsh and preemptory. It is not expected that your defense shall be desperate. If forced to surrender by violence or starvation you will stipulate for honorable terms and a free passage by water with your company to New York.” In accordance with his instructions, Elzey made terms with Governor Brown, and his company was permitted to depart the arsenal with its arms and company property and to have unobstructed passage to New York.

State of Louisiana: The U.S. Arsenal at Baton Rouge, was seized by the Louisiana militia on 10 January 1861, as was the U.S. Army pentagon barracks at Baton Rouge. The New Orleans Barracks [Jackson Barracks] was seized on 11 January, as were Forts St. Philip and Jackson. Between them, these two forts controlled the Mississippi River approach to New Orleans. Fort Pike, which controlled the Rigolets Pass approach to Lake Pontchartrain was taken on 14 January. Fort Macomb, which controlled the Chef Menteur Pass approach to Lake Pontchartrain was seized on 28 January. On 31 January Revenue Captain James G. Breshwood surrendered the revenue cutter Robert McClelland to the State of Louisiana; which turned the cutter over to the Confederate States Navy which renamed her CSS Pickens. On 31 January the revenue cutter Washington was seized by Louisiana authorities in New Orleans. On 26 January the Louisiana Secession Convention passed the state’s Ordnance of Secession. The Ordnance was not submitted in a referendum to the people of Louisiana for their approval.

State of Mississippi: On 9 January 1861 the Mississippi Secession Convention passed the state’s Ordnance of Secession. The Ordnance was not submitted in a referendum to the people of Mississippi for their approval. On 21 January the Mississippi militia seized Fort Massachusetts, an unfinished brick fort on Ship Island on the Mississippi coast. The fort was abandoned by the end of January because Governor Pettus had no artillery to arm it.

State of North Carolina: On 23 April 1861 the North Carolina militia seized the Federal arsenal at Fayetteville, and the Federal garrison subsequently departed on 27 April. On 20 May the North Carolina Secession Convention passed the state’s Ordnance of Secession. The Ordnance was not submitted to the people of North Carolina for their approval in a referendum.

State of South Carolina: On 20 December 1860 the South Carolina Secession Convention passed the state’s Ordnance of Secession. The Ordnance was not submitted in a referendum to the people of South Carolina for their approval. On 27 December Captain Napoleon Coste turned the revenue cutter William Aiken over to South Carolina secessionists. On the same date, the South Carolina militia seized Castle Pickney, a small masonry fort in Charleston harbor. A Federal officer and a sergeant and his family were captured, provoking a discussion by the South Carolinians over whether to treat them as prisoners of war. The officer was allowed to go to Fort Sumter, while the sergeant was given a safe conduct and permitted to remain in his quarters at the fort. Also on the 27th the militia seized Fort Moultrie, another of the forts guarding Charleston harbor, which had been evacuated by its commander, Major Robert Anderson, on the 26th. On 28 December the South Carolina militia occupied the site of Fort Johnson on Windmill Point on James Island. Although long unoccupied by the U.S. Army, it had been one of the four forts controlling Charleston harbor. On 30 December the Charleston Arsenal was seized.

State of Tennessee: On 6 May 1861 the Tennessee Secession Convention passed the state’s Ordnance of Secession. Although the state did not formally succeed from the Union until a “declaration of independence” referendum on 8 June, Governor Isham G. Harris persuaded the legislature to create the Provisional Army of Tennessee on 6 May. The enabling legislation authorized an army of 55,000 volunteers and authorized the governor to issue $5 million in state bonds for defense and military supplies. By the end of May convicts at the state penitentiary in Nashville were manufacturing small arms cartridges and other military supplies. The 8 June referendum affirmed the Ordnance of Secession 104, 913 to 47,238. East Tennessee voted solidly Unionist, and there were reports of interference with the vote in middle and western Tennessee, however.

State of Texas: On 1 February 1861 the Texas Secession Convention passed the state’s Ordnance of Secession. The Ordnance was submitted to the people of Texas for their approval on 23 February, with the referendum passing 46,153 to 14,747. Although Texas had not yet seceded, Major General Twiggs surrendered his forces and facilities, including the San Antonio Arsenal, at the demand of Texas authorities on 16 February. His officers and enlisted personnel were permitted to depart the state with their small arms, and the two artillery batteries under his command with four guns each.

Commonwealth of Virginia: On 17 April 1861 the Virginia Secession Convention passed the Commonwealth’s Ordnance of Secession, but there was an effort to initially suppress the announcement that the Ordnance had passed. While the Convention was meeting in secret session on the 17th, William C. Scott, the delegate from Powhatan County, said “I was told by the Adjutant General this morning that if we passed an ordinance of secession, we ought not to let it be known for a few days, because he sent for arms to the North, and he is apprehensive that they may be intercepted if it was known that the ordinance passed. Would it not be well, if we are determined to secede, to wait a little while in order that we may receive those arms from the North? We could then secede, and we would be in a much better condition to meet the enemy than we are now. This seems to be the proper course, and I trust the Convention will pursue it.” Later in the debates that day, Scott again mentioned his conversation with the Adjutant General and said “The Governor tells us this morning that if the action of this Convention is permitted to be known outside of this body, these arms will not be allowed to come here. If you send a communication of this sort to the President of the Confederate States, there will be great danger that the whole secret will leak out.” On 30 April the Convention authorized the Governor to issue $2,000,000 in treasury notes for the defense of the Commonwealth. The Ordnance of Succession was not ratified by the people of Virginia until a referendum on 23 May, wherein it passed 132,201 to 37,451. Although secession had not yet been approved by the people, the Commonwealth militia prepared to seize the Harper’s Ferry Armory. First Lieutenant Roger Jones, USA, had been ordered to Harper’s Ferry on 3 January with a company of eight non-commissioned officers and 60 enlisted men. By 18 April Rogers was in command of the post. Recognizing his utter inability to defend the armory, Jones set fire to the buildings and retreated with his troops across the Potomac River.

The above is probably incomplete; does not included the seizure of non-military facilities such as those of the Treasury Department, Post Office, etc.; and ends with the firing on Fort Sumter. The only “aggression” I see here is on the part of the Confederates, although I suppose that a “bitter ender” would assert that LT Slemmer’s defense of his post at Fort Barrancas in the face of an armed attack was “aggression,” or that the burning of the Harper’s Ferry.

Some of these acts occurred prior to the state declaring itself seceded from the Union. So even if we agree (and I don't) that states can just proclaim themselves independent countries at will, then actions taken before they made this claim are treason.

[rustbucket]

Would hardly consider Simms and impartial observer of events. Sherman’s men burned his plantation in South Carolina and he was an ardent advocate of slavery.

Simms was an internationally known author. He was a journalist and a historian. And he observed the destruction of Columbia first hand. He did lose something like 10,000 books [rb: from memory] in his library to theft and fire, both by the Union troops.

The huge fires that destroyed much of Columbia began at night started by Sherman's troops. They would rob a house of its valuable contents, then burn it. A few of Sherman’s sympathetic troops had earlier warned locals that this was coming. When local fire fighters attempted to put out fires, some of Sherman’s troops bayoneted and cut up the fire hoses.

Perhaps you would like some confirmation from sources other than Simms. How about 60 depositions? A commission was set up in 1866 by the state to document what happened. Depositions were taken from some 60 individuals. The results were quoted many years later by a 1920 history book: [Link: History of South Carolina]. Click on the link. It takes you to page 799 of the book. Read the bottom paragraph from page 799 through page 809, and you may come away with a different understanding of what went on. Page 808 and 809 deal with "The Burning Cotton Myth," which counters the source you cited.

Here is some more detailed information about the role, if any, that cotton had in the burning of Columbia in an 1866 book by Dr. Daniel Hayward Trevezant in the following link: [ The Burning of Columbia, S. C., A Review of Northern Assertions and Southern Facts ].

That link points out that fires started essentially simultaneously in widely scattered different parts of the city east, west and south of the central city.

On page 801 of the History of South Carolina book linked to above, Sherman is reported to have said the following in Salem, Illinois, in July 1865 about a change in policy he made on his march to the sea. "Therefore, I resolved in a moment to stop the game of guarding their cities and to destroy their cities."

Somewhere in my posts of years ago, I cited where Sherman acknowledged to the mayor and others that his (Sherman’s) troops burned the town.

Sherman gave testimony in an 1873 English-American commission about what happened to Columbia. The complete text of the commission proceedings were published in the New York Times. Here is some of Sherman’s testimony:

Q. -- You testified, a little while ago, that it was very likely they [Sherman's own men] might burn Columbia, and you permitted them, or your officers did -- permitted them to go about the town?

A. -- I could have had them stay in the ranks, but I would not have done it, under the circumstances, to save Columbia.

Q. -- Although you knew they were likely to burn Columbia, you would not restrain them to their ranks, even to save it?

A. -- No, Sir. I would not have done such harshness to my soldiers to save the whole town. They were men, and I was not going to treat them like slaves. ...

And here is some more of his testimony dealing with the plundering of the city by his troops.

Q. -- I understand you to say that you saw no pillaging going on along Richardson or Main-street during the hours of daylight on the 17th.

A. -- I did not.

Q. -- Not anywhere else in Columbia during the hours of daylight?

A. -- No, Sir.

Q. -- You were not apprised of it in any way?

A. -- I was not.

Q. -- You were not aware that almost every store along Main-street was broken into by men in Federal uniform?

A. -- I was informed by the Mayor that Wade Hampton's cavalry had gone through the town and plundered their stores before we got there; The Mayor himself reported that to me.

Q.-- I asked you if you are aware of that these stores were plundered by men in Federal uniforms subsequently?

A. -- I do not know anything about the Federal uniform being used by the rebels.

Q. -- I did not ask about the rebels; I asked a very simple question and I want an answer?

A. -- I heard nothing about the plundering of stores by our men during the day of our first occupation of Columbia.

Q. -- And know nothing of it?

A. -- I know nothing of it personally or officially.

Q. -- Do you know anything of it in any way whatsoever, individually, privately, or in any way?

A. -- No, Sir; on the contrary, there was very good order in the city; I walked about the streets like everybody else that day, and saw nothing out of the way; ...

Contrast that with Simms’ 1865 account in "A City Laid Waste":”

Hardly had the [Union] troops reached the head of Main street, when the work of pillage was begun. Stores were broken open in the presence of thousands within the first hour of their arrival. The contents, when too cumbersome for the plunderers, were cast into the streets. Gold and silver, jewels and liquors, were eagerly sought. No attempt was made to arrest the burglars. The officers, soldiers, all, seemed to consider it a matter of course. And wo to him who carried a watch with gold chain pendant; or who wore a choice hat, or overcoat, or boots, or shoes. He was stripped by ready experts in the twinkling of an eye. It is computed that, from first to last, twelve hundred watches were transferred from the pockets of their owners to those of the robbers. Purses shared the same fate; nor was Confederate currency repudiated.

Sherman's troops had marched into town in an orderly fashion. Then when they were dismissed, wholesale robbery and plunder began and lasted the rest of the day and night. From Simms again:

Sherman, at the head of his cavalry, traversed the streets everywhere – so did his officers – yet they saw nothing to rebuke or restrain. Subsequently, these officers were everywhere on foot, yet beheld nothing which required the imposition of authority. Robbery was going on at every corner – in every house – yet there was no censure, no punishment.

Here is Union Captain George Whitfield Pepper (who was there with Sherman's troops in Columbia) in his 1866 book:

Next morning [rb: the morning after the fire], in company with this same officer, I started to visit the ruins. On our way we met crowds of soldiers, "who were yelling, singing, waving gold watches, handfuls of gold, jewelry, and rebel shinplasters [rb: paper money] in the air, and boasting of having burned the town." One was staggering under the weight of a huge basket filled high with silver plate.

...

A number of Jews were standing by, weeping and exclaiming: "Me poor, me starb, starb, starb. Your mens come in mine house, kicks me out, sets fire to mine house. Me carry topacey out on the street. Your mens puts wood on him and purns all mine topacey." [rb: spelling and grammar as in Pepper's book].

Here from a letter by Union Lieutenant Thomas Myers wrote from Camden, S.C. after the burning of Columbia posted long ago by PeaRidge:

"My dear wife, we have had a glorious time in this State. Unrestricted license to burn and plunder was the order of the day. Gold watches, silver pitchers, cups, spoons, forks, etc are as common as blackberries. The terms of plunder are as follows: Each company is required to exhibit the results of its operations at any given place, -one-fifth and first choice falls to the share of the commander-in-chief and staff, one-fifth to the corps commanders and staff, one-fifth to field officers of regiments, and two-fifths to the company."

Believe whatever you want, Bull Snipe.

[rustbucket]

Correction: I listed “topacey” as a word the Jews were saying. When I looked at the word with a magnifying class, it was clear that the word was “topaccy”. The second “c” was not an “e” like I thought it was in the sometimes hard to read reprinting of the 1866 book’s text.

[jeffersondem]

“So even if we agree (and I don’t) that states can just proclaim themselves independent countries at will, then actions taken before they made this claim are treason.”

The colonists may have fired the first shot in the First War for Independence. So what if they did? It does not invalidate the actions of the Free and Independent States (even though 13 of those states were slave states).

[jeffersondem]

“Lincoln never abolished slavery in states that remained loyal to the Union.”

Lincoln actually added a slave state to the union. I guess we can forever dismiss the notion that Lincoln “fought to free the slaves.”

This, despite loud claims by some, that “it was all about slavery.”