[Kalamata]

>>Kalamata wrote: "Who do we believe: the Confederates who were living in the nightmarish days of Lincoln, or Joey?"
>>Joey wrote: "Naw, you missed my point, again. Confederates calling Union actions a "declaration of war" began long before Lincoln was even inaugurated..."

Acts-of-war are acts-of-war, Joey. Major Anderson's dumb move was the first. The second was when Buchanan ordered the reinforcement and resupply of the Fort

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

>>Joey wrote: "As early as December 31, 1860, when President Buchanan responded to South Carolina's demands to surrender Fort Sumter, Buchanan's written response was, in effect, "no way Jose". The SC commissioners called that a declaration of war.

That was an act of war.

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

>>Joey wrote: "In February, Congress considered updating the 1807 Insurrection Act and some Southerners called that a declaration of war. And many claimed Lincoln's March 4 Inaugural Address was a declaration of war. Now we see from your quote that Jefferson Davis himself called Lincoln's post-Sumter actions a declaration of war. So it seems that some Confederates were seeing declarations of war behind every tree and under every rock long before Lincoln took office."

Acts-of-war are acts-of-war, Joey. Pretending those were peace initiatives will never alter that fact that they were threats against sovereign states.

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

>>Joey wrote: "Now, what's it called when you go around projecting your own fears onto others? That's right, it's called being a Democrat, a form of mental illness."

I will agree that Lincoln was a psychopath, and a true democrat. This fellow also believed that Lincoln was a true democrat:

"[I]n an instance of urgent necessity, an official of a democratic, constitutional state will be acting more faithfully to his oath of office if he breaks one law in order that the rest may operate unimpeded. This was a powerful and unique plea for the doctrine of paramount necessity. It established no definite rule for this or any other country, but it does serve as a superlative example of how a true democrat in power is likely to act when there is no other way for him to preserve the constitutional system which he has sworn to defend."

[Rossiter, Clinton, "Constitutional Dictatorship: Crisis Government in the Modern Democracies." Princeton University Press, 1948, pp.228-220]

That statement could just as easily apply to Hitler. Obviously, Rossiter, a devout Lincolnite, believed the deception that a constitutional system of government can be saved by destroying it, thus demonstrating that Rossiter, also, was a true democrat.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Joey speaks with a forked-tongue. With a little more practice he may qualify as a progressive lawyer."
>>Joey wrote: "That's just nonsense -- what Olive-boy uses whenever he's lost an argument."

It is not about winning or losing, Joey, but seeking the truth.

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

>>Joey wrote: "Regarding Lincoln's Inaugural promise to occupy Federal properties, on a second look at Lincoln's words, I notice now he said nothing about which properties he would occupy. Indeed, if Confederates really believed their own lies about property magically changing ownership just because some people declare themselves seceded, then Confederates would not have interpreted Lincoln's words as a threat at all, since Lincoln would not occupy their property, only the Federal government's."

That is misleading. Lincoln made it crystal clear in his inaugural that he rejected the constitutional authority of the states to secede, thus craftily reframing any resistance by them into “insurrection” and “rebellion,” rather than recognizing them as sovereign states. I cannot say this enough: Lincoln was a tyrant.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "...you appear to be correct about Fort Sumter. Several of my references mentioned Fort Sumter as a tax collection depot,"
>>Joey wrote: "Right, I've seen that same claim on these threads before, that somehow duties were being collected at Fort Sumter. In fact, in 1860 after 30 years of construction Sumter was still not finished and was not then used for anything."

The point is, Montgomery considered Sumter to be more secure than Moultrie, so he secretly relocated his troops there, committing an act of war.

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

>>Joey wrote: "More important, it's irrelevant exactly where Charleston's tariffs were collected and Lincoln had even considered a plan to collect them off-shore, before ships even entered the harbor."

That would also be an act of war.

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

>>Joey wrote: "But even more important, I'll repeat the fact that Charleston's tariff collections represented roughly one half of one percent of total tariff revenues and so that could not have been an important factor in Lincoln's thinking."

Lincoln considered free trade going through the ports of Charleston to be a serious threat to his crony Whig agenda.

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

>>Joey wrote: "And again, that's exactly what causes our FRiends like DiogenesLamp to concoct cockamamie conspiracy theories involving "money flows from Europe" and "Northeastern power brokers" who were somehow pulling Lincoln's strings, forcing him to do things for their reasons rather than any of the reasons Lincoln himself expressed."

Lincoln knew exactly what he was doing. He was a greedy, power-hungry crony capitalist for his entire professional and political life.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "That said, the collection of tariff revenue was a significant part of the narrative of those trying times."
>>Joey wrote: "Sure, Federal revenues then as now were always a matter of concern to many, but had nothing to do with Fort Sumter. Indeed, if you add up all tariff revenues from every Confederate port, including the huge one at New Orleans, they still come to only 4% of total Federal tariff revenues. Further, the last thing Congress did before adjourning on March 4, 1861 was vote to authorize the government to borrow several millions of dollars, enough in those days to keep things going smoothly for many months."

Again, Lincoln considered free trade going through the ports of Charleston to be a serious threat to his Whig agenda. This is a part of conversation between Lincoln and Colonel Baldwin, a Virginia delegate, prior to Virginia's secession:

"Lincoln seemed impressed by his solemnity, and asked a few questions: "But what am I to do meantime with those men at Montgomery? Am I to let them go on?'' "Yes, sir." replied Colonel Baldwin, decisively, "until they can be peaceably brought back." "And open Charleston, etc.. as ports of entry, with their ten per cent, tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?"

"This last question he announced with such emphasis, as showed that in his view it [the tariff] decided the whole matter. He then indicated that the interview was at an end, and dismissed Colonel Baldwin, without promising anything more definite."

[C. R. Vaughn, "Discussions by Robert L. Dabney Vol IV - Secular." Crescent Book House, 1890, pp.93-94]

From the same conversation:

"You have been President a month to-day, and if you intended to hold that position you ought to have strengthened it, so as to make it impregnable. To hold it in the present condition of force there is an invitation to assault. Go upon higher ground than that. The better ground than that is to make a concession of an asserted right in the interest of peace."

"Well," said he, "what about the revenue? What would I do about the collection of duties?" Said I, "Sir, how much do you expect to collect in a year?" Said he, ''Fifty or sixty millions." "Why, sir," said I, "four times sixty is two hundred and forty. Say $250,000,000 would be the revenue of your term of the presidency; what is that but a drop in the bucket compared with the cost of such a war as we are threatened with? Let it all go, if necessary; but I do not believe that it will be necessary, because I believe that you can settle it on the basis I suggest,"

[Baldwin, John Brown, "Interview between President Lincoln and Col. John B. Baldwin, April 4th 1861 - statements and evidence." 1866, pp.13-14]

The bottom line is, the South was for peace, but Lincoln was for war. That reminds me of this scripture:

"My soul hath long dwelt with him that hateth peace. I am for peace: but when I speak, they are for war." -- Ps 120:6-7 KJV

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

>>Joey wrote: "So money was not the immediate issue at Fort Sumter, but rather it was more a matter of national honor and potential strategic advantages."

Blah, blah, blah . . .

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Buchanan was a little better versed than Lincoln on the construction of the Constitution, but not by much."
>>Joey wrote: "I disagree with Buchanan's analysis. In fact, the 1807 Insurrection Act (signed by President Jefferson) provided the authority President Lincoln used: >>Joey quoting: "Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion."

Name-dropping Jefferson is a political trick typically used by progressives, like Joey. The legal document called the Constitution states, by omission, that when states exercise their constitutional authority to secede, they are no longer States or Territories of the Union, but sovereign states – or sovereign nations. If the constructors of the Constitution had intended the states to lose their sovereignty upon ratification, it would have explicitly said so within the powers authorized to the general government in Article I, Section 8, or, negatively, in the prohibited powers of Article I, Section 9. Jefferson not only understood that fact, but enshrined the right of the states to secede from the Union in his legacy works and writings, many times.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Lost Causers? LOL!"
>>Joey wrote: "I've used the terms "pro-Confederate" and "Lost Causers" more or less interchangeably without much push-back on either."

The term would be accurate if it were renamed to "Lost Constitutioners".

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "I have read similar economically-illiterate statements to yours from other "Burners and Pillagers," and I must declare that I am astonished! This is Economics101, Joey. Read carefully: Where, and by whom, tariffs are collected has nothing to do with who benefits from them or who is harmed by them...."
>>Joey wrote: "Sure, I'm not disputing some of that, but merely noting that some pro-Confederates tell us Lincoln "invaded" Charleston harbor in order to collect it's tariff revenues! And I'm saying factually, that's just nonsense."

You cannot hide Lincoln words by pretending they don't say what they say.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "The Southern states were mostly consumers of the protected items, so they were harmed by the tariffs. Rightly, they saw the tariffs as a method of redistribution-of-wealth "
>>Joey wrote: "Actually, Southern products were also protected by tariffs, especially the big ones: cotton and sugar. So every region -- North, East, West and South -- both benefitted from and paid for import tariffs."

You are confused, Joey. Raw cotton was an export. The constitution disallowed duties on exports:

"Article I, Section 9 - Limits on Congress: No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."

You must be thinking of duties on finished cotton goods, such as shirts, dresses, etc.., which would cause everyone to pay more. Cotton growers were hurt mostly by: 1) reciprocal tariffs placed by foreign trading partners, which lowered their incomes, and 2) higher prices for imported items. It is simple economics, Joey.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Regarding revenue, Lincoln said this: "And whereas, since that date, public property of the United States [Fort Sumter] has been seized, the collection of the revenue obstructed, and duly commissioned officers of the United States, while engaged in executing the orders of their superiors, have been arrested and held in custody as prisoners..."
>>Joey wrote: "Sure, Charleston tariff revenues were part of the mix, but they were not, all by themselves (as some posters here like to claim), an existential threat the republic."

As aforementioned (several times,) free trade through southern ports would have destroyed the Lincoln's crony-capitalistic schemes. Every northern manufacturer and newspaper of those days knew and understood that. You can find many reports like this aforementioned one:

"It does not require extraordinary sagacity to perceive that trade is perhaps the controlling motive operating to prevent the return of the seceding States to the Union, which they have abandoned. Alleged grievances in regard to slavery were originally the causes for the separation of the cotton States; but the mask has been thrown off, and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding States are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports. The merchants of New Orleans, Charleston and Savannah are possessed with the idea that New York, Boston and Philadelphia may be shorn, in the future, of their mercantile greatness, by a revenue system verging upon free trade. If the Southern Confederation is allowed to carry out a policy by which only a nominal duty is laid upon imports, no doubt the business of the chief Northern cities will be seriously injured thereby.

"The difference is so great between the tariff of the Union and that of the Confederated States, that the entire Northwest must find it to their advantage to purchase their imported goods at New Orleans rather than at New York. In addition to this, the manufacturing interest of the country will suffer from the increased importations resulting from low duties.... The... [government] would be false to all its obligations, if this state of things were not provided against."

[Boston Transcript, March 18, 1861, in Stampp, Kenneth M., "The Causes of the Civil War." 1986, p.69-70]

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "This conversation on the eve-of-the-war between a Virginia delegate and Lincoln reveals Lincoln's passionate concern about revenue collection:" [John Brown Baldwin, "Interview between President Lincoln and Col. John B. Baldwin, April 4th 1861 - statements and evidence." 1866, p.13-14] >>Joey wrote: "Again recorded many years after the fact with very clear 20-20 hindsight. The truth is that nobody in 1861 had any real idea what all the potential for war might imply."

Yeah, everyone who doesn't kiss Lincoln's ring is a liar. I get it . . .

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

>>Kalamata quoting: "Alleged grievances in regard to slavery were originally the causes for the separation of the cotton states; but the mask has been thrown off, and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence." [Boston Transcript, March 18, 1861, in Kenneth M. Stampp, "The Causes of the Civil War." 1986, p.69]
>>Joey wrote: "Right, notice the wording, "alleged grievances in regard to slavery" meaning the Boston Transcript does not think those grievances were either real or serious. But those are in fact the grievances Southern elites used to sell secession to the majority of Deep South voters. To those voters the reasons were both real and serious. Now we might also ask, did Deep South elites themselves also believe in their alleged grievances, or was it strictly cynical voter manipulation?"

I mentioned that in one of my earlier posts on this thread, but it didn't go over very well. The secession was for economic reasons, no matter how it is spun.

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

>>Joey wrote: "I think the clear answer is "yes, they were sincere at the time." Their first & foremost priority was protecting slavery against a President and Congress which were for the first time in history openly and blatantly hostile to slavery. That's what they said at the time."

That is not all that was said, Joey. Recall that Senator Toombs labeled the Morrill Tariff a "raid against the South":

"It is true... that the present tariff was sustained by an almost unanimous vote of the South; but it was a reduction— a reduction necessary from the plethora of the revenue; but the policy of the North soon made it inadequate to meet the public expenditure, by an enormous and profligate increase of the public expenditure; and at the last session of Congress they brought in and passed through the House the most atrocious tariff bill that ever was enacted, raising the present duties from twenty to two hundred and fifty per cent above the existing rates of duty. That bill now lies on the table of the Senate. It was a master stroke of abolition policy; it united cupidity to fanaticism, and thereby made a combination which has swept the country. There were thousands of protectionists in Pennsylvania, New-Jersey, New-York, and in New-England, who were not abolitionists. There were thousands of abolitionists who were free traders. The mongers brought them together upon a mutual surrender of their principles. The free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the pon-abolition protectionists became abolitionists. The result of this coalition was the infamous Morrill bill—the robber and the incendiary struck hands, and united in joint raid against the South. Thus stands the account between the North and the South. Under its ordinary and most favorable action, bounties and protection to every interest and every pursuit in the North, to the extent of at least fifty millions per annum, besides the expenditure of at least sixty millions out of every seventy of the public expenditure among them, thus making the treasury a perpetual fertilizing stream to them and their industry, and a suction-pump to drain away our substance and parch up our lands."

[Senator Robert Toombs, speech before Georgia legislature on the Morrill Tariff, November, 1860, in Stampp, Kenneth M., "The Causes of the Civil War." 1986, pp.64-65]

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

>>Joey wrote: "After that, then, as a consequence of protecting slavery the result was everything else followed, summed up by the Boston Transcript's term, "commercial independence."

Actually, I believe the newspaper said that slavery was merely a "mask," and that trade was "the controlling motive." You are aware that some Northern newspapers were calling for a blockade of the South to prevent free trade, are you not?

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

>>Kalamata quoting: "The merchants of New Orleans, Charleston and Savannah are possessed with the idea that New York, Boston, and Philadelphia may be shorn, in the future, of their mercantile greatness, by a revenue system verging on free trade."
>>Joey wrote: "This is pure hyperbole, however often repeated by Northerners, in fact Confederates never seriously considered "free trade".

No, that would have been an economic reality under a non-protective tariff authorized by the Confederate Constitution. They were not arm-chair historians, Joey: they were living it.

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

>>Joey wrote: "What they wanted in March 1861 instead was to redirect tariff revenues from Washington to Montgomery. How much was that? Including New Orleans, about $2 . 5 million of the $52 million total Federal tariff revenues = ~4%. Confederates also hoped to tariff "imports" from Union states which could add another $20 million per year for Montgomery."

That is stupendously simple-minded, Joey. Duty-free (or duty-light) imports would come through Southern ports. The South and Territories would no longer be subject to the high prices of protected Northern goods.

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

>>Kalamata still quoting: "The difference is so great between the tariff of the Union and that of the Confederate States that the entire Northwest must find it to their advantage to purchase their imported goods at New Orleans rather than New York."
>>Joey wrote: "And that is absolute complete nonsense, so far off the mark that we can only hope the Boston Transcript did not really believe its own lies. The best we might say is that here the Transcript exaggerates the "threat" of Confederate free trade just as much as Fire Eaters exaggerated Lincoln's "threat" to their slavery."

Joey never ceases to amaze me at his inability to grasp simple economics. This is another article from those trying times:

"One of the most important benefits which the Federal Government has conferred upon the nation is unrestricted trade between many prosperous States with divers productions and industrial pursuits. But now, since the Montgomery [Confederate] Congress has passed a new tariff, and duties are exacted upon Northern goods sent to ports in the Cotton States, the traffic between the two sections will be materially decreased.... Another, and a more serious difficulty arises out of our foreign commerce, and the different rates of duty established by the two tariffs which will soon be in force.."

"The General Government,... to prevent the serious diminution of its revenues, will be compelled to blockade the Southern ports... and prevent the importation of foreign goods into them, or to put another expensive guard upon the frontiers to prevent smuggling into the Union States. Even if the independence of the seceding Commonwealths should be recognized, and two distinct nations thus established, we should still experience all the vexations, and be subjected to all the expenses and annoyances which the people of Europe have long suffered, on account of their numerous Governments, and many inland lines of custom-houses. Thus, trade of all kinds, which has already been seriously crippled would be permanently embarrassed..."

"It is easy for men to deride and underestimate the value of the Union, but its destruction would speedily be followed by fearful proofs of its importance to the whole American people."

[Ibid. Philadelphia Press, p.69]

Blockading ports is considered an act of war.

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

>>Joey wrote: "What we can say is that, absent war, Confederate tariffs & taxes would certainly change trading patterns to some degree, but it would have been orders of magnitude less change than actually experienced during the Civil War."

The truth is, one way or another -- either by war or crony-capitalism -- the "republicans" would have plundered the South.

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

>>Kalamata still quoting: "In addition to this, the manufacturing interests of the country will suffer from the increased importation resulting from low duties.... The [government] would be false to its obligations if this state of things were not provided against."
>>Joey wrote: "Notice again that the Transcript does not call for war or invasion or any other violence, but only that Washington take presumably reasonable steps in response."

How simple-minded can one get?

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "The highlighted statement should read, "the cause of Lincoln and his crony-capitalist friends" was advanced. "
>>Joey wrote: "Your insane obsession with "crony capitalism" is noted and dismissed as nothing more than the rantings of feeble mind unaccustomed to dealing with reality."

Lincoln was always a devout crony-capitalist, Joey, from the days of the $12 million "internal-improvements" boondoggle in 1837 (that saddled Illinois with "brilliant schemes" and a mountain of debt,) right up until his death. Illinois amended its state constitution in 1848 to prohibit public financing of private industry, but too late to escape the graft and ambition of the "De Witt Clinton of Illinois," Abraham Lincoln.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "Lincoln's advancement of the war was the way for him and his cronies to break the shackles of the Constitution -- the shackles that have always irritated greedy, power-hungry men, like Lincoln."
>>Joey wrote: "There's no evidence -- none -- that Lincoln intended before 1861 to break any "shackles", not even slavery's shackles, and plenty of evidence that he did his best to win the war while remaining within Constitutional limits."

I can see how you might think that way, since you, like Lincoln, believe in a Living Constitution. But it was common knowledge of those days, as well as common sense, that the Constitution was a barrier to the implementation of the Whig economic agenda, which was Lincoln's economic agenda. Neely noticed:

"In the 1840s, Lincoln appeared to be marching steadily toward a position of gruff and belittling impatience with constitutional arguments against the beleaguered Whig program."

[Mark E. Neely Jr., "The Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties." Oxford University Press, 1992, p.212]

When the Whig party died, its economic was adopted by the Lincoln "republican" party. Its progressive concept of "implied powers" (that is, "If I imply it," it magically becomes an authorized power) was pretty much enshrined into law by Lincoln's usurpations. I am simply a voice crying in the wilderness, Joey.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "That was Lincoln's War, Joey, and the extermination was strictly a one-sided operation by Lincoln's "Burners and Pillagers.""
>>Joey wrote: "Extermination" was Jefferson Davis' word, not Lincoln's, and Davis used it famously at least twice - first just after Fort Sumter in declaring a "war of extermination on both sides" and then again near the war's end:

You are ignorant of, or avoiding, Lincoln's total war on civilians, Joey. When Sherman and Sheridan were finished impoverishing and making homeless both white and black civilians in the South, for generations to come, they turned their "racial justice" on the Plains Indians to make room for another great, crony-capitalist boondoggle, the Transcontinental Railroad (more appropriately called the Zig-Zag Railroad.)

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

>>Joey wrote: "See I seriously doubt if a person like Kalamata can become this insane in old age if he didn't first learn it as a youth. I suspect Lincoln-loathing (or something closely related) was in his heart from the beginning, perhaps suppressed as a younger man, but now released to enflame & consume his entire brain."

I am simply defending the Constitution, Joey, against progressives like you. Speaking of insane, you have to be insane to believe a living constitution is worth more than wet toilet paper.

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

>>Kalamata wrote: "No doubt Lincoln's flip-flop discussions of slavery were strictly politics. On the other hand, his desire for white-separatism, fiat currency, crony "internal improvement" ventures, and a high protective tariff for the politically-connected, was his religion."
>>Joey wrote: "And here our new FRiend, Olive-boy, abandons any pretense of sanity he previously maintained in favor of stark, raving, froth-at-the-mouth lunacy."

Your love affair with a blood-thirsty tyrant cannot be healthy, Child.

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

>>Joey wrote: "So I'll repeat: I don't think you can suddenly learn that degree of nuttiness as an old man unless it was already in you, perhaps long suppressed, from childhood."

Ignorant Child.

Mr. Kalamata

[OIFVeteran]

what do you think James Madison, the father of the constitution meant when he wrote this;

From James Madison to Alexander Hamilton

N. York Sunday Evening [20 July 1788]

My Dear Sir

Yours of yesterday is this instant come to hand & I have but a few minutes to answer it. I am sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to propositions of the nature you describe. My opinion is that a reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not decided on under the form of the Constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification, that it does not make N. York a member of the New Union, and consequently that she could not be received on that plan. Compacts must be reciprocal, this principle would not in such a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must viciate the ratification. What the New Congress by virtue of the power to admit new States, may be able & disposed to do in such case, I do not enquire as I suppose that is not the material point at present. I have not a moment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success & happiness.

James Madison

[DoodleDawg]

The point is, Montgomery considered Sumter to be more secure than Moultrie, so he secretly relocated his troops there, committing an act of war.

Leaving aside for a moment your unfamiliarity of Confederate history, even had South Carolina been an independent country at the time Anderson moved his troops from one fort to another both of them were the property of the U.S. government. Why was moving an act of war?

Kalamata wrote: "...you appear to be correct about Fort Sumter. Several of my references mentioned Fort Sumter as a tax collection depot,"

Once again we see that you will easily believe anything no matter how ridiculous if it fits your agenda. Stop and think for a change. Sumter is on an island in the middle of Charleston harbor. The wharves where the goods are landed are a miles away on the mainland. How does Fort Sumter collect tariffs when it is nowhere near where the goods are landed? And if Fort Sumter was the tariff collection point then what was the purpose of the Customs House on East Bay Street, right where the wharves were?

Lincoln considered free trade going through the ports of Charleston to be a serious threat to his crony Whig agenda.

Why? Say for the sake of argument that the Southern secession was legal and the Confederacy became a sovereign nation. What difference would it have made for the U.S. what the Confederate tariffs were? What was the impact? And please don't post newspaper editorial after newspaper editorial after newspaper editorial. Facts please. Why do you think it mattered?

This is a part of conversation between Lincoln and Colonel Baldwin, a Virginia delegate, prior to Virginia's secession:

But that conversation was not recorded until April 1865. Far be it from me to suggest that there might be more than a touch of loser revisionism in Dabney's account of his conversation with Baldwin but it isn't like it was an extemporaneous account of the meeting.

The term would be accurate if it were renamed to "Lost Constitutioners".

I always find it amusing when Lost Causers accuse Lincoln of ignoring the Constitution and yet will bend themselves all out of shape to justify Davis' infractions.

Cotton growers were hurt mostly by: 1) reciprocal tariffs placed by foreign trading partners, which lowered their incomes, and 2) higher prices for imported items. It is simple economics, Joey.

Fair enough if true. Great Britain was by far the largest importer of raw cotton so any harm from reciprocal tariffs would have to be there. What was the tariff they placed on U.S. cotton imports? And what did the South import from overseas in large enough quantities that the tariff harmed them so much?

Yeah, everyone who doesn't kiss Lincoln's ring is a liar. I get it . . .

And everyone who questions your crap is a Lincoln apoligist and a liar, too. I get that as well.

That is stupendously simple-minded, Joey. Duty-free (or duty-light) imports would come through Southern ports.

How? What difference would it make if the Confederacy had a zero tariff and goods landed in Charleston? Once they passed to the U.S. they would pay the same tariff that they would pay if they went directly to New York would they not?

No, that would have been an economic reality under a non-protective tariff authorized by the Confederate Constitution.

You say that as if abiding by their constitution was of interest to Davis and the Confederate congress.

Blockading ports is considered an act of war.

Not if they're your own ports.

[OIFVeteran]

While your still pondering what Madison meant in that letter maybe you can help me figure out what some of the other founding fathers meant by these statements. Thanks for your help!

“There are four things, which I humbly conceive, are essential to the well being, I may even venture to say, to the existence of the United States as an Independent Power:

1st. An indissoluble Union of the States under one Federal Head.

“That there must be a faithfull and pointed compliance on the part of every State, with the late proposals and demands of Congress, or the most fatal consequences will ensue, That whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the Sovereign Authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the Liberty and Independency of America, and the Authors of them treated accordingly”

Both quotes from Washington’s Circular Farewell Letter to the Army 1783

Alexander Hamilton: “Let the thirteen States, bound together in a strict and indissoluble Union, concur in erecting one great American system” Federalist 11

Charles Cotesworth Pinckney at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention, 1788. On the indivisibility of the United States, Pinckney said:

Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses.

[DiogenesLamp]

"Well," said he, "what about the revenue? What would I do about the collection of duties?" Said I, "Sir, how much do you expect to collect in a year?" Said he, ''Fifty or sixty millions." "Why, sir," said I, "four times sixty is two hundred and forty. Say $250,000,000 would be the revenue of your term of the presidency; what is that but a drop in the bucket compared with the cost of such a war as we are threatened with? Let it all go, if necessary; but I do not believe that it will be necessary, because I believe that you can settle it on the basis I suggest,"

What Colonel Baldwin didn't realize is the lost revenue to the US Treasury was just one part of it. The bigger threat in Lincoln's mind was the undermining of all his Crony Capitalist business buddies back in New York. With low tariff trade in the South, their markets all along the border and in the Midwest were under severe threat from European goods displacing them. Without that protective tariff holding up their businesses, they would be economically destroyed.

The financial disaster to the Federal government is one thing, but the destruction of these men of power's businesses was quite another. They were Lincoln's backers, and if he didn't protect their financial interests, he would not only lose the presidency and thereafter be poor, he would be humiliated.

People never stop to think how Southern low tariff trade represented a massive economic threat to the power brokers in the North.

The War was about their money more so than about lost Federal revenues.

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata's post #547 is quite lengthy, so I'll split it up into pieces, this being the first of them.

Kalamata: "Acts-of-war are acts-of-war, Joey.
Major Anderson's dumb move was the first.
The second was when Buchanan ordered the reinforcement and resupply of the Fort"

Right, Danny-child, you insane Democrats, then as now, were calling every defense of America "illegal", "impeachable", "acts of war", etc., etc.
When it comes to hating America, Democrats were just as rabid in 1860 as you are today.

Kalamata on Buchanan's refusal to surrender Fort Sumter: "That was an act of war."

Right, in your insane Democrat mindset, any actions in defense of the USA are "acts of war" or "impeachable offenses" or "illegal measures" against... well, in those days against secessionist states, these days against sanctuary states, among others.

Kalamata: "Acts-of-war are acts-of-war, Joey.
Pretending those were peace initiatives will never alter that fact that they were threats against sovereign states."

Only in the minds of insane Democrats.

Kalamata: "I will agree that Lincoln was a psychopath, and a true democrat."

Sorry, FRiend, but as Jeremiah 13:23 reminds us, the tiger doesn't change its stripes, a leopard doesn't change its spots and you Democrats have been the same forever.
So today you don't get to project your own behaviors onto Republicans like a Lincoln or Trump.

Kalamata: "This fellow also believed that Lincoln was a true democrat:

"[I]n an instance of urgent necessity, an official of a democratic, constitutional state will be acting more faithfully to his oath of office if he breaks one law in order that the rest may operate unimpeded... "
[Rossiter, Clinton, "Constitutional Dictatorship: Crisis Government in the Modern Democracies."
Princeton University Press, 1948, pp.228-220]

Well... First: every President has responded to some emergency or opportunity not previously contemplated, for example, President Jefferson himself said his Louisiana Purchase was not constitutional.
In every case Congress & courts responded by either accepting the President's actions, adjusting laws accordingly, or strengthening laws to prevent future similar actions.

In Lincoln's case, all of his actions were ultimately accepted by both Congress and the Supreme Court.

You Democrats of course, then as now, went berserk seeing a strong Republican strongly defending our nation.
As Solomon tells us (Eccl 1:9-14): and so there is nothing new under the sun.

Kalamata: "That statement could just as easily apply to Hitler.
Obviously, Rossiter, a devout Lincolnite, believed the deception that a constitutional system of government can be saved by destroying it, thus demonstrating that Rossiter, also, was a true democrat."

You know, FRiend, by long-standing Free Republic rules, when you throw out the "Hitler card" it means you've lost the argument and are effectively surrendering abjectly.

And... Second, every word like "democrat", "republican", "liberal" or "conservative" has somewhat different upper case and lower case definitions.
For example, a "liberal" in Jefferson's time referred to people like Jefferson, who named his own political party "Democratic Republicans" -- Jefferson himself saw no irony or conflict in putting those two words together.
In that sense, we are all democrats and republicans.

But the Upper-Case Democrat party is a very different creature, from its beginning in Jefferson's time representing a set of political & operational pathologies which have occasionally benefitted our nation, but more often proved catastrophic to it, the chief example being Civil War.
These pathologies can be summarized under terms like, "anti-Federalism", "nullification", "slavery", "secession", "rebellion", "Black Codes", "segregation", "KKK terrorism", "mass internments", "welfare state" and now "sanctuary cities", "open borders", "anti-law enforcement", etc.
And the central theme which unites all these Democrat pathologies is the use of government to enforce special privileges for Democrat voters, be they the old-time slaveholders or today's welfare plantations.

So what drives you Democrats berserk beyond reason is seeing such special privileges withdrawn and/or given to others who are not your faithful voter base.
It's why you Democrats declared secession in 1860 and impeachment in 2019.

Kalamata: "It is not about winning or losing, Joey, but seeking the truth."

But, Danny-child, you've never "sought the truth", only so much of it as can be twisted to support your own pro-Confederate allegiances.
That's why you lose.

This is enough for now, will continue later...

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata's post #547, continued #2...

Kalamata: "...Lincoln made it crystal clear in his inaugural that he rejected the constitutional authority of the states to secede, thus craftily reframing any resistance by them into “insurrection” and “rebellion,” rather than recognizing them as sovereign states.
I cannot say this enough: Lincoln was a tyrant."

You can say that all you want -- like any Democrat propagandist you believe that repeating your lies often enough will somehow make them true -- but your lies are still lies regardless.

Because, not only Lincoln, but also Democrat President Buchanan rejected secession's claim to constitutional legitimacy, as did many others in states outside the original Deep South Seven.

Further, armed resistance to lawful authority is the very definition of "insurrection" and "rebellion".
So Lincoln invented nothing new.
The only question in 1861 was: had such armed resistance happened?
Before Fort Sumter most Unionists said, "no", afterwards most said, "yes".

Kalamata: "The point is, Montgomery considered Sumter to be more secure than Moultrie, so he secretly relocated his troops there, committing an act of war."

I see your one-time "senior moment" has now evolved into "stuck on stupid" -- unless by "Montgomery" you refer to Davis' capital in Alabama, you meant to say: Union Maj. Anderson.

As for the alleged "act of war", that's just you insane Democrats going berserk as usual.

Kalamata on collecting tariffs off-shore: "That would also be an act of war."

In the minds of insane Democrats, the same people who now tell us asking for investigations of crooked Democrats is impeachable!

Kalamata: "Lincoln considered free trade going through the ports of Charleston to be a serious threat to his crony Whig agenda."

Some Northerners, not Lincoln, expressed such fears, but it was a fantasy since Confederates never even considered adopting "free trade".
Their original tariffs were basically the old Union tariffs of 1857 -- nothing "free trade" about that.

Kalamata: "Lincoln knew exactly what he was doing.
He was a greedy, power-hungry crony capitalist for his entire professional and political life."

Only according to the same insane Democrats who tell us the same sort of things about every real Republican president, including our current one!

Kalamata: "Again, Lincoln considered free trade going through the ports of Charleston to be a serious threat to his Whig agenda.
This is a part of conversation between Lincoln and Colonel Baldwin, a Virginia delegate, prior to Virginia's secession:"

Once again, that post-war quote from Confederate Congressman & Col. Baldwin is totally bogus, made-up long after the fact and corroborated by nobody at the time.

And now my time is up again, will return later...

[BroJoeK]

Continuing on Kalamata's post #547, #3.

Kalamata: "The bottom line is, the South was for peace, but Lincoln was for war.
That reminds me of this scripture:"

Confederates began provoking war in December 1860, eventually seizing dozens of Federal properties -- forts, ships, arsenals, mints, etc. -- threatening Union officials and firing on Union ships.
At the same time they began preparing to start war at Fort Sumter, in the event Maj. Anderson didn't surrender soon enough.
Simultaneously, Jefferson Davis ordered Confederate General Bragg to start war at Fort Pickens, Pensacola.

Kalamata: "Blah, blah, blah . . ."

Right, just as you Democrats think you can impeach our President by throwing words at him like "Quid Pro Quo" and "personal benefit", so our old-time Pro-Confederate Democrats hope to re-assassinate President Lincoln with words like "tyrant" and "crony capitalist".

Kalamata: "Name-dropping Jefferson is a political trick typically used by progressives, like Joey."

Our Danny-child is unashamed to hijack Jefferson for his own nefarious purposes, but goes all postal when Jefferson is shown to oppose pro-Confederates.

Kalamata: "The legal document called the Constitution states, by omission, that when states exercise their constitutional authority to secede, they are no longer States or Territories of the Union, but sovereign states – or sovereign nations."

And by that same spirit of "omission" the Constitution clearly states that Danny-child Kalamata and his fellow pro-Confederates are absolute blithering idiots!
See... anybody can play that "omission" game, fool.

Kalamata: "If the constructors of the Constitution had intended the states to lose their sovereignty upon ratification, it would have explicitly said so within the powers authorized to the general government in Article I, Section 8, or, negatively, in the prohibited powers of Article I, Section 9. "

Rubbish.
Our Founders in 1776 considered their Union "perpetual" and nothing in the 1787 Constitution changed that.
So every Founder believed disunion could only come through mutual consent (as in 1787) or through necessity (as in 1776).
No Founder ever supported unilateral declaration of secession at pleasure.
The recognized Father of the Constitution, James Madison, explained exactly why, here.

Kalamata: "Jefferson not only understood that fact, but enshrined the right of the states to secede from the Union in his legacy works and writings, many times."

Every Founding President, including Jefferson, faced threats of rebellion, insurrection, secession & treason.
In President Jefferson's case, he had the secessionist (Aaron Burr) hunted down & arrested by the US Army and tried for treason.
No Founder ever supported unilateral unapproved secession, at pleasure.

Kalamata on the term "Lost Causers": "The term would be accurate if it were renamed to "Lost Constitutioners"."

I prefer the term "Lost & Confused Fantasizers", but "Lost Cause" is OK for short.

Kalamata: "You cannot hide Lincoln words by pretending they don't say what they say."

Danny-child, you cannot change Lincoln's words by pretending they say something he never intended.

Kalamata: "You are confused, Joey.
Raw cotton was an export.
The constitution disallowed duties on exports:"

Sorry, Danny-child, but you are the one lost & confused here because cotton was not just the US's #1 export, it was also our #3 tariffed import!
Cotton import revenues ranked behind only Woolens and Brown Sugar in dollar volumes and was imported to supply New England cotton mills, clothiers & garment makers.

So imported cotton was tariffed, as was sugar, tobacco and every other Southern export.
It's why the political issue was: some Southerners wanted to maintain high tariffs on their own exports, while reducing tariffs on foreign products they wanted to import.
Here is a listing of the 1860 top ten import tariff items:

Commodity	1860 tariff $
Woolens	8,155,000
Brown Sugar	7,430,000
Cotton	6,500,000
Silks	5,589,000
Iron & Iron mfg	4,458,000
Coffee	3,962,000
Molasses	1,800,000
Flax & Hemp	1,728,000
Tea	1,339,000
Wines	1,134,000

Kalamata: "You must be thinking of duties on finished cotton goods, such as shirts, dresses, etc.., which would cause everyone to pay more.
Cotton growers were hurt mostly by: 1) reciprocal tariffs placed by foreign trading partners, which lowered their incomes, and 2) higher prices for imported items.
It is simple economics, Joey."

First, notice 1860 Southern textile manufacturers in Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia & Maryland.

So obviously such economics are not simple enough for your mind, Danny-child.
But this should be simple enough: every item exported by Southerners was protected by tariffs on imports of such products from foreign countries.
The simple purpose of all such tariffs was to encourage Americans to buy American -- in our language, to make America great by putting Americans first.

Kalamata: "As aforementioned (several times,) free trade through southern ports would have destroyed the Lincoln's crony-capitalistic schemes."

But there was never "free trade" even contemplated by Confederates, so somebody was panic rapid-breathing over their own fantasms.

Kalamata quoting a Northern newspaper: "...The difference is so great between the tariff of the Union and that of the Confederated States, that the entire Northwest must find it to their advantage to purchase their imported goods at New Orleans rather than at New York...."

That's totally bogus, since importing through New Orleans would require paying two tariffs which, regardless of how much lower Confederates set theirs, would still be more than just the single tariff paid in, say, New York.

Kalamata: "The... [government] would be false to all its obligations, if this state of things were not provided against."

Right, like making sure there were customs houses along the Mississippi River and any railroads connecting North to South.
There is no suggestion here that war is the only solution to their economic concerns.

Kalamata: "Yeah, everyone who doesn't kiss Lincoln's ring is a liar. I get it . . ."

No, not every former Confederate official was a liar, some honest Confederates have been quoted in these threads.
But many former Confederates were big liars, as are all of our current Lost Causers.
Remember, Confederates were Democrats and Democrats are all about their Big Lies, Danny-child.

Kalamata: "I mentioned that in one of my earlier posts on this thread, but it didn't go over very well.
The secession was for economic reasons, no matter how it is spun."

Certainly, the economics of slavery, as secessionists themselves proudly proclaimed:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery -- the greatest material interest of the world.
Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.
These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.
These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.
That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation.
There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove...."

Those old slavers were unashamed to tell the whole world who they were and why they seceded.
They would mock you modern-day Lost Causers as wimps & weaklings for your shameless pretenses otherwise.

Kalamata on slavery: "That is not all that was said, Joey.
Recall that Senator Toombs labeled the Morrill Tariff a "raid against the South":

"It is true... that the present tariff was sustained by an almost unanimous vote of the South; but it was a reduction — a reduction necessary from the plethora of the revenue..."

Notice first that Georgia Democrat Senator Toombs here admits that Southerners supported the 1857 Tariff, because it was a reduction from the 1846 Walker Tariff.
He does not say that Southerners also supported the 1846 Walker Tariff.

Kalamata quoting Toombs: "...but the policy of the North soon made it inadequate to meet the public expenditure, by an enormous and profligate increase of the public expenditure;"

It's true, as Toombs implies, that Federal revenues & spending doubled between, say 1850 and 1860.
And national debt, while being reduced by half from 1850 to 1856 then doubled again by 1860.
Now, if you ask, where did most of that Federal money go to, the answer is: most went into increased military spending, including the Mormon Rebellion in Utah, the 1858 Paraguay Naval Expedition and in support of Secretary of War Jefferson Davis' deployment of Col. Robert E. Lee & other luminaries to the Texas frontier to battle against "Indian Savages" and "Mexican Banditti".

What Georgia Democrat Senator Toombs doesn't say is that all of this spending was under the absolute iron-fisted control of his fellow Southern Democrats, not "Northerners" and certainly not Black Republicans.

What, you ask, did Democrats lie and blame-shift?
Of course, that's the core essence of what it means to be a Democrat.

Kalamata quoting Toombs: "...and at the last session of Congress they brought in and passed through the House the most atrocious tariff bill that ever was enacted, raising the present duties from twenty to two hundred and fifty per cent above the existing rates of duty.
That bill now lies on the table of the Senate."

First, that Morrill Tariff was defeated by Southerners in 1860 and would have been defeated again in early 1861 had Southerners not seceded.
Second, possibly some rates did increase as much as Toombs claimed, but the major items simply returned to their levels of 1846, levels Southerners were happy to accept at the time and should never have been just-cause for secession in 1860.

Kalamata quoting Toombs: "It was a master stroke of abolition policy; it united cupidity to fanaticism, and thereby made a combination which has swept the country.
There were thousands of protectionists in Pennsylvania, New-Jersey, New-York, and in New-England, who were not abolitionists.
There were thousands of abolitionists who were free traders.
The mongers brought them together upon a mutual surrender of their principles.
The free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the non-abolition protectionists became abolitionists.
The result of this coalition was the infamous Morrill bill — the robber and the incendiary struck hands, and united in joint raid against the South."

Let's be honest -- it is very seldom in United States history when us stupid Republicans have outsmarted evil Democrats at their own political games, and whenever we do, Democrats howl like mad-dogs, squeal like stuck pigs, and threaten everything in the book, from secession & assassination to impeachment.
Democrats have always played for blood -- "fairly" if they can, but however unfairly if they must.

So here in November 1860 Toombs complains that Republicans got the better of Democrats, but paints it in terms of typical Democrat hyperboles.

Kalamata quoting Toombs: "Under its ordinary and most favorable action, bounties and protection to every interest and every pursuit in the North, to the extent of at least fifty millions per annum, besides the expenditure of at least sixty millions out of every seventy of the public expenditure among them, thus making the treasury a perpetual fertilizing stream to them and their industry, and a suction-pump to drain away our substance and parch up our lands."

That is total nonsense.
In fact, about half (i.e., $40 million of $80 million total) of Federal spending went to the Army & Navy which had nothing to do with sectional politics.
The rest has been shown to be spread roughly proportionately among all the regions -- North, South, East & West -- with "the South" getting its "fair share".

Of course, typical of Democrats, if you are under the delusion that the South deserved 75% or 85% of Federal spending, then you might have reason for complaint.
But such complaints had no factual merit.

Kalamata: "Actually, I believe the newspaper said that slavery was merely a "mask," and that trade was "the controlling motive."
You are aware that some Northern newspapers were calling for a blockade of the South to prevent free trade, are you not?"

No, that's not exactly what they said, and two other things: first, it's not established that all such were Lincoln supporting Republican newspapers.
Second, again: "free trade" was a fantasm, conjured up by who knows who, but having nothing to do with actual Confederate tariffs.
The Confederate congress never contemplated "free trade".

Finally, we should notice that Lincoln's response to Fort Sumter was 1) to call up militia troops and 2) to announce a blockade of Confederate ports -- Gen. Scott's old Anaconda Plan.
However both those actions were first planned decades earlier as part of standard Federal responses to any potential rebellion or insurrection.
They had nothing to do with newspaper editorials in the spring of 1861.

Kalamata on alleged Confederate "free trade": "No, that would have been an economic reality under a non-protective tariff authorized by the Confederate Constitution.
They were not arm-chair historians, Joey: they were living it."

Danny-child, that's complete hogwash -- there was nothing "free trade" about Confederate tariffs.
Indeed, they were essentially the same as the Union tariffs of 1857, tariffs intended to protect American producers North and South.
So any talk of Confederate "free trade" was strictly "boogie man" political scare tactics.

Kalamata: "That is stupendously simple-minded, Joey.
Duty-free (or duty-light) imports would come through Southern ports.
The South and Territories would no longer be subject to the high prices of protected Northern goods."

Sorry, Danny-child, but you are the "stupendous" simpleton here, you have no real clue what you're talking about.
The fact is that any imports landing in, say, New Orleans would pay the Confederate tariff which was basically the old Union 1857 tariff.
Then, if that import shipped by steamboat or railroad north to, say, Union St. Louis, it would pay a second Union tariff, the new Morrill tariff -- there would be two tariffs, not one, and certainly not "free trade".

Enough for now, more later...

[BroJoeK]

continuing from Kalamata's post #547, #4:

Kalamata: "Joey never ceases to amaze me at his inability to grasp simple economics.
This is another article from those trying times:"

Sadly, our Danny-child thinks he knows vastly more than he really does.
In this case he first claimed that Confederate "free trade" threatened Union economics.
I pointed out that's absurd, since there was no "free trade" ever contemplated by Confederates.
So now Dan-bo changes the subject to high Confederate import tariffs on Union "exports".

Kalamata quoting supposed Philadelphia press: "But now, since the Montgomery [Confederate] Congress has passed a new tariff, and duties are exacted upon Northern goods sent to ports in the Cotton States, the traffic between the two sections will be materially decreased.... "

Right, in 1860 "the South" imported about $200 million in goods from "the North".
That roughly equaled the value of cotton Southerners exported in 1860.
Confederates in 1861 hoped to tariff Union goods and return about $20 million per year to the Confederate treasury.
In fact nothing like that happened and I've seen no numbers on actual commerce, if any, between Union & Confederacy.
What we know for certain is that Confederate tariff revenues for the entire war were in the range of $3 million, total.

So in early 1861 the potential threat to Union economics was not "free trade", but rather Confederate tariffs on Union "exports" to the South.
But even the quote here doesn't say such trade will disappear, only that it will be more difficult than before.

Kalamata still quoting Phila Press: "The General Government,... to prevent the serious diminution of its revenues, will be compelled to blockade the Southern ports... and prevent the importation of foreign goods into them, or to put another expensive guard upon the frontiers to prevent smuggling into the Union States."

This quote has appeared on these threads before and each time somebody points out that, at best, it's taken out of context, with key words deleted.
At worst, and here Kalamata repeats the typical case, the quote's provenance is suspect.
Notice that where Kalamata is (thankfully) normally very specific in citing sources, in this case, as in others where we've seen the quote, he hides its provenance behind the words, "[Ibid. Philadelphia Press, p.69]"

No date, no author, no political-historical context, no link where we can confirm it.
But the bottom line on any Union blockade is that it was planned for many years as a response to rebellion.
Union General Scott didn't read a Philadelphia paper one morning and think, "oh, I should plan a blockade"!
No he simply dusted off and updated a plan prepared years earlier, likely under then Secretary of War Jefferson Davis.

Kalamata: "Blockading ports is considered an act of war."

Firing on Union troops in a Union fort, forcing their surrender, that's an act of war.
Rebellion is an act of war.

Kalamata: "The truth is, one way or another -- either by war or crony-capitalism -- the "republicans" would have plundered the South."

That's a typical Democrat hyperbolic lie.

Kalamata: "How simple-minded can one get?"

Union customs houses would have solved the problem identified in your quote.

Kalamata: "Lincoln was always a devout crony-capitalist, Joey, from the days of the $12 million "internal-improvements" boondoggle in 1837 (that saddled Illinois with "brilliant schemes" and a mountain of debt,) right up until his death.
Illinois amended its state constitution in 1848 to prohibit public financing of private industry, but too late to escape the graft and ambition of the "De Witt Clinton of Illinois," Abraham Lincoln."

So, like today's insane Democrats who think they can impeach the President by weaponizing the words "quid pro quo" and "personal benefit", the Danny-child thinks he can re-assassinate President Lincoln with the words, "crony capitalist" and "tyrant".
Repeat your magic words often enough and the whole world will bow down to you, right Dan-bo?

I don't think so.
The fact is that George Washington wanted Federal funds to help build canals across the mountains, it's one reason for the 1787 Constitution Convention.
Thomas Jefferson signed the law to build the first National Road over the mountains of western Maryland & Pennsylvania.
What we call "infrastructure" was part of our Founders' original intentions.

Now insane Democrats like Kalamata howl against Republican Lincoln's infrastructure projects, but when did Dan-bo ever complain about Democrat Jefferson Davis' "crony capitalism" as Secretary of War in supporting both the Gadsden Purchase and a Southern route for the transcontinental railroad which he, Davis, would personally profit from?
Right, so Republican devils are "crony capitalists", while Democrat angels are just... well... no big deal, nothing to see here....
Don't look at Democrat Bidens' corruption, only look at how Republican Trump wanted "quid pro quo" and "personal benefit" to investigate it!

The fact is that both Federal and states' governments supported "infrastructure" projects from the earliest days of the republic.
Lincoln was no more "corrupt", and arguably less (since he never gained personal wealth) than other politicians of his day.

Kalamata: "I can see how you might think that way, since you, like Lincoln, believe in a Living Constitution.
But it was common knowledge of those days, as well as common sense, that the Constitution was a barrier to the implementation of the Whig economic agenda, which was Lincoln's economic agenda.
Neely noticed:

"In the 1840s, Lincoln appeared to be marching steadily toward a position of gruff and belittling impatience with constitutional arguments against the beleaguered Whig program."
[Mark E. Neely Jr., "The Fate of Liberty: Abraham Lincoln and Civil Liberties." Oxford University Press, 1992, p.212] "

My correct observation is that our new FRiend Kalamata is a living-breathing old-time Democrat, if not Dixiecrat.
One way we know this is because he lies constantly about, for example, me -- accusing me here of championing "a living constitution".
It's a nonsense charge that he pulls out of his bag of accusations whenever it seems convenient, thus proving his own identity as a fossilized Democrat at heart.

Next, typical Democrat, Kalamata changes the subject, from Lincoln's pre-war intentions regarding slavery, to the old Whig program of protective tariffs and infrastructure projects.
These he claims were unconstitutional, and cites Neely to support that.

But notice first that Neely is talking about "constitutional arguments" from Democrats like our own Dan-child, who claim in the same breath that:

1. Since the Constitution doesn't specifically authorize Federal infrastructure projects, therefore those are unconstitutional, and
2. Since the Constitution doesn't specifically authorize secession, therefore secession is constitutional!

So Dan-bo quotes Neely telling us that in the 1840s Lincoln was growing a "gruff and belittling impatience with..." such idiot Democrats!

Kalamata: "When the Whig party died, its economic was adopted by the Lincoln "republican" party.
Its progressive concept of "implied powers" (that is, "If I imply it," it magically becomes an authorized power) was pretty much enshrined into law by Lincoln's usurpations.
I am simply a voice crying in the wilderness, Joey."

Sorry, Danny-child, but I've heard the real voice in the wilderness, I've known it all my life, and you're not it.
The real voice says, build a highway for God, make the crooked roads straight and the rough roads smooth.
It's talking about infrastructure!
And you can hear him yourself, in Isaiah 40, or as beautifully put to music by Handel.

So Dan-bo, you are not that voice, you are just an old-time Democrat, meaning a Lying Sack of Schiff, born to lie, raised to lie, you just can't post without lying about something, especially about Republicans and most especially about the greatest Republican, Abraham Lincoln (no offense intended to Mr. Trump, who proudly proclaims we are the party of Lincoln).

Kalamata on Jefferson Davis' "war of extermination": "You are ignorant of, or avoiding, Lincoln's total war on civilians, Joey. "

Dan-bo, "War of extermination" was Davis' term, not Lincoln's, and what Davis meant by it, exactly, we don't know, but we do know Confederates did plenty of their own pillaging and burning in Union states & regions from Pennsylvania to Kansas.
See my post #814 for a listing of examples.

As for Lincoln's so-called "total war", Sherman's orders in Georgia were that no harm should come to people or homes which offered no resistance.
After the war Congress paid millions of dollars to thousands of Southern Unionists who suffered losses.
As for those anti-American Southern Democrats who murdered Republicans, well... they had a tougher go of it, for a few years.

Kalamata: "When Sherman and Sheridan were finished impoverishing and making homeless both white and black civilians in the South, for generations to come, they turned their "racial justice" on the Plains Indians to make room for another great, crony-capitalist boondoggle, the Transcontinental Railroad (more appropriately called the Zig-Zag Railroad.)"

It's true that former Confederates had a tough time post-war, for a few years, until 1876 when they were successful in throwing out the Union Army, nullifying the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments, and imposing their own "racial justice" on unfortunate former-slaves.
By that time cotton production was back to 1860 levels and growing, while Southern railroad miles doubled & doubled again by 1900.

It's generally agreed that Native Americans were mistreated in the 19th century with the result that courts and laws since have awarded them large settlements.
Today dozens of tribal areas total ~50,000 miles, an area larger than Pennsylvania or New York with a population of 5 million, about 1/4 of whom live on reservations.
As to whether Sherman is to blame for every bad thing that happened, well... that's at least debatable.

That's enough for now, more later...

[DoodleDawg]

It is not about winning or losing, Joey, but seeking the truth.

LOL!

[BroJoeK]

Kalamata's post #547 continued, #5.

Kalamata: "I am simply defending the Constitution, Joey, against progressives like you.
Speaking of insane, you have to be insane to believe a living constitution is worth more than wet toilet paper."

Nonsense, you are simply acting out your life-long Democrat training, lying or making false accusations whenever the mood strikes you.
In this case both the words "progressive" and "living constitution" are pure figments of your own imagination.
But you don't care, typical Democrat, it just feeeeeels to good to throw accusations at people, true or not.

Kalamata: "Your love affair with a blood-thirsty tyrant cannot be healthy, Child."

Danny-baby, we are the Party of Lincoln, whether you like it or not, regardless of how much dirt you throw at him, no matter how often you re-assassinate him with your words "blood-thirsty tyrant" or impeach him with "crony capitalist", or lie about his motives and deceive us about his actions, we're still his party and you should just come out and say, honestly, how much you hate Lincoln and Republicans, and you're just going to keep on being the Southern Democrat you were born to be -- in today's world a Lying Sack of Schiff, willing to say anything & do anything to defeat Republicans.