Replies

National Affairs: Gen. Scott and Col. Totten at a Special Meeting of the Cabinet – 2-3
Gen. Scott to His Correspondents – 3
Congress of the C.S.A. – 3
Movements of Hon. A.H. Stephens – 3
The Virginia State Convention – 3
The New-Hampshire Election – 3
The Massachusetts Appointments – 4
Naval Intelligence – 4
Is the “Slaughter Pen” a Failure? – 4
The Traitor Twiggs – 4
Amusements this Evening – 4
News of the Day – 4-5
Editorial: The Finances of the Confederated States – 5-6
Editorial: The Proposed Amendment to the Constitution – 6
Editorial: Illinois to Mississippi – 6-7
A Radical Difference – 7
Editorial: But Will They Come? – 7-8
Lager Bier-dom in a Ferment – 8
Chivalry Chafing – 7

[President Lincoln]... "He has no system or method whatever, but allows his time and strength to be exhausted in listening to office-seekers, and doing other drudgery, which belongs to the Departments. "

Exhausting on Lincoln or not, the end result was that Lincoln's government was not at war against him in anything like the manner of President Trump's administration.

In 1883 Congress passed the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, which greatly reduced the numbers of patronage jobs, but also created a class of civil servants we know today as "the Deep State".

Report from Montgomery: "News has been received here, apparently from a reliable source, that five United States war vessels left New-York on Tuesday night, well armed, and with a large number of marines and ample provisions on board, believed to be destined to some southern port."

Now, wasn't it just yesterday we learned from Charleston of hundreds of Union troops being carried incognito on Union merchant ships to Charleston to reinforce Fort Sumter?
"Today" (March 14, 1861) we hear of a whole war fleet being launched by President Lincoln against "some southern port".
And yet the news says Lincoln is planning to abandon Fort Sumter... ?

DiogenesLamp has often told us that the "real cause" of civil war were Lincoln's orders to launch a "war fleet" to "attack Confederates" in Charleston.
Those orders, DiogenesLamp tells us, explain & justify Jefferson Davis' military assault on Maj. Anderson's troops in Fort Sumter.

And yet... and yet... as of March 14, 1861 we learn from news reports of the time, that there were already two "war fleets" in route to "attack Confederates".
But somehow these alleged "war fleets" did not trigger Jefferson Davis to order Fort Sumter be "reduced" if not surrendered immediately.

" There would be to us an advantage in so placing them that an attack by them would be a necessity, but when we are ready to relieve our territory and jurisdiction of the presence of a foreign garrison that advantage is overbalanced by other considerations."

"Movements of Hon. A.H. Stephens – 3"

CSA VP Stephens is on his way to Savanah, GA, to deliver a very important speech, March 21, 1861, on the nature & purpose of the Confederacy.
Rumor says he may mention something about a "cornerstone" -- whatever could that mean?

I'm very excited, will stay up late that night to watch it on C-MSNBC!

;-)

"Editorial: The Finances of the Confederated States – 5-6"

And yet again, in answer to numerous DiogenesLamp arguments we see the weaknesses of Confederate finances exposed -- the essence of it being: they have none.
They have no surplus capital with which to fund their own crops -- must borrow even that money -- much less to fund a Confederate government now girding for war.

By contrast, Union finances are solid & steady, or so the Times editors tell us.
They are not sounding the kinds of alarms DiogenesLamp tells us are the "real reasons" for Lincoln's alleged "war fleet" to "attack Confederates" in Charleston.

"Editorial: The Proposed Amendment to the Constitution – 6"

And, what do you know!
Especially for DiogenesLamp, the Times here reports on his most favorite whipping boy -- the Corwin Amendment.

The Times strongly opposes slavery but supports Corwin's amendment because of it's protections against centralizing authority in Washington, DC.

"The right of secession is inadmissible, but the right of the States to regulate their domestic affairs in their own way, is a feature of first importance in our Republican system of Government.

It is to preserve this essential feature of our Constitution, and not to add anything new and untried, that Mr. CORWIN and his colleagues of the Committee of Thirty-three proposed the amend that instrument.
The amendment offered is eminently proper in itself, is as necessary to the interests of Freedom as of Slavery, and at the same time, its adoption would go far to soothe the excited public feeling of the South, strengthen the hands of the friends of Union, and restore peace and harmony to the country.
We cannot imagine a solid objection to it, and it may be hoped that it will be ratified by all the States."

With such a ringing endorsement from the New York Times, how could Corwin's amendment not become law?