14DEC1780: Nelson’s Ferry Skirmish – When 700 Patriots Engage a Supply Boat

When you can field 700 instead of 20, 40 or 80, you are able to intimidate the enemy without bloodshed to obtain well needed supplies from their supply line. Lord Cornwallis is attempting to supply himself from the South Carolina coast but due to Marion’s streak of wins and his reputation, Lt. Col. Nisbet Balfour modifies the normal port of Charlestown to Camden supply route that includes a stretch from the Nelson’s Ferry and the Santee Road over to a “bypass” from Moncks Corner to Friday’s Ferry on the Congaree River. There is one supply boat does not receive this order in time and the Patriots board the vessel at Nelson’s Ferry on 14DEC1780 and Col. Marion’s men remove all supplies of military value, then they apply the torch.

The British 64th Regiment happened to be near Nelson’s Ferry at the time of this raid, but their numbers are not even adequate to pursue Col. Marion’s large number, 700 of them, mounted men.

The British and Loyalists continue their “no quarter ways” as the story comes out in December 1780 that Patriot leader Lt. Roger Gordon wast out with a small force to patrol on Lynches Creek, stopping at a house for provisions and refreshments., is attacked by Capt. Butler with a much larger force of Loyalists and they set the house on fire. Gordon then capitulates on the promise of quarter, but no sooner has his Patriots grounded their muskets than they are all put to death.

In addition to this, the British have a “Christmas present” for Marion, on 21DEC1780, Maj. Gen. Alexander Leslie arrives in Charlestown with 2000 British regulars. The gloves are coming off in South Carolina as the British desperately desire to move into North Carolina in early spring and take aim at Continental Gen. George Washington in the north.

Stay tuned for details as to how Marion deals with the swarming British forces that are all after neutralizing him and getting on with routing these farmers with pitchforks!


Topics for Faith Communities: The State, Politics or Not?

Movie: “The Patriot” (2000) 21 second clip

In context, the first faith communities that followed Jesus more or less did it His style. Where ever He was in life’s journey, there He shared life with those around Him. Accused of being the “friend of sinners” by the religious elite of the day, the Pharisees, He never stayed out of the “den of thieves” which were the taverns and pubs of the day. He mingled with tax collectors and prostitutes and so his public reputation would suffer, but He touched people’s hearts, for life and created stories that would last through the generations. His life stories would be the glue that helped this grassroots movement impact the Roman Empire for its good, and they never saw it coming.

In those days there were not special buildings, a special class of teachers or gurus, or anything physical that held the faith community together except their hearts. These people would be so touched indirectly with these stories and yet at the same time touched directly in a spiritual way so that their lives would change, and their neighbors would notice. These people would be the first to a neighbors door in their time of griving a death of a loved one, which happened a lot since the average age of life in that empire was under 40 years old. What was the topic of the discussions that were held in people’s homes during the week or in the marketplace? My guess was anything and everything. These people were seeing their hope and faith in God change the way they looked at life, they were not alone as they faced the day-to-day struggles in small cities, rural communities and even in very large pagan-centric metropolitan areas. Those that tended to lead in anyway in these communities led by example and were asked to share their wisdom without a title. Some would call them elders, but the ones with His character would just asked to be called by their own name. Their times together usually centered around a meal if they were not in direct persecution, otherwise they met in the early hours of the morning, or late at night in secret.

This gathering was as informal as any pool party or picnic one might have today. Again the point of these gatherings was sharing, in every aspect of life, what God was impressing on their hearts.

Today, while there are those that meet this way, any time and any place, there are many others who do gather in a special building and listen to mainly one teacher or leader. There is nothing at all inherently wrong with this as long as it all is about helping others to know God and His desire to see with different eyes the circumstances we are in.

The tough part, as many communities of faith have faced over time, is when the state demands compliance and obedience to their agenda. Most communities of faith in the United States have to register and incorporate with the government (501C3) in order to claim the tax free/deductible status that many benefit from. But like anything else with the state, there are unintended consequences of these good intentions.

As someone who had led such churches over the years, Chuck Baldwin has seen over time how the state has muted churches, especially in areas of embarrassment for the United States government that should be obvious for Jesus-followers to spot. His church fellowship chose NOT to file 501C3 status due to the limitations it would have forced on their group.

At what point does a faith community talk openly about these things and as necessary, speak to the state about their immoral decisions and actions. Below you will find excerpts from his latest article about the time for people in the church to talk about the wolves and determine the appropriate non-violent actions to consider:

I have said for years that it’s not what you hear in most churches that is the problem; it is what you don’t hear. The same goes for most conservative politicos. On the issues that are the most parlous to our liberties, the vast majority of Christians and conservatives are silent. I mean totally silent.
Here is about all most Christians and conservatives have to say about things:
*Donald Trump is very good.
*Democrats are very bad.
*Israel is very good.
*Muslims are very bad (except the Muslims in Saudi Arabia are good).
I don’t think I left anything out.

So in the years I have been in and around faith communities, there was this unwritten rules about not talking about “politics”. It was similar to the common saying to steer clear of BOTH politics and religion in marketplace discussions. I think I know why: 

In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.

Mark Twain

This then begs the question. Why could the first century communities talk about these things but we can’t today? I would dare say that the first century communities, like those of the Revolutionary War, were in a time when there was much more at stake. Living in the shadow of an Empire that is evil abroad, is bound to be despotic at home. With the atrocities our government has been responsible for in the Middle East, but also in Central and South America, Southeast Asia, Africa, you name it and add to that the more recent erosion of our liberties, the spying on the people, the squandered tax revenue, well I will just let Chuck share his laundry list of offenses this State, this Empire is guilty of:

.. what about America’s War Empire killing innocent people all over the world? Silence. What about America’s War Empire building military bases on Russia’s borders and pushing China’s territorial waters almost to dry land? Silence. What about America’s War Empire selling billions of dollars of weapons and munitions to the terrorists in Saudi Arabia and Israel who can then slaughter tens of thousands of Yemenis and Palestinians with impunity? Silence. What about America’s War Empire dropping thousands of bombs on innocent men, women and children all over the Middle East and Northern Africa? Silence.

I would say that the US Empire’s support of ISIS and the atrocities accomplished in Syria since 2011 is the icing on the cake, yet CRICKETS!

What about 45 years of electing “pro-life” Republicans to Congress and the White House, and the federal government is still fully funding America’s largest abortion provider: Planned Parenthood? Silence. What about 45 years of appointing Republican “pro-life” justices to a majority on the U.S. Supreme Court, and Roe v Wade is still the law of the land? Silence. What about the fact that “pro-life” Republicans have controlled the U.S. House of Representatives for 20 of the last 24 years, and no Sanctity of Life bill that provides personhood to the unborn baby has ever been brought to the floor for a vote? Silence. What about the fact that even though a “pro-life” Republican Party has controlled both the executive and legislative branches of the federal government (House, Senate, White House) for no less than 6.6 years during the Bush II and Trump administrations, nothing has been done to overturn Roe v Wade via Article. III. Section. 2. of the U.S. Constitution? Silence.

Yes, the Republican party has a horrible track record when it comes to sanctity of life, the War Against Southern Independence and Sherman’s March is their trademark.

What about the militarization of America’s local and State police agencies? Silence. What about the growing number of unarmed American citizens (especially black citizens) being shot and killed by trigger-happy policemen? Silence. What about Donald Trump calling for the confiscation of firearms without due process? Silence. What about the numerous “red flag” laws being passed by both Republicans and Democrats that authorize police agencies to confiscate the firearms of innocent American citizens who have not harmed a single person, have not committed a single crime nor have even been accused of a crime? Silence.

Nothing says “The Redcoats are coming” like the militarization of those who will be charged with protecting the political class in the near-term with ever more paranoia now with the Yellow-Vest movement in France.

Here are more things you won’t hear most Christians and conservatives talk about:
*The Rights of the Colonists, a List of Violations of Rights, and a Letter of Correspondence, by Samuel Adams
*Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress
*Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms
*The American Crisis (No. 1), by Thomas Paine
*George Washington’s Farewell Address
*Ron Paul’s Farewell Address to Congress
*The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights

It is true that in a majority of faith communities, they have been neutered by our government, and this is by design. However, the time has come when we could address this threat, because there is a lot more at stake.

Personally I see the majority of these entities effectively marginalized in being anything that could help the people of this land once yet again deal with an Empire in their face.

Maybe we will see a continuation of an underground faith movement in the United States that can help the people survive and thrive in the middle of a very broken world in the months and years to come. The first century church did this, as well as the underground church in Communist China! I know that this remains my own prayer.

We need to talk about this at the same time the PC/Marxist movement wants NOTHING talked about. It is time to be radical, in love 🙂


When a Passionate Search for Utopia Becomes Violent: Religion, Cult or What?

It seems that the current state of American society can’t escape the political forces of the so-called left and the neo-con right. Both are addicted to the power of the state to satisfy all their desires for all the dreams they have, and they are willing to force people into this “good world”.

The use of the state for groups, religions, cults and such are nothing new. Jesus himself was trapped by the religious leaders of the day into the state’s snare, and as an innocent man was executed for it. This should give each one of us pause, as it has been said:

“Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.”

Lavrentiy Beria, head of Joseph Stalin’s secret police

In the history of the United States there has been many times where groups have convinced the state that certain people or groups were to be violently purged from the “union” violently. 

Before Abraham Lincoln’s election in 1860 there was a fringe group that the Republican’s courted for votes but they gave little traction to, the abolitionists. Now don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that slavery of any type is proper, however, the method by which you employ to remove this condition from people best be the one that works the best for the oppressed themselves, not for the political operatives themselves.

These abolitionists waged a moral war (in their minds) as early as the 1830s in the attempt to get the South to free the negro slaves. The problem was, these people would NEVER want these 3-4 million Negroes in the north, no sir, no ma’am. They wanted to remain apart from the fray that would follow and not want to have any skin in the game themselves. These Yankees always felt better when  they could put other people down. It was this attitude early on that actually caused the southern efforts to emancipate the slaves to slow down, stall and then stop. Constantly ridiculed for never doing enough to right the situation yesterday, the single digit percentage of southerners who actually owned slaves just attempted the status quo while the slave industry was dying a slow death on its own.

Just a few years into the war to force the eleven southern states back into the union (actually, Abe would never say that, he just was ending an insurrection .. as VIOLENTLY as possible), Lincoln was fighting for his political life, and with the vision to “save the Union”:

.. failing to continue to motivate politically and emotionally, he turned toward emancipation to rescue his war effort. (It should be noted that this emancipation freed ONLY the slaves that Lincoln had no control of.  All the slaves in the areas the Union Army had control of would have to wait until a constitutional amendment was passed in December 1865 to be free) Lincoln mentioned to an associate that this was only in fact, a “war effort”. Violence to the tune of almost 800,000 soldiers dying and many more maimed physically and emotionally for life PLUS tens of thousands of civilians killed and the rest experienced ravaged farms, property and businesses either by Union troops OR by the Reconstruction years that followed. The South would be “dirt poor” for decades. The najority of the Negroes stayed in the south and were hurt by the very means of privation that the north forced on the south, as penance for wanting to leave the “marriage”.

Today, there are another couple groups that are attempting to use the state for their sword of righteousness yet again, similar to how the progressives zealots of the 1920s rolled in prohibition. From this Lew Rockwell article by Thomas DiLorenzo comes some truth-bombs of today’s reality:

The nonstop avalanche of hatred spewing from the hearts of the leftist and neocon political classes in America has the appearance of religious fanaticism on steroids, the kind that must have fueled the Spanish Inquisition.  It is not real religion, of course, but the “religion” of statism, that has replaced religious faith in the minds of these nonstop spewers of hate because their “sainted” Hillary Clinton lost the election.  To them, Hillary Clinton is more “moral” than the Pope, Mother Theresa, or any other religious figure because to them, “morality” stems not from faith in God or living by the Ten Commandments but from one’s support for leftist ideas, rhetoric, and policies.  For socialism, in other words — even if they refuse to call it socialism.

The drive for this utopia has been tried for ages, and still is found wanting. I have yet to find an example of any people group / nation / country that took this road and allowed the common man, woman or child to flourish as a result.

Thomas DiLorenzo continues:

When this first cropped up, about five minutes after Hillary Clinton’s non-concession concession, it reminded me of a run-in I once had a decade or so ago with an acquaintance who I’m sure has been exploding with Trump hatred for the past two years now.  He was a senior vice president of a television network and a lifelong Washingtonian.  A typical D.C. liberal who lived in Chevy Chase, MD all his life, well inside the Washington orbit.  All of his friends, neighbors, and co-workers were just like him, politically speaking.  I made the offhand remark that I don’t vote because it “only encourages them” and besides, most of what government does is blatantly unconstitutional (not to be found in Article 1, Section 8). Therefore, voting just helps to legitimize this unconstitutional regime.

The man went completely nuts, shouting that I had attacked his most cherished of all beliefs — voting and “democracy.”  He really, really lost it and had no interest whatsover in any civilized discussion of the matter.  As far as he was concerned, anyone who expressed such views should be imprisoned for treason, if not hanged.  I had attacked his “religion” which, to a lifelong Leftist who has spent his entire adult life declaring his moral superiority over any and all non-Leftists, this was the ultimate insult. To him and millions of other Leftists, Trump’s first inaugural address in which he denounced the entire Washington establishment, as most of it sat right next to him, was a declaration of war on their “religion.”  And, in the spirit of their patron “saints” Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant, they demand unconditional surrender. 

Both the left (who desires another X decades in power so they can “help the poor” some more) and the neo-right (who desires another X decades of military spending) need the one thing that the “right” won’t give them, legally anyway, and that is some good drugs to calm down (as theey desire another X decades of the war on drugs and corporate welfare).

You see, this political turmoil is being brought into every home so all eyes can be on the State, which every religion earnestly wants, to make people dependent on their every move.

‘Nuff said.

-SF1 out

The State: Friend or Foe?

Demonstrators wearing Yellow Vests (Gilets jaunes) walk past the Arc de Triomphe (Arc of Triumph) in Paris on November 17, 2018

What brings protestors to state monuments and state capitals? The feeling that they have been done wrong by the state. Was this inevitable? Of course, every state can’t possibly follow through on all the promises its politicians make, ever. There will come a time when the people have had enough of this parasite activity.

The state itself is not being questioned here, just the state’s actions (over time sparked by recent actions as in this case, a gas tax). I question the state because it actually always comes up short on their end of the deal. I think Jesus would agree, when He could have received justice, He got the cross. He knew that would happen, however, it is something we should ALL know, that the state can mean DEATH!

From The Burning Platform, in an ongoing dialog with Doug Casey reflecting on the 1st amendment to the US Constitution that has in it a fourth provision stating the right of assembly:

I’m opposed the very existence of the State. I’m opposed to it on moral grounds, because its essence is coercion. I’m opposed to it on economic grounds, because it’s more a threat to everyone’s property than a guardian of it. On practical grounds, since it’s necessarily inefficient in doing what it’s supposed to do, and does everything it’s not supposed to do. On aesthetic grounds, since it inevitably draws the worst kind of people to its employment. On evidential grounds, since its main products are wars, taxes, regulations, inflation, pogroms, and the like…

… I’ll just say that it speaks poorly of the average person, that he not only thinks the State is necessary, but enthusiastically supports it. And a constitution—whatever its positive aspects—enshrines and legitimizes the idea of the State.

I favor individuals cooperating as individuals, not as cogs in the State’s machine.

Doug Casey – Transcript from Interview with “JB” on The Burning Platform

I contend that while the US police forces, under direction of the federal government in times of crises (“insurrection”) may put up with peaceful assembly that does not destroy property (especially the destruction of state property in their eyes), in time they will remove this right (we still have the natural right, just that the government will not protect us to have this right) as they have done with all the others.

In the future, if the economy gets as bad as I expect, there will be serious riots—which are always a danger when the hoi polloi assemble. There are now means of crowd control much more effective than tear gas. There are beam weapons that, when directed at you, make your skin feel it’s on fire, and will absolutely make you run away and hide. Directional sonic weapons that will make you cover your ears, and run away. Ultra-slippery chemicals that make it impossible to walk. And of course they have means of identifying people in crowds, both with facial recognition and gait recognition. It may not be against the law to assemble, but the “authorities”—if they choose to– can certainly make it unpleasant.

Doug Casey Transcipt in Interview with “JB” on The Burning Platform

Beyond this, there is the whole marginalization scheme that technology has afforded centralized government in measuring individual’s adherence to state policy and narratives and thereby giving them a score that reflects on what a good citizen they are. This then plays a role in what interest rate you might be eligible for or IF government benefits are due you, or not.

There’s no question that the Chinese Social credit system will be adopted in the U.S. You can tell by the way people cherish their Experian and credit scores, even now. Although you’ll theoretically have a right to protest and gather, you could put yourself at risk by doing so. Freedom of Assembly is on its way to becoming a dead letter, if only because of technology.

Doug Casey Transcipt in Interview with “JB” on The Burning Platform

So what is there to know about the recent efforts in France toward making a case that their government has gone to far or failed to uphold their part of the “social contract”? For a more global view of these events in context I will refer to two sources (that I do not always agree with), Eric Margolis via Lew Rockwell and Moon of Alabama:

The storm that is hitting France came out of what looked like a clear blue sky.  The angry demonstrators, known as ‘gilets jaunes’ (yellow jackets), for the warning vests all motorists must keep in their cars, inundated Paris last weekend in peaceful  protests over the government’s planned increases in fuel prices, which were already among Europe’s highest.
As too often in France, violent vandals known as ‘the breakers,’ infiltrated the demonstrators and sought to put the most beautiful parts of Paris to the sack.  I watched with horror as the magnificent Arc de Triomphe, France’s premier war memorial, was befouled by spray-can graffiti.  The majestic Champs Élysée was ravaged by hoodlums, who smashed showroom windows, burned cars, looted luxury stores and set scores of fires.

Paris Under Siege By Eric S. Margolis

As is often the case, a movement, peaceful at first, gets hijacked by those with no principles. This is the hardest way to get government to retract and to do the right things as usually the revolution gets you something worse than what you already had. France’s history has proved this before! (Us in the US should know this as well, for how many of us would willingly go back to the British Empire’s tax rate of 3% that was effective in the American Colonies before the Revolutionary War?)

In a France24 report from a small town in the country side shows extraordinary solidarity between the people. Police passing through an occupied toll road entry sign the protesters petition, other pass by and gift food to the middle-aged protestors.
One woman makes an good point. Yes, the violence as seen in Paris last weekend was not nice. But only after last weeks protest went violent were the yellow vests really noted by the media and by the otherwise tone deaf politicians.

Moon of Alabama

It is too bad that the politicians are not close enough to kick in the butt when they misbehave and squander tax revenue for their pet projects and also enter into alignments with other countries that the people do not always appreciated (i.e. EU) This is the very fact that makes me think secession into smaller republics, states, city-states is the peaceful way forward. Having to use violence against private and public property carries its own negative long term unintended consequences.

From Mint Press, who I use to get a more unbiased view (at least not a US Empire centric MSM view) of world events:

The Yellow Vests held their first demonstrations on Saturday, November 17, on the Champs-Elysées in Paris. It was totally unlike the usual trade union demonstrations, well organized to march down the boulevard between the Place de la République and the Place de la Bastille, or the other way around, carrying banners and listening to speeches from leaders at the end. The Gilets Jaunes just came, with no organization, no leaders to tell them where to go or to harangue the crowd. They were just there, in the yellow vests, angry and ready to explain their anger to any sympathetic listener.
Briefly, the message was this: we can’t make ends meet. The cost of living keeps going up, and our incomes keep going down. We just can’t take it any more. The government must stop, think and change course.

Mint Press By Diana Johnstone

This is the “sound” of tax slaves that are at the end of their rope. 50% plus income taxes in addition to all the other taxes in place or proposed makes for a life for those on the margins a very tough go with no hope for the future!

There were young women who were working seven days a week and despaired of having enough money to feed and clothe their children. People were angry but ready to explain very clearly the economic issues. Colette, age 83, doesn’t own a car, but explained to whoever would listen that the steep raise of gasoline prices would also hurt people who don’t drive, by affecting prices of food and other necessities. She had done the calculations and figured it would cost a retired person 80 euros per month.

Mint Press By Diana Johnstone

The very real failure of socialism is on display here as it has been in Venezuela for several years, the state in the long run will never live up to its propanganda of utopia!

A significant and recurring complaint concerned the matter of health care. France has long had the best public health program in the world, but this is being steadily undermined to meet the primary need of capital: profit. In the past few years, there has been a growing government campaign to encourage, and finally to oblige people to subscribe to a “mutuelle”, that is, a private health insurance, ostensibly to fill “the gaps” not covered by France’s universal health coverage. The “gaps” can be the 15% that is not covered for ordinary illnesses (grave illnesses are covered 100%), or for medicines taken off the “covered” list, or for dental work, among other things. The “gaps” to fill keep expanding, along with the cost of subscribing to the mutuelle. In reality, this program, sold to the public as modernizing improvement, is a gradual move toward privatization of health care. It is a sneaky method of opening the whole field of public health to international financial capital investment. This gambit has not fooled ordinary people and is high on the list of complaints by the Gilets Jaunes.

Mint Press By Diana Johnstone

In the end, the state is a parasite, and efforts however novel (i.e. US Constitution), will fail time and again in this broken world.

Putting your trust in the state is madness IF you research it long enough. Do not forget history, even if the state indoctrinates you to.

‘Democracy, the God that Failed’ is an epic book by Hans-Herman Hoppe that suggests that a monarchy is better than democracy [which is better than socialism, marxism and communism, but are all collectives in nature].. at least with a king, they want to give their heirs a better kingdom .. but as 1 Samuel 8 shows, even God says there are some significant drawbacks to having a king:

“.. Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king.He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots.Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots.He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers.He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants.He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants.Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use.He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves.When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day. ” – 1 Samuel 8:10-18 

SF1 in an e-mail sent out this past week

So if God’s view is that even monarchy is never ideal, what is?

More on that next time! Stay tuned.


1868: When You Think You Have Been Taught All You Need to Know: Andrew Johnson – Impeached But Not Convicted

Impeachment proceedings in the US Senate 1868

Back in the day, when the newspaper would list all those convicted in the local courts, you (and I) probably developed a bias towards that person. Especially if you knew of the crime and all what was written in the paper you (and I) felt we knew the whole story and if we ever met that person on the street, there probably would have been no meeting of the eyes.

However, if you knew that person, the person’s character and past history and things did not seem to line up, you might have had doubts, but in the end if the courts (i.e. State) did their job, they must have been guilty as charged.

But, if you had been “there”, witnessed the “crime”, maybe that is when the court’s performance might have been suspect. We hear all the time these days, quietly, how convictions from decades ago are overturned due to DNA testing or false positives on hair samples, etc.

Also, if one has just been accused of a “crime” and has to go through the very public fight for justice, there is a blemish on their record in our eyes that their character is flawed and that they can’t be trusted.

All this to say, when you compare the reputation of Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson in the State’s textbooks, it is the comparison of “good” and “bad” respectively.  Right there is a hint that something might not be right, because if the State’s narrative suggests Andrew Johnson is indeed bad, and that the State is known to lie, well then, why don’t we research Andrew Johnson himself and determine who he really might be, since we weren’t there and we don’t personally know him.

From the Abbeville Institute comes a sort but informative overview of Andrew’s life, from humble beginnings to his days as the president of the United States right as the War of Northern Aggression (Civil War) concluded and how the general government should treat the states that left (according to them) or wanted to leave (according to Lincoln and his supporters).

Andrew Johnson was born into poverty in rural North Carolina. His father died after saving some town locals from drowning and left the family to fend for themselves in a two-room shack. A young Andrew began working as a tailor’s apprentice and developed an appreciation for the laboring class early on. Johnson was poorly educated and learned how to write from his wife, while he was still working as a tailor.

Michael Martin – Abbeville Institute “Lessons in Conservatism from Andrew Johnson”

OK, so he was not like Lincoln, born in a log cabin, but he did have very humble beginnings. A self-made man whose passions led him into politics, but NOT as a politician, oh no, his idols were statesmen!

Johnson admired true statesmen, hated politicians, and was most conservative when it came to government spending. He would debate anything that required the expenditure of public funds, having introduced bills to reduce Congressional salaries and even opposed proposals like the Smithsonian Institute because he thought it would be an unjust burden on the treasury.

Michael Martin – Abbeville Institute “Lessons in Conservatism from Andrew Johnson”

Johnson also had “ownership” in how the country’s revenue was spent. Undoubtedly, his time as a politician especially during the war years showed him how easily that money could be squandered by all those bureaucrats that had no “skin in the game”.

When Johnson faced Reconstruction, he was initially welcomed by Radical Republicans that wanted to punish the South. However, Johnson’s plan differed from Lincoln’s only slightly, favored leniency, and virtually ignored the freed slaves. This put him at odds with the radical plan for the South to be run by a bayonet, carpetbag government. Most narratives portray Johnson as a Southern racist who wanted to deny equality to newly freed slaves. Johnson, however, had stated years before that he supported emancipation and was mostly opposed to the outrageous spending habits of Congress.

Michael Martin – Abbeville Institute “Lessons in Conservatism from Andrew Johnson”

We see here that in summary, Johnson’s philosophical views differed from his political opponents in the House and Senate of the US Government. That was all it took for impeachment to take place. When Johnson tried to follow the letter of the law, the Constitution, and keep from squandering the people’s money, he was brought up on trumped (no pun intended) charges.

On the issue of the Freedmen’s Bureau, for example, Johnson vetoed a bill to make it permanent and then three days later gave a speech where he charged Congress with seeking to destroy the fundamental principles of the Constitution. His exact words were that “There is an attempt to concentrate the power of the Government in the hands of a few, and thereby bring about a consolidation, which is equally dangerous and objectionable with separation.”

Michael Martin – Abbeville Institute “Lessons in Conservatism from Andrew Johnson”

In my mind, the previous president (Lincoln) paid so little attention to the US Constitution that the Congress felt that it was to be a free for all! The former president in fact, never validated the fact that the 11 states that left the union actually did so, because as a lawyer he knew he could use post-Constitution laws to justify “putting down a general rebellion / insurrection” for all his war efforts in the south. The spouse (in his mind, actually 11 spouses) that left needed to be beat back into the home. Now that the spouse was back in the home, the Congress wanted to abuse her even more and Johnson said NO!

In his veto of the Freedmen’s Bureau bill, Johnson explained that opposed it because he was against a military government of the South, against the unlimited distribution of funds to former slaves and their families, and against taking land away from Southerners. In Johnson’s mind, the defeated Southern states were part of the Union and did not need further punishing, and he broke down how virtually every part of the Freedmen’s Bureau bill was incompatible with the Constitution. His main focus was on government spending and the fact that the Constitution was not designed to guarantee any type of special privileges, just basic rights.

Michael Martin – Abbeville Institute “Lessons in Conservatism from Andrew Johnson”

The Radical Republicans indeed wanted a dependency class in the south and the newly freed blacks was to be that class and it remained that way until 1877 in the military districts that were formed to further suck the life out of this abused spouse yet again.

This is effectively what the Northern Union / US Government did to the south. Recovery in this region would take a century economically however, psychologically, it’s culture has never been the same.

Andrew Johnson can be shown as about the only Unionist who cared, and so he was targeted and marginalized in all the US History books published these days.

Four million slaves were emancipated and given an equal chance and fair start to make their own support-to work and produce; and having worked and produced, to have their own property and apply it to their own support. But the Freedmen’s Bureau comes and says we must take charge of these 4,000,000 slaves. The bureau comes along and proposes, at an expense of a fraction less than $12,000,000 a year, to take charge of these slaves. You had already expended $3,000,000,000 to set them free and give them a fair opportunity to take care of themselves -then these gentlemen, who are such great friends of the people, tell us they must be taxed $12,000,000 to sustain the Freedmen’s Bureau.

Andrew Johnson 1866 in Cleveland, OH

So the slavery of 4 million souls in 1865 transferred into the tax slavery of 350 souls in 2018 as the cancer of centralized government continues to suck the life out of all who remain, and there are no Andrew Johnsons allowed to enter politics and gain any political power again.

“Johnson, in fact, continually upheld his oath of office, making him one of the best presidents in American history.”

Brion McClanahan