Category: War Against Southern Independence

Character Flaw: US Government Has Lied Us .. Into the War Against Southern Independence (Civil War)

“.. They have surrendered, and this proud fortress [Fort Sumter], that was attempted to be a fortress for despotism, has now become, as its name indicates, a fortress for our independence. Besides one of their most scientific officers on the 26th of last December escaped from what he [Union Maj. Gen Anderson] called a weak fort and untenable, and went over to this strong and powerful position, because he could maintain himself, and because it was pronounced the key of our harbor. He left Fort Moultrie because it was untenable and at the mercy of Sumter. He chose Sumter as his fortress…” – Gov. Pickens of South Carolina 13APR1861
I am continuing the theme that the US government has lied us into all wars, even the War on Covid-19 (to cover up the financial bubble being burst in parallel). We were lied to about the rationale for the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War and here we will talk about the so-called ‘American Civil War’.

Character Flaw: US Government Has Lied Us into War of 1812 All the Way to the War on Covid-19

As I have mentioned before, “civil war” is a misnomer due to the fact in a true civil war both parties want to be in power of the WHOLE country after the war is complete. With this war, more appropriately called the War Against Southern Independence, the southern states had no eyes on any of the northern territory or states.

In fact, we do need to separate out a few things here. Secession itself did NOT cause this war. Slavery, protected under the US Constitution, did not trigger this war even though it was pointed to in secession documents to cover the South’s legal exit.

The South wanted their secession to be constitutional in order to deprive the North of a pretext for invasion.  This made it impossible for the Southern states to argue that they were seceding because of the tariff.  The tariff was a federal issue.  The Constitution gave the federal government the right to pass tariffs.  So the real reason the South was leaving the union left the South with no constitutional argument.  On the other hand, slavery was a state’s right guaranteed by the Constitution.  This caused the South to seize on the noncompliance of some northern states with the federal law requiring the return of run-away slaves and make a constitutional issue out of it. This argument then appeared in some of the secession documents of the southern states. – Paul Craig Roberts

So we need to understand that the southern seven states that had seceded had voted on secession AND had withdrawn peacefully.

Southern Independence was indeed achieved as these seven states formed a confederation that Jefferson would have been happy with and saw as inevitable since the early 1800s.The Confederate States of America even took their peaceful approach a step further, they offered to pay the US for the federal property (forts, etc) in the south! Beyond this, they even sought peace negotiations even offering European leaders to be a neutral party as part of this peace conference. Lincoln ignored all of this to preserve his notion that this was an insurrection only and that the states were still part of the union.

In a neat case of Throwback Thursday, try on this Lincoln quote from 1847:

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable – a most sacred right – a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.

Imagine that, by 1861 Lincoln changed his mind, placing expediency and power over principle. The commensurate politician!

So fast forward to late 1860 and early 1861 when things were happening fast-n-furious, most people with standard high school history probably believe that the firing on Ft. Sumter was the first hostile act of the war.

“FAKE NEWS” Just a little research shows that it just ain’t so. From DEC1860 to APR1861 some definite acts of aggression were made:

  • The first act that torpedoed trust in the relationship between federal units still in occupation of forts in the southern seven states AFTER the state seceded occurred when Major Robert Anderson, who commanded the US troops at Sumter, had of his own discretion moved the troops from Ft Moultrie, an indefensible position, to Ft Sumter in the night of 26DEC1860. He had done so without the direction of President Buchanan, and because the Carolinians were unaware of this, they received the information as a signal that the US intended to forcefully maintain possession of Fort Sumter in the middle of Charleston harbor.. Although the South Carolina state troops refrained from attacking the fort, this action by US troops was regarded as an act of war.
  • Florida seceded on 10JAN1861 the very day the US commanding officer in charge of the Pensacola Bay fortifications transferred his command from Fort Barrancas to Fort Pickens. He made the decision to transfer his forces after hearing rumors that the people of Florida were going to seize all of the forts around Pensacola harbor and also that all of the forts in Mobile Bay, Alabama had already been taken. On the night of 13JAN1861 ten men were seen outside of the fort. These men from the Florida State guard were scouting the area to find out more information about the fort and it’s defenses when a shot was fired, a return shot was fired. These were the first shots of the War Against Southern Independence.
  • President Buchanan had ordered a reinforcement of the Fort and the USS Star of the West, loaded with supplies and additional troops, set out for Charleston. Cooper says that Buchanan attempted to rescind the order, but it was too late. The ship was already underway so word of this never reached the command. As with the relocation of troops to Sumter from Moultrie, this attempted resupply was likewise received as a hostile act by the Carolinians whose forces fired warning shots at the vessel on 13JAN1861
  • As the Confederate government was formed in FEB1861, and as Abraham Lincoln took office on 04MAR1861, correspondence between the two entities continued. William H. Seward, Lincoln’s Secretary of State, ostensibly acted as mediator between the Confederate government and the Lincoln administration. Cooper suggests that Seward had presumed to speak on behalf of Lincoln when no such authority had been delegated to him. In all probability, whether intentional or not, Seward was advancing a delaying action on behalf of the administration while a plan of action was formulated. Correspondence between the Confederate government and Seward went on for several weeks with Seward continually stalling and assuring the South that he was in favor of avoiding hostilities. Although he assured the Confederates that Sumter would be evacuated, he deflected any attempts by their officials to ascertain specifics or details.
  • Lincoln’s First Inaugural included the following myth that shocked the seven southern states who knew for fact that voluntary union meant voluntary disunion: “.. No State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances … In doing this [rejoin the union] there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. ” – A. Lincoln on 04MAR1861
  • NOTE: Back on December of 1861, Anderson had informed President Buchanan that, due to his relationship with the Mayor of Charleston, as well as with the town merchants, he had access to all of the food necessary to keep his troops fed. This relationship only came to a halt with Lincoln’s inaugural address which the South received as a threat of invasion.
Pres. Abraham Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address 04MAR1861
  • 15MAR1861 Lincoln called a cabinet meeting and asked each member of his cabinet to submit in writing their view of what should be done with regards to Fort Sumter. Every member, except Postmaster General Montgomery Blair, voted against resupply and voiced their opposition to send reinforcements.
  • By 18MAR1861, a press laid clear what was ahead for the region: “.. The ‘Boston Transcript’ presented the underlying Republican argument for a Federal conquest of the Confederacy: specifically to keep prices of manufactured goods high by ensuring collection of Federal import taxes , not only in seceded States, but in Federal States as well. The Confederate Constitution prohibited all but modest taxes on imports, far below the Federal tax rate, which Republicans would soon triple on average: The Transcript argued “it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding States are now for commercial independence.
  • 20MAR1861 United States Senator James A. Bayard of Delaware began a three day speech on the prospects of war and the legality of secession. He began by offering a resolution in the hope of avoiding what he predicted would be a long, bloody conflict. It read: “Resolved by the Senate of the United States, That the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, has full power and authority to accept the declaration of the seceding States that they constitute hereafter an alien people, and to negotiate and conclude a treaty with “the Confederate States of America” acknowledging their independence as a separate nation; and that humanity and the principle avowed in the Declaration of Independence that the only just hosts of government is “the consent of the governed,” alike require that the otherwise inevitable alternative of civil war, with all its evils and devastation, should be thus avoided.
  • Senator Orville Browning, a close friend and confidant of Lincoln’s, advised him: “In any conflict…..between the government and seceding States, it is very important that the traitors shall be the aggressors, and that they be kept constantly and palpably in the wrong. The first attempt……to furnish supplies or reinforcements will induce aggression by South Carolina, and then the government will stand justified, before the entire country, in repelling that aggression, and retaking the forts.”

So President Lincoln in deciding the Sumter question had adopted a simple but effective policy. To use his own words, he determined to ‘send bread to Anderson’; if the rebels fired on that, they would not be able to convince the world that he had begun the civil war.

After Lincoln maneuvered the South into “firing the first shot” on 12APR1861, in a 01MAY1861 letter to Gustavous Fox, who commanded the naval detachment charged with resupplying Sumter, the following:

You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail, and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result.

Mission Accomplished, Lincoln had successfully provoked war while, in his mind, maintaining the appearance of a non-aggressor. FDR took note of this in 1940 many months before Pearl Harbor in DEC1941.

At this point war was still not a sure thing, but Lincoln used the firing on federal property, even though no man was killed, as his justification to keep Congress from meeting until he had called up volunteers and prepared for war on the south.

The only reason a War for Southern Independence was needed was because the northern states invaded the south. The north, under Lincoln’s leadership would not let the south go and would call their action the putting down of a general insurrection. I have plenty of previous posts (post, post, post, post, post, post, post, in 2020 alone) that touch on much of the lead up to this war.

Remember US Senator James A. Bayard who spoke eloquently with logic back on 20MAR1861 to anyone who would hear. Later in 1861 when his son-in-law went off to fight for the Union Army in this War Against Southern Independence he again spoke wisdom:

“In embarking on this war therefore, you enlist in a war for invasion of another people. If successful it will devastate if not exterminate the Southern people and this is miscalled Union. If unsuccessful then peaceful separation must be the result after myriads of lives have been sacrificed, thousands of homes made desolate, and property depreciated to an incalculable extent. Why in the name of humanity can we not let those States go?”

Today, here in the awesome year of 2020, I ask the same question about portions of California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, Minnesota and much of the New England states, can’t the United States federal government honor the possible roadmap shown in the 1990s by the USSR and peacefully split into many republics that can “serve” their own cultures the best?

Peace out.

-SF1

Democratic Party is Evil, Republican Party is Stupid: More Evidence on the Later

Americans seriously never have had a choice for an honorable political party led by statesmen (and women) that would honor the principles that this country was founded on.

From the very beginning, the Federalists, the Republican-Democrats that morphed into the Democratic Party, the Whigs that morphed into the Republican Party has always had an evil-to-stupid ratio, which I believe is caused by the common ingredient = POLITICS. Politics will quickly cause good people to become bad and turn everything it touches to s**t.

So today, in support of the Republican Party being the stupid party, it seems that Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) proposed a bill aimed at the Democratic Party:

Gohmert’s resolution, proposed on Thursday, would mandate that “any political organization or party that has ever held a public position that supported slavery or the Confederacy shall either change its name or be barred from participation in the House of Representatives.”

How stupid is that, unless your only history data is from government schools that basically said only the Democratic party supported slavery. Do yourself a favor and look up the 1860 Republican Platform:

Item #4: That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the states, and especially the right of each state to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgement exclusively, is essential to that balance of powers on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed forces of the soil of any state or territory, no matter what the pretext, as among the gravest of crimes”

Translated, “domestic institutions” is institutional slavery, and the Republican platform of 1860 supported slavery.

One should also note that the proposed 13th Amendment, passed by Congress, after the seven southern states had seceded, with much Republican support (see below) would guarantee any state to keep their institution of slavery (domestic institutions) forever, like permanently!

Lincoln in his 04MAR1861 inaugural address supported this saying:

I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution–which amendment, however, I have not seen–has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.

Called the Corwin Amendment, it was ratified by many northern states as I showed in a previous post, until the progress of the Civil War made this offer not necessary.

This passed the US House of Representatives 133 to 63 on 28FEB1861 and passed the US Senate 24 to 12 on 02MAR1861. Lincoln proceeded to send a letter to each governor explaining this amendment.

With Lincoln’s encouragement, the following states ratified:

  • Kentucky 04APR1861
  • Ohio 03MAY1861
  • Rhode Island 31MAY1861
  • Maryland 10JAN1862
  • Illinois 02JUN1863

Pretty amazing that the “Land of Lincoln” voted for cementing slavery into the US Constitution as late as 1863. What is this all about?

Beyond this, I think it is very timely to point out the racist tendencies of the Republican Party hero Abraham Lincoln himself. Whereas current day (vintage 2020) Republican Party cheerleaders very did a serious study of Lincoln himself and true to form issued stupid statements like this:

Lincoln never acknowledges black inferiority – Dinesh D’Souza

.. I will hopefully bring some light your way so that you don’t have to remain stupid as a Republican.

Lerone Bennett Jr. said it best when he said:

“[T]he level of ignorance on Abraham Lincoln and race in the United States is a scandal ..”

What follows is just a teaser before we get into Lincoln’s raw quotes.

Historian James Oakes, winner of multiple Lincoln Prizes for best book of the year on Lincoln historiography said:

Lincoln .. earned a reputation as a brutal partisan attack dog. He published pseudonymous letters and anonymous editorials satirizing the religious convictions of his opponents or belittling their manhood. Worst of all was Lincoln’s penchant for race-baiting. He implied that Democrats would give blacks the vote and that Illinois would ‘be overrun with free negroes’. He described Martin VanBuren’s running mate as “the husband of a negro wench, and the father of a band of mulattoes” ..

How long will it take for the evil party (Democrats) to find this dirt on the stupid party that brought this up (Republicans)? Well if they have Joe Biden on this effort, we can be assured that the Republican party roots and DNA will remain well hidden from society at large here in 2020.

Lincoln’s own words below are directly from The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (CW), complete with specific citations for every single quotation:

  • “Free them [blacks] and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this . . . . We can not then make them equals.” (CW, Vol. II, p. 256)
  • “There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people, to the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races” (CW, Vol. II, p. 405)
  • “What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races” (CW, Vol. II, p. 521)
  • “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races . . . . I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary.” (CW, Vol. III, p. 16)
  • “I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races . . . . I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people . . .” (CW, Vol, III, pp. 145-146)
  • “I will to the very last stand by the law of this state, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes.” (CW, Vol. III, p. 146)
  • “Senator Douglas remarked . . that . . . this government was made for the white people and not for negroes. Why, in point of mere fact, I think so too.” (CW, Vol. II, p. 281)

Note that until his dying day, Lincoln plotted to deport all the black people out of America:

  • “I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation . . . . Such separation . . . must be effected by colonization” [to Liberia, Central America, anywhere]. (CW, Vol. II, p. 409)
  • “Let us be brought to believe it is morally right , and . . . favorable to . . . our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime . . .” (CW, Vol. II, p. 409)
  • “The place I am thinking about having for a colony [for the deportation of all American blacks] is in Central America. It is nearer to us than Liberia.” (CW, Vol. V, pp. 373, 374)

Lincoln actually STRENGTHENED the institution of slavery, and kept slavery intact in the slave states that remained in the Union until after his death:

  • ” I think no wise man has perceived, how it [slavery] could be at once eradicated, without producing a greater evil, even to the cause of human liberty himself.” (CW, Vol. II, p. 130)
  • “I meant not to ask for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia.” (CW, Vol., II, p. 260)
  • “I believe there is no right, and ought to be no inclination I the people of the free states to enter into the slave states and interfere with the question of slavery at all.” (CW, Vol. II, p. 492)
  • “I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists.” (CW, Vol. III, p. 16)
  • “I say that we must not interfere with the institution of slavery . . . because the constitution forbids it, and the general welfare does not require us to do so.” (CW, Vol. III, p. 460)

Lincoln supported the Fugitive Slave Act that mandated the return of escaped slaves to their owners. You do know that this is why the Underground Railroad did not stop in Indiana or Ohio or even Michigan, but ended only when the slaves made it to Canada!

  • “I do not now, nor ever did, stand in favor of the unconditional repeal of the fugitive slave law.” (CW, Vol., III., p. 40)
  • “[T]he people of the Southern states are entitled to a Congressional Fugitive Slave Law.” (CW, Vol. III, p. 41)

So I think you now have some insight into the real Lincoln, not the myth that school teachers and media may have taught you about the “Great Emancipator”

Better yet, you might want to test drive this book by Lerone Bennett Jr. called Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream

Lerone is an African-American scholar, author and social historian, known for his revisionist analysis of race relations in the United States. His best-known works include ‘Before the Mayflower’ and ‘Forced into Glory’. He is most notable for his decades as executive editor for ‘Ebony Magazine’, to which he was promoted in 1958. It has served as his base for the publication of a steady stream of articles on African-American history, some of them collected into books.

Here are some excerpts from Lerone’s works:

I was a child in whitest Mississippi, reading for my life, when I discovered that everything I had been told about Abraham Lincoln was a lie….for I discovered that I lived in an Orwellian world where scholars with all the degrees the schools could give could say in all seriousness that a separatist was an integrationist and that a White supremacist was the ultimate symbol of race relations and the American Dream. Lincoln or somebody said once that you can’t fool all of the people all the time. By turning a racist who wanted to deport all Blacks into a national symbol of integration and brotherhood, the Lincoln mythmakers have managed to prove Lincoln or whoever said it wrong. This is the story of how they fooled all of the people all the time and why.

Lerone explains about the Emancipation Proclamation itself:

The testimony of sixteen thousand books and monographs to the contrary notwithstanding, Lincoln did not emancipate the slave, greatly or otherwise…. John Hume, the Missouri anti-slavery leader…said the Proclamation “did not…whatever it may have otherwise accomplished at the time it was issued, liberate a single slave.” …Lincoln himself knew that his most famous act would not of itself free a single Negro. The second and most damaging point is that “the great emancipator” did not intend for it to free a single Negro, for he carefully, deliberately, studiously excluded all Negroes within “our military reach.”

Only Honest Abe could pull this off, was to “free” slaves in Confederate-held territory where he couldn’t free them and to leave them in slavery in Union-held territory where he could have freed them.

We all know of the Thirteenth Amendment, officially outlawing slavery and involuntary servitude in December 1865.  In his book, Lerone Bennett recounts two earlier Thirteenth amendments, both supported by Lincoln, neither of which (obviously) successfully amended the Constitution.

The first of these was passed by Congress just before Lincoln took office and was sent to the states for ratification like I said before in this post. This amendment would have permanently made America half slave and half free.

The second proposed  Thirteenth amendment, proposed by Lincoln himself, but never approved by Congress, was the first of three amendments Lincoln proposed for buying and deporting native-born African-Americans.

Lerone Bennett provides so much more in this book of over 600 pages – all of it focused on exploding the myth that Lincoln was the friend of the slave, the great emancipator, and the champion of equal rights.

All BS, all the time.

Do your own research y’all, Lincoln was never the friend of the slave before, during or after his War Against Southern Independence.

Peace out.

-SF1

Honorable Rebellion, Honorable Leaders and the Naming of Army Forts

I am sure this title caught your eye. The point is that rebellion is actually GOOD once in a while. Personally, teenage rebellion is good as well, otherwise the teenager stays in one’s basement for decades and no honorable person, parent or child, wants that long term. Allowing and encouraging these young adults to “be all that they can be” is a most honorable path I would think.

Countries and cultures are similar in that there comes a time when going separate ways brings out the best for all parties.

Thomas Jefferson was one that spoke to the benefits of rebellion:

God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13 states independant 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.- Thomas Jefferson (1787)

Rebellion is a warning shot that liberties have been violated. This is an honorable recourse when peaceful approaches have been ignored time and again. Liberty can grow in the way that the American Revolution’s conclusion was conducted, not so much how the French Revolution was conducted.

If the 1776 rebellion was honorable, why not the 1860/1861 rebellion? What might help to set the context is to compare the presidential inaugural addresses of both President Lincoln and President Davis.

Lincoln’s 1st Inaugural Address 04MAR1861

Lincoln made the strongest case ever in the defense of Southern slavery even supporting its enshrinement in the text of the constitution to be a perpetual right but on the issue of tax collections he would definitely go to war to enforce the newly doubled federal tariff.

Davis defined the South as an international trading community that sought free trade with the world and promised to resort to the sword if the North were to invade to put an end to the Confederacy’s free trade policy.

Davis also set the context for the formation of an agent to work on the principle’s (13 sovereign states) behalf when he said:

The declared purpose of the compact of the Union from which we have withdrawn was “to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

He continued on why the seven states had voted to leave such a Union:

When in the judgement of the sovereign states now composing this Confederacy, it had been perverted from the purposes for which it was ordained, and it ceased to answer the ends for which it was established, a peaceful appeal to the ballot box declared that so far as they were concerned, the government created by that compact should cease to exist. In this they merely asserted a right that the Declaration of Independence of 1776 had defined to be inalienable .. they, as sovereigns, were the final judges, each for itself ..

What few people know is that this man was so honorable and such a Unionist up until his home state of Mississippi seceded, that his logic, actions and words were honorable to their core.

So what do we do with men like this after a War for Southern Independence is fought and lost? We honor honorable men of that day by naming military forts after them, even when they in the end were not victorious in securing an independent country against a country who secured a victory in less than honorable means.

Walter E. Williams addresses this in his article at Lew Rockwell today. He lays the groundwork as to why we have forts in the US today that bear the name of honorable Confederate generals who were fighting for their homes and families against a tyrant who violated the US Constitution left and right.

Walter addresses a statement made by an ignorant military man, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley, who said in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee arguing in favor of renaming Confederate named military bases:

The Confederacy, the American Civil War, was fought, and it was an act of rebellion. It was an act of treason, at the time, against the Union, against the Stars and Stripes, against the U.S. Constitution.

Ignorance knows no bounds, as I pointed out yesterday that Lincoln himself was the one that acted treasonous and also acted violently against the US Constitution. The Southern state’s secession was NOT an act of treason, even if your feelings and emotions convince you and Gen. Mark Milley that way. He needs to find a safe space, and by renaming these forts I do hope he feels better soon.

But I digress ..

Walter E. Williams starts with context of the union in the first place:

Let’s start at the beginning, namely the American War of Independence (1775-1783), a war between Great Britain and its 13 colonies, which declared independence in July 1776. The peace agreement that ended the war is known as the Treaty of Paris signed by Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Jay and Henry Laurens and by British Commissioner Richard Oswald, on Sept. 3, 1783. Article I of the Treaty held that “New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States.”

This fact is something that Lincoln himself ignored to retain his narrative that the “Union” preceded the states, which then dovetails into his own personal thought that the states should have asked permission of all the other states before leaving.

Walter continues:

Delegates from these states met in Philadelphia in 1787 to form a union. During the Philadelphia convention, a proposal was made to permit the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, rejected it. Minutes from the debate paraphrased his opinion: “A union of the states containing such an ingredient (would) provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”

The fact that Lincoln never acknowledged the states as having seceded, left him with the complicated aspect that he actually violated the principle above, that his making war on states still in the union meant the compact was in fact dissolved. He wanted to ask for the “divorce”, he did NOT want the spouse(s) to have that status!

With this thought, that each of the sovereign states would voluntarily join this union one at a time, each state also understood that they each could voluntarily leave this union.

During the ratification debates, Virginia’s delegates said, “The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.” The ratification documents of New York and Rhode Island expressed similar sentiments; namely, they held the right to dissolve their relationship with the United States.

Note that northern states also expressed interest in the ability to exit. Only 16 years later, there was talk of that from that section of the federation:

Many New Englanders were infuriated by President Thomas Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase in 1803, which they saw as an unconstitutional act. Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, who was George Washington’s secretary of war and secretary of state, led the movement. He said, “The Eastern states must and will dissolve the union and form a separate government.” Other prominent Americans such as John Quincy Adams, Elbridge Gerry, Fisher Ames, Josiah Quincy III and Joseph Story shared his call for secession.

Sparking secession talk again was the War of 1812 that hurt the New England commerce the most, rekindling this viable option:

While the New England secessionist movement was strong, it failed to garner support at the 1814-15 Hartford Convention.

By early 1861, many Northern government officials and presses were well aware of the dangers of not allowing an honorable rebellion to take place and voiced such before Lincoln took action to send armed reinforcements to Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor:

  • Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, “Any attempt to preserve the union between the states of this Confederacy by force would be impractical and destructive of republican liberty.”
  • New-York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): “If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861.”
  • The Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): “An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil — evil unmitigated in character and appalling in extent.”
  • The New-York Times (March 21, 1861): “There is a growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go.”

Walter summarizes this so well in saying:

Confederate generals fought for independence from the Union just as George Washington fought for independence from Great Britain. Those who label Robert E. Lee and other Confederate generals as traitors might also label George Washington a traitor. Great Britain’s King George III and the British parliament would have agreed.

Spot on Walter, you rock as an 80-something!

Named for Confederate General Braxton Bragg, who had previously served in the United States Army in the Mexican-American War.

Should the ten forts named after Confederate officers be renamed? No. But it seems that stupid people with a lot of feelings now rule. While the name of a fort does not do anything physically, it is a part of the culture cleansing going of to remove whatever is left of this country’s honorable past.

In my mind, the past was already being erased a little at a time over the last 100+ years. I think it is the shear momentum of this now that has many feeling that it is over the top and openly wondering when if ever will it stop.

Honestly, can we start talking secession now, or is it too early yet? Asking for a friend.

Peace out.

-SF1

Will President Trump Refrain from Total War Against Some States, Unlike Lincoln?

A couple posts ago I lamented about the GOP’s DNA from the birth of that political party that Lincoln was elected under:

.. in 2020, the Trump administration would never concede to have GOP majority states secede from the US and allow the Democrats to have the empire. The GOP’s DNA is war and empire.

However, could the Trump administration stray from their DNA (I mean with politicians, “principles” are easily discarded)? Could the GOP part with large sections of California, New York and New England? Could the city-states of Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland and Cincinnati (along with other Democratic majority cities in various states) be allowed to go on their own and pay their own way?

This is a real question. No one, I mean no one brings this up because supposedly states can’t secede, but I really think it is because BOTH parties are Marxist at their core.

Lincoln was adored by Karl Marx, and the Progressives since 1901 have been in control of this country’s leadership and cemented the deal in 1913 with Constitutional amendment to place the private entity the Federal Reserve in charge of the fiat currency (USD).

While I really doubt any politician these days thinks philosophically, the statesmen of yesterday did. It was important for the likes of Jefferson, Calhoun and even Jefferson Davis to get it right, based on principle.

While the Constitution is not in the forefront of 2020’s political debates between Twitter Trump and Dementia Joe, the statesmen of 1861 saw it all clear as day. I would say that the following is why the southern seven states that seceded were so confident of a peaceful separation, because in their mind their ancestors did the same in 1776.

Article 3 Section 3 of the US Constitution defines treason as follows:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or to adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort

The words THEM and THEIR refer to who? Well, the truth is the first time the “United States” was written it was the “united States”. That is why it is plural, a collection, a federation, a confederacy of states. So levying “War” against them was about going to war with Massachusetts or Virginia, or any other state!

Technically then, there is NO treason except that against the individual states themselves according to the US Constitution. Opposition to Washington DC is NOT therefore treason! Nor is defending your own state from Washington DC.

Let that soak in before I proceed. Doesn’t this all have a connection to 2020?

Now look at 1861 from this Constitutional perspective and we see that Lincoln made war, not just on the seven states that left the union by FEB1861, but also against the four others that left after Lincoln called up volunteers in APR1861 after Fort Sumter’s surrender. Lincoln is guilty of treason, but don’t expect the US history books to state that fact.

In essence, Lincoln engaged in treason for four years and redefined treason, not by a constitutional amendment, but with cannon and rifles. Treason became to include anyone who was critical of the US general government or himself. As a result he suspended the writ of habeas corpus and had his soldiers arrest and imprison thousands of northern civilians for speaking up against him in public, for publishing newspaper articles in opposition to his policies.  Lincoln had congressmen arrested, arrested the grandson of the author of the Star Spangled Banner, Francis Scott Key and also had a congressman from Ohio deported to Canada. Lincoln even arrested those who chose to remain silent when hearing Lincoln’s policies discussed!

The man who stands by and says nothing when the peril of his Government is discussed cannot be misunderstood. If not hindered, he is sure to help the enemy, much more if he talks ambiguously – talks for his country with “buts” and “ifs” and “ands”. – Abraham Lincoln

The bottom line is that Lincoln never publicly admitted that secession of any state took place and placed his trust in Article 4 Section 4 of the US Constitution that allows the federal government to protect the citizens of any state from “domestic Violence”.  However, the Constitution couches this in first receiving a request to do so from that state’s legislature or governor. The southern eleven states NEVER asked for assistance with “domestic violence”.

Lincoln is a certified tyrant guilty of treason.

How tempting it must be for President Trump, in command of the American Empire’s military might, to only bring a fraction of that force “for good” against any state that is currently dealing with domestic violence.

If he is wiser that Lincoln, he would have followed the US Constitution and waited until asked.

Will Trump pull a full-on Lincoln? Time will tell.

Peace out.

-SF1

When Does a Tyrant Come Out of the Closet? When a Crisis Hits!

These days as Americans are bombarded with the names Whitmer (MI), Cuomo (NY) and Newsom (CA) leading the charge for born-again tyrants, we probably should look into history to see who might have modeled this best. Being confronted with a crisis reveals the true character of most people, and when these people are politicians, the resulting decisions in the reaction to times of crisis “try men’s souls”.

In my last post I said:

The GOP is stuck because the DNA in their party rests with Abraham Lincoln and his reaction to having seven states PEACEFULLY secede from the united States of America (written as it was inked in the 1783 Paris Peace treaty with the British Empire).

I bet you can guess who I am going to pick on once again. Yes, that president we all know and love from our grade school days, Honest Abe.

We also know from our last post that Lincoln’s reaction to these states leaving the union was NOT to free the slaves, no way, no how. He actually said on 04MAR1861:

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

So after Lincoln tried to “resupply” Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor with TROOPS which triggered, no pun intended, the Confederate forces to pro-actively open the cannons on that fort to force its surrender, with ZERO deaths, Lincoln proceeded to accomplish a long list of decisions the cemented his inner tyrant behavior.

While the calling up of 75,000 volunteers from the remaining states in the union after the surrender of Fort Sumter was based on a 1795 act of Congress that gave the president to call up troops in case of insurrection, this act only allowed 30 days until the president’s authority would cease. Lincoln would milk this for FOUR months before Congress was called into session! Not only that, to add insult to injury, he asked Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas and Missouri to send troops to fight against their culturally “sister” states as well.

The letters from the governors of these states is hilarious, the best first line of the response from Tennessee is priceless:

Your dispatch is received, and if genuine, which its extraordinary character leads me to doubt .. I can be no party to this wicked violation of the laws of this country, and to this war on the liberties of a free people ..

What they did not know was this was only the beginning of the reveal show that Lincoln would unfold in 1861. By 21APR1861 he ordered the blockade of southern ports (an act of war) and the purchase of five naval warships, without congressional approval. On 27APR1861 he suspended the privilege of Habeas Corpus nullifying every civil liberty of every citizen.

On 03MAY1861 Lincoln called up even more troops, this time for a three year enlistment! He also directed the Treasury Department to pay a private firm in New York state $2.0M for military equipment and by 04JUL1861 when Congress was finally called into session, war plans to invade the southern 11 states were already made.

If this were not bad enough, the night of 12SEP1861 he had Maj. Gen. Banks arrest all the Southern sympathizers of the Maryland legislature, 51 citizens in all, to prevent them from voting on secession.

Then, in NOV1861, to ensure southern sympathizers would not vote in Maryland, armed Union troops with bayonets guarded the polling places AND all the Union troops got to vote, even if they were not residents of Maryland.

In Britain, London’s Saturday Review commented:

It was a perfect act of despotism as can be conceived. It was a coup d’etat in every essential feature.

Any Northern press that criticized this the same way was shutdown:

  • Chicago Daily Times
  • The Journal of Commerce (NYC)
  • The Morning News (NYC)
  • The Day-Book
  • The New York World
  • The Freeman’s Journal (Catholic NYC)
  • Philadelphia Evening Journal
  • Christian Observer
  • Republican Watchman (PA)
  • Farmer (ME)
  • Democrat (NH)

Not only were these and another 1,000 newspapers were shutdown, the people involved (up to 10,000) were imprisoned without trial. Newspapers not shutdown were highly regulated throughout the war and censored.

This is only the beginning as Lincoln attempted to have the Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney who had ruled against Lincoln, in the case of Ex Parte Merryman (1861), arrested!.

Talk about the poster child for tyranny. Lincoln is the master.

So look at a picture of your governor or your president or possible next president and know what our US Constitution (and the state constitutions modeled after it) will allow in times of crisis.

I think we are about to see a “Lincoln redux” in action soon all across our land. 1861 was not an easy time to live through in many parts of this country!

Gov. Whitmer – Michigan

 

 

Gov. Cuomo – New York
Gov. Newsom – California
President Donald J. Trump – United States of America
Joe Biden – Possible Future President of the United States

Peace out.

-SF1