Category: War Against Southern Independence

State’s Rights, Slavery or Freedom?

While there is an effort to erase all history in this country by the government schooled ignorant masses, those that can think critically will need to research harder to find source material necessary to learn from.

Why do we need to learn? Because whenever you have culture wars, collective societies and empires in the mix you will need to know your enemy so you can effectively resist the wave, retain your freedoms and maybe even your life. Beyond this, there are others in your family or circle of friends that need to be sparked to research on their own over time. The struggle is real as one by one we give people truth in love and give them the freedom that is in our DNA from out Creator.

An article from Abbeville Institute sparked this thought in me this morning .. here is a clip:

“The Civil War was fought over slavery.” If you want verification of this “known” fact, this politically correct “given” all you have to do is ask a typical Southern politician, educator, media personality, minister or just about anyone you meet on the street.

True that you can ask this question all over the United States and get this as the 90% majority opinion. You might be surprised that those in foreign lands tend to see things a little clearer as I predict only 80% of the world that is knowledgeable of the American “Civil*” War.

* By definition, that war was NOT a “civil” war where BOTH sides want the WHOLE nation

Southerners who know the truth about the War for Southern Independence will try to correct the error of Yankee propaganda by announcing that the War was fought over states’ rights not over slavery.

So there is probably another 10% of Americans that would agree with this paragraph .. that it was all about “state’s rights”, that their state had a right to opt out of an abusive marriage when and if necessary years after it agreed to the marriage (whether it was the 1st marriage during the late 1770s with the Continental Congress or the 2nd marriage during the late 1780s with the US Constitution). While this is honorable and follows the founder’s thought processes, there is something more at the core of most of those who fought.

The author goes on to point out that your typical southern dirt farmer in 1861 was not all that political and really saw the imminent invasion as a threat to his way of life, and that of his family and his land! In fact, he offers a short story to segway to a way to look on the reality of 1861:

Suppose one is walking along a city street and you come upon an individual viciously beating someone. Out of a sense of honor and Christian charity you demand that the man cease beating his victim but the man looks at you and tells you to mind your own business because he has “a constitutional right to beat the victim.” Now don’t think outside of the scenario—with just the facts as given—how would you feel even if the person doing the beating did in fact have a constitutional right to beat the victim? Legal technicalities do not stand up well against an emotional appeal.

So the author suggests that the south missed the boat in the post war period by not getting to the core of the grounds for divorce in the first place. In addition to this, I contend that this political “evidence” pales in comparison to the life both southerners, northerners and westerners (Midwest today) had before that horrible war. The author goes on to lay blame at the southern politicians:

Instead of maintaining the struggle for the principle of Southern freedom; the right to be the masters in our own homes; the right of self-determination; and the right to live under a government ordered upon the free and unfettered consent of the governed—all of which was boldly proclaimed in 1776—Southern spokesmen meekly declared that the men in gray were fighting for states’ rights. Instead of challenging each successive generation of Southerners to break the chains of political and economic bondage fastened upon the people of the South by the ruling elite of the Federal Empire, our “leaders” sought to assure the Northern majority that “we the people” of the invaded, conquered and occupied Confederate States of America were once again 100% loyal Americans—meaning that we were obedient subjects of the newly created Federal Empire.

So in the North (Union) waging a war against southern culture is a particularly wicked way through wholesale burning of homes and cities, raping of women and taking anything of value from the innocent people left behind by their husbands who were fighting hundreds of miles away (i.e. total war), the north actually “kept the Union” (i.e. marriage) intact while a by-product was freeing the black slaves only to exit this war by making everyone a slave on the government plantation by force.

Now here comes the punch line …

Why did those men in gray, the majority of whom were not part of the plantation system, why did they fight for four long years against overwhelming odds with not a single friend in the community of nations to offer encouragement? Why were they willing to expend so much blood and treasure? The answer is as simple as it is eye-opening; they were fighting to be free; to prevent an aggressive and culturally dissimilar Yankee majority from making political and economic slaves of the Southern minority. They were fighting to prevent Yankees from turning Southerners, both black and white, into political and economic vassals of their newly created Federal Empire! They were fighting to drive back an aggressive and evil invader (the United States of America) and to preserve the independence and freedom of their country …

.. their land, their way of life.

Look around today in 2018 and be honest. Can you see why many people in this forced Union are now worried about a second “civil” war? Can you see why the south and its former independent spirit was targeted in the last decade to rid itself of the desire to once again desire to shake off the tyranny that runs loose in this land? Is there no refuge for those that just want to be left alone .. opting out of any government assistance and be self-reliant where they can raise their families THEIR way .. in FREEDOM?

It is critical that those who love their God-given life, family, healthy communities and land come to terms with the encroaching empire and its cultural rot and filth. One example of how a people can be free in spirit while being a serf in an empire is in the book of Acts in the Bible. These people were able to both rest in His love and hope while being proactive defenders of the ones they love on this earth. A future post will cover my own thoughts on this.

Until then, dream about freedom, research to know your enemy and be prepared for the times ahead .. teach that next generation well!

SF1

You Keep Hearing About Slavery .. But I Don’t Think You are Getting the Whole Scoop

If you want to stay ignorant, do not read any further .. but if you have any doubts that it was not ONLY the South whose hands (and $) was tied up into the slave trade (until 1808 in the USA) and slavery itself until 9 months after the War Against Southern Independence ended .. read on and read the whole thing at this link: https://www.unz.com/freed/fun-with-slavery/
 
Know the truth, and it will set you free.
Quotes from UNZ
 
“..First, slavery was always bad, frequently hideous, much worse in the Deep South than in Tidewater or New York, and consequent to the same desire for cheap labor that now results in importing Mexicans and exporting jobs to China. Any notion that abuses were rare or exaggerated is twaddle. A vast amount of contemporary writing documents this…”
 
… in the South AND the North. Yes snowflakes, one needs to know that in 1741 Manhattan had the 2nd largest slave population of any city in the thirteen Brit colonies here in North America .. after Charleston, South Carolina.
 
“.. Second, the slave trade being phenomenally profitable, much like the drug trade today, many were involved who today choose to forget this: Yankees, Arabs, Jews, Quakers, and Southerners. It was strongly defended by many Christians in the South, and attacked by Christians in the North, who had no financial stake in it. Yankees owned slaves and, in the draft riots in New York in 1863, lynched and burned them alive…”
 
Just think this through, entertain a thought without believing it for once .. if the deep South (7 states) had peacefully seceded .. all the Northern banks who had financed so much there would stand to lose interest income .. yeah, when it comes down to money, people and businesses throw away principles.
 
“.. Third, among the historically illiterate a notion exists that the South consisted of rich aristocrats living in mansions. A few, yes. Most, not even close. Poverty among whites in the South and the associated Appalachia was often extreme…”
 
Kind of like today, the “elite” gets all the perks and the rest of the people get less, much less.
 
“.. Fourth, freeing the slaves was an easy solution if you didn’t have the problem. If you were a planter with a wife and three little girls, would you give up your house and subject your family to poverty, rape, robbery, and revenge from blacks? I am not asking whether you think they should have done it, but whether in the circumstances you would do it. Another way of putting it: For what moral cause would you, today, give up your job, house, and investments, and step on the sidewalk with your family?..”
 
So easy to look back with scorn .. but that last sentence is key, what moral issue would YOU risk all?
 
“.. You might have done what many slaveowners did, what George Washington did: free your slaves in your will. (This reminds me of Saint Augustine’s cry, “Oh Lord, grant me chastity, but not just yet.”) You could thus express your opposition to slavery while enjoying its benefits…”
 
Yeah, pass down the hardships to your kids (oh yeah, GW had no kids) ..
 
“.. Fifth, many today would say that Southerners deserved their problems, having brought them on themselves by enslaving blacks. But of course they did not. By 1861 most were born into a slaveholding society. Most were not enthusiastic about it, but had little idea what to do.
 
Anyone interested in just how divided whites were about slavery might the debates in 1831-2 in the Virginia House of Delegates. There was heated argument favoring no emancipation, gradual emancipation, immediate and total emancipation, and Lincoln’s solution of sending blacks back to Africa…”
 
In the end, because no one would get a majority .. the can was kicked to a future generation(s) to deal with.
 
Context is crucial here .. what if you heard the result of freeing slaves ended up in some horrible revenge violence .. well remember in you history books when they talked about the Haitian Slave Revolt? Why the puzzled face? Oh yeah, you never heard of that did you.
 
“.. Sixth–and important–was the Haitian slave revolt of 1791-1804, of which few Americans have heard. Black Haitians butchered and tortured the whites in an unspeakable bloodbath. Southerners, well aware of this, decided that freeing the slaves would be mass suicide. As it happened when the slaves were emancipated after the Civil War, no bloodbath came. Events in Haiti provided ample reason for not taking the chance…”
 
Bingo .. one data point but hey, it is a solid data point!
 
“.. The sentiment was reinforced in 1831 by Nat Turner’s revolt in which slaves in Virginia revolted and butchered some sixty whites, families included…”
 
OK .. two data points ..
 
“.. Seventh, Southerners believed that they knew the Negroes and that they could not function as equals of whites and thus would destroy society. Except for ardent abolitionists–perhaps for ardent abolitionists–so did Northerners, but by then these latter didn’t have many Negroes and never expected to…”
 
So .. were the Southerners right? I mean we are over 150 years post slavery and it seems that in the 1950s it was the most tranquil for blacks as they had low unemployment and a vast majority of dads were part of the family. Did the US government blow that up by being a daddy to the majority of black families (so that they would vote Democrat? Thanks LBJ)
 
“.. Eighth, controversy, usually witless, persists over whether the South fought to preserve slavery. The usual approach is to quote Southern planters, politicians, and newspapers as to the sacred quality of the peculiar institution and how God liked it. QED.
 
But of course these were the slave-owners, the rich, and their hangers on. They favored slavery for the same reason American businesses favor remote wars in Afghanistan: they make money at it. People do not fight bloody wars over years for the benefit of people that, after the war, they will have no desire to associate with. If you had asked a thousand Confederate infantrymen why they were fighting, do you think they would have said, “I’m fighting and dying and seeing my friends screaming gutshot so that rich bastards can own slaves while I live in a shack?” ..”
 
No shit Sherlock …geez people, learn you REAL history for once so you can stand your ground on the truth. In context for TODAY consider:
 
“.. You, the reader, probably do not favor mistreatment of women and girls. Would you favor fighting a war in Afghanistan in which America would lose over six and a half million dead–proportionately to population, what the country lost in the Civil War–to impose civil rights for women in Afghanistan?..”
 
Would you!!!
 
On to EPIC HYPOCRACY!
 
“.. Ninth, hypocrisy. You, the reader, probably live (as I long did) in a society in which millions of blacks live pointless lives, shooting each other in decaying cities with horrible schools. If you are a Yankee of the usual intolerable virtue, as so many are, note that blacks suffer these awful conditions chiefly in Southern cities such as Trenton, Newark, Camden, Philadelphia, New York, Detroit, Chicago, Flint, Gary, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Baltimore, and Washington DC. What have you done about it–other than, perhaps, talk? And you are in no danger of the consequences of whatever you might propose. Southerners were…”
 
Ya think? Y’all can’t understand it I am sure, ever, must be some heavy cognitive dissonance is my guess .. in any case, “Bless Your Hearts”
 
“… Tenth, it is worth noting that the Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863, now also sold as a moral measure by the sainted Lincoln, in fact freed not a single slave. It applied only in the Southern states, where it was intended to ignite a revolt. Slaves in the North remained in slavery. Lincoln himself said, in letter after letter after document after speech and before Congress, over and over and over, that he would not oppose slavery in the South if only it would come back to the Union, and–yes, boys and girls–he wanted to send blacks back to Africa…”
 
Textbooks come from New York, so you can understand what that jewel is not in your high school or college history books.
 
Next is Lincoln’s view, as he nor his state (Illinois) wanted blacks there (illegal to migrate there before the so-called Civil War)
 
“.. IN fact, the North wanted no blacks of any kind, having discovered that sweating European immigrants was more profitable. If you own slaves, you have to feed them and care for them no matter the business climate. This was suited to an agricultural economy. But the North was industrial. It made more sense to pay helpless immigrants almost nothing while they lived in tubercular filth with their children working twelve hours a day and dying of preventable diseases. After all, the next ship in would bring more. In short, it was the moral equivalent of slavery but more cost-effective and without the stigma…”
 
The bottom line is that the North was complicit in this slavery thing:
 
“.. Eleventh, edited out of history for an American public with a bumper-sticker mind is that slavery was a product of the North. Slave ships in hundreds left from New York, Rhode Island, and Connecticut for Africa. When the slave trade was outlawed in 1808, Northern slavers sold contraband slaves to the South or to the godawful sugar-raising West Indies or to South America. The North grew rich from the cotton of the South, financed its plantations, and provided the slaves. Further huge profits came from trading in the products of the sugar plantations, which it turned into rum…”
 
So don’t get all uppity with the Yankee high morals .. it is just that they write the textbooks .. as historical fraud is promoted generation after generation here in the “land of the free”.

Just Say NO to “Civil War” and Try Some Peaceful Secession!

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”

― Alexander Fraser Tytler

So, it is time to end this “experiment” (Thomas Jefferson always thought that it might end within his lifetime .. and was fine with the federation at that time splitting into North, South and West (current Midwest) nations.

Secession CAN be done peacefully (as long as you keep tyrants like Abe Lincoln away) … California agrees to split into three states and become part of a Pacific Coast nation, then a Mountain West nation (two to four states north and south), and Texas obviously as a real lone star nation. When you get to the east it becomes pretty difficult as many existing states have some very different cultures. Here, city-states might work best (i.e. Chicago, Atlanta, etc.) and allow the balance of these states for form alliances (federations) that make economic and cultural sense.

In hindsight, why couldn’t Lincoln have just let the South (7 states) secede peacefully? It wasn’t his love for blacks that’s for sure (read his quotes from the 1830s – 1860s and you will see) .. it was about both finding the general government (revenue) and keeping the “Union” big enough for the big business to be able to parasite on government .. and therefore become dependent and under government’s control (railroads, steel industry at the time and more).

Correlation or Causation – That is the Question

As a scientist, when you look at the data, you can’t just jump to the first thing that comes to your mind. Research is key, the data might be suspect as well as the initial conclusions.

In the case below, the SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) suggests the following based on their data shown here:

The diagram … graphs the number of Confederate statues erected between 1870 and 1980. Since the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) compiled the data, they suggest the memorials were most frequently put in place during periods of flagrant anti-black sentiment in the South. In short they imply that racism was the prime motive for Confederate monument-building. In truth, however, more compelling reasons are as obvious as cow patties on a snow bank to the thinking person.

Quotes above and below are from Abbeville Institute

If you have never seen cow patties on a snow bank, you have missed a major lesson in direct cause and effect. I am pretty certain, no one at the SPLC has seen this as that organization that has long been adamant in its refusal to hire blacks and pay them a lot of money. The SPLC’s new tax form lists its 11 highest paid employees: they are still all white!

“Watching the Watchdogs” stated in 2017 that ” .. the Senior Executive Staff of the SPLC is all white, just as it has been every single year since the company opened for business in 1971… “.. but I digress.

So the SPLC has some major errors when it comes to their research:

The SPLC implies that the first wave was due to “lynchings, ‘Lost Cause Mythology,’ and  a resurgent KKK.” Facts, however, don’t support their conclusion. First, the KKK’s resurgence was in the 1920s, which was at least five-to-ten years after the first peak had already past. Moreover, the state with the most KKK members during the 1920s was Indiana, a Northern state. Second, the number of lynchings were steadily dropping during the 1900-to-1915 period. Third, “Lost Cause Mythology” was a strong influence until at least 1950 and by no means concentrated in the 1900-to-1915 period.

Oops .. busted. Pretty sure someone with an agenda can easily make a mistake .. true researchers don’t do this. Fake news #1. So what is the real news?:

Contrary to the SPLC’s imaginings three factors were the chief cause of the first surge from 1900-to-1915. First, the old soldiers were dying and survivors wanted to honor their memories. A twenty-one year old who joined the Rebel army at the start of the war was sixty years old in 1900 and seventy-five in 1915 when life expectancies were shorter than today. Second, post-war impoverished Southerners generally did not have enough money to even begin erecting memorials to fallen Confederates until the turn of the century. The region did not even recover to its level of pre-war economic activity until 1900, which was thirty-five years after the war had ended.* Third, until at least 1890 the Grand Army of the Republic (GAR) was hostile to any display of Confederate iconography. The GAR was a Union veterans organization that held considerable political power until at least 1900. By 1893, for example, they so successfully lobbied for retirement benefits that their pensions totaled nearly 40% of the federal budget.

Ouch .. obvious as cow patties on a snow bank. Too bad the ‘researchers’ at SPLC have yet to have life lessons from nature. On to peak #2:

As for the second surge between 1957 and 1965, the SPLC predictably attributes it to Southern resentment over public school integration and the 1960s civil rights movement. Nonetheless, it was more likely due to initiatives that celebrated the Civil War Centennial.

Yeah, another one that the cow patties might have helped with.

Something tells me that this organization just likes to stir the pot and spin fake news like a cow does after eating .. ah .. never mind.

 

 

When Your Family is Abused by US Military

“.. After several semi-decisive battles in this area, the Union Army set up shop and began patrolling the area to help convince the locals that they might want to stand with the Union rather than fall with the Confederates. Many residents felt the devastation of Union forces on their crops, supplies, servants and homesteads. With supplies running short, Union soldiers and their leaders took what they needed in the name of their cause. This not only included supplies, but labor as well. Many black freedmen, as well as those slaves who had not been granted their freedom, were enslaved by Union forces in this area for cheap labor.

Enter Jack Hinson. Two of his sons joined the Confederate Army, yet he tried to stay cordial to both sides. Understanding his decision is difficult for us looking through the lens of history, but he was a tobacco farmer who had freed his slaves, all of whom stayed on to work with him on his farm, and he obviously felt that he had a need to stay neutral. Perhaps he truly had not picked the Confederate cause to support.

This all changed one day when two of his other sons headed to the woods to hunt near the Hinson family farm, Bubbling Springs. The Hinson property lay near Dover, Tennessee. The sons were arrested by a Union patrol, accused of being bushwhackers and executed on the spot…

No justice is given “on the spot” when military forces move in. Abe Lincoln had suspended the writ of habeas corpus (please do yourself a favor and look this up if you do not understand what this is)

Their bodies were taken into Dover. Their remains were dragged around the courthouse square, and then, as a further insult, their heads were cut off and placed in a burlap sack. The patrol then rode to Jack’s farm and placed the heads of his executed sons on the gateposts of his fence. The soldiers searched Jack’s home and surrounding barns from top to bottom looking for contraband, which in this case would be guns. Luckily, they were well hidden.

Jack Hinson picked a side. He swore to himself that he would invoke the law of vengeance for the death and mutilation of his two boys. …”

This guy understood “blowback” .. and he made sure the Union troops understood it by the end of this War Against Southern Independence

Question#1: Why do people call this war a “civil war” when the southern seven states that seceded did NOT want to conquer the WHOLE country? .. duh!

Question#2: Why did Lincoln never admit the states seceded? Because he used the insurrection law from the 1790s (thanks George Washington for helping Congress do this) to call up 75,000 volunteers to put down the “insurrection”.

From Guns-n-Ammo