This article caught my eye, only because I had been updating and expanding my own family tree in Ancestry and came across many deaths on all sides of my family here in the United States in ’18 (that is 1918).
While it has been reported that over 600,000 US lives (and 50-100 million world wide) were lost to this “flu” in under a year, and the CDC acknowledges that the first reports came out of the military base in Kansas called Fort Riley in September 1918, one would have to wonder, what part of this flu was “Spanish”.
This is where all the questions have to start. Any researcher will read an article, check their biases and cross-reference source material and just consider a thought without believing it first.
So as we “march” (no pun intended for the WWI timing of this event and ground zero being a US Army base) through the facts, the half-truths and the outright myths, just walk along with me and enjoy the journey.
Spain was one of a few countries not involved in World War I. Most of the countries involved in the war censored their press.
Free from censorship concerns, the earliest press reports of people dying from disease in large numbers came from Spain. The warring countries did not want to additionally frighten the troops, so they were content to scapegoat Spain.
You thought that fake news was a recent event? Not true, already in WWI (and prior) the media (press/newspapers) tended to repeat what the government said was happening. The narrative is so strong that 100 years later we still know this to have been the “Spanish Flu”
According to a 2008 National Institute of Health paper, bacterial pneumonia was the killer in a minimum of 92.7% of the 1918-19 autopsies reviewed. It is likely higher than 92.7%.
OK, so it is neither Spanish, nor was it the flu. It was pneumonia!
Pneumococci or streptococci were found in “164 of (the) 167 lung tissue samples” autopsied. That is 98.2%. Bacteria was the killer.
This is NIH data from high quality autopsies performed at that time.
OK, so what “all of a sudden” happened in the days, weeks and months leading up to this event that unfolded from Fort Riley outward throughout the US and into the world? Well, for one, the US Army itself ballooned from 280,000 soldiers in pre-war 1917 to over 6,000,000 during WWI.
I know full well personally what life in boot camp is like as a new recruit. One is totally at the mercy of “the system”, reinforced with peer pressure of 40 per platoon, 80 per company and more in a battalion. One is brought through this process, this mind game, so that the result is total obedience to orders given, swiftly. During boot-camp we were given shots one day only to wake up the next day covered in chicken-pox, all 80 of us. Following this we had blood draws, DAILY, for three straight days, because “the refrigerators for the blood samples kept failing”. This was in the 1970s, just think what it was like in the 1910s! Read about it straight from NIH documents here.
Between January 21st and June 4th of 1918, Dr. Gates reports on an experiment where soldiers were given 3 doses of a bacterial meningitis vaccine. Those conducting the experiment on the soldiers were just spitballing dosages of a vaccine serum made in horses.
OK. This might not figure into the outbreak a few months later. But a good researcher follows the story anyway and develops their conclusions later.
An article from 2008 on the CDC’s website describes how sick WWI soldiers could pass along the bacteria to others by becoming “cloud adults.”
“Finally, for brief periods and to varying degrees, affected hosts became “cloud adults” who increased the aerosolization of colonizing strains of bacteria, particularly pneumococci, hemolytic streptococci, H. influenzae, and S. aureus.
For several days during local epidemics—particularly in crowded settings such as hospital wards, military camps, troop ships, and mines (and trenches)—some persons were immunologically susceptible to, infected with, or recovering from infections with influenza virus.
Persons with active infections were aerosolizing the bacteria that colonized their noses and throats, while others—often, in the same “breathing spaces”—were profoundly susceptible to invasion of and rapid spread through their lungs by their own or others’ colonizing bacteria.”
Taking experimentally vaccinated men and sending millions to Europe into very unsanitary conditions is on the scale of the “Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male” that was accomplished later in clinical studies conducted between 1932 and 1972!
My conclusions have yet to be made. I would like to cross-reference some other sources to see if the data lines up .. but the following is horrendous:
The toll on US troops was enormous and it is well documented. Dr. Carol Byerly describes how the “influenza” traveled like wildfire through the US military. (substitute “bacteria” for Dr. Byerly’s “influenza” or “virus”):
“… Fourteen of the largest training camps had reported influenza outbreaks in March, April, or May, and some of the infected troops carried the virus with them aboard ships to France …
As soldiers in the trenches became sick, the military evacuated them from the front lines and replaced them with healthy men.
This process continuously brought the virus into contact with new hosts—young, healthy soldiers in which it could adapt, reproduce, and become extremely virulent without danger of burning out.
… Before any travel ban could be imposed, a contingent of replacement troops departed Camp Devens (outside of Boston) for Camp Upton, Long Island, the Army’s debarkation point for France, and took influenza with them.
Medical officers at Upton said it arrived “abruptly” on September 13, 1918, with 38 hospital admissions, followed by 86 the next day, and 193 the next.
Hospital admissions peaked on October 4 with 483, and within 40 days, Camp Upton sent 6,131 men to the hospital for influenza. Some developed pneumonia so quickly that physicians diagnosed it simply by observing the patient rather than listening to the lungs…” (7)
The United States was not the only country in possession of the Rockefeller Institute’s experimental bacterial vaccine.
A 1919 report from the Institute states: “Reference should be made that before the United States entered the war (in April 1917) the Institute had resumed the preparation of antimeningococcic serum, in order to meet the requests of England, France, Belgium Italy and other countries.”
More research to follow. I encourage you to do the same.
In my last post that focused on May1781, Francis Marion had successfully kicked the British out of Georgetown on the coast of South Carolina, however, the British remained on their ships in Winyah Bay and would not leave until 11JUN1781.
Continental Maj. General Nathanial Greene had started a siege of Ninety-Six which I described in my last post as the following:
The fortification was intense and artillery consisted of three three-pounders and 550 motivated soldiers knowing that this was the last significant outpost in the interior of South Carolina where once the British had over 30 strongholds and now only had a dozen mainly located near CharlesTown.
It seems that all three militia innovations were attempted during this 28 day siege, Mahem’s tower, flaming arrows and even a tunnel but all were compensated for by the Brits. Both Greene and militia leader Brig. Gen. Thomas Sumter present at Ninety-Six, they earnestly desired to have Marion’s men present as well for the final assault.
To show the timeline:
05JUN1781: Brig. Gen. Francis Marion writes to Maj. Gen. Nathanael
Greene – the evacuated British garrison of Georgetown is still
sitting in their boats in Winyah Bay.
05JUN1781: Marion receives another message – On 02JUN1781 British Col.
Pasten Gould lands another 2,000 new British Regulars from Cork
at CharlesTown. Marion forwards the news to Brig. Gen. Thomas Sumter
and asks Sumter to forward it to Greene.
06JUN1781: Marion camps at Murry’s Ferry. He continues to have great
difficulty in raising men. Both Greene and Sumter attempt to get him
to move, but Marion sits tight.
07JUN1781: British leader Francis Lord Rawdon marches out of Moncks Corner and heads to Ninety-Six to break the stalemate between Maj. Gen. Greene and Lt. Col. John Harris Cruger, Loyalist Commandant of Ninety-Six.
16JUN1781: Marion leaves Murry’s Ferry and slowly marches toward
Ninety-Six. He stops at Nelson’s Ferry to again wait for his men to
come in, but they continue to linger.
So what is up with Marion’s men? They can be fast and accurate!
Well, first the excuses that Marion offered:
Sumter assuming Rawdon was going to another fort and not Ninety-Six at first and him giving Marion orders that conflicted each other (halt, resume march, halt, etc). Mixed signals from leadership ALWAYS has the unintended consequences of this nature!
Marion mentioned that there were crops to be protected for Greene’s provisions as well as a growing presence at Monck’S Corner.
Unstated was the primary reason, Marion’s men refused to travel so far from their homes.
Psyche.
Actually, Marion’s men have no desire to fight under or with the Gamecock, Brig. Gen Thomas Sumter. Sumter’s method of fighting did not mesh with those under Marion’s leadership.
There were key philosophical differences between these two militia leaders. “Sumter’s Law”, enacted just a few months before in April 1781 was a recruiting plan that offered slaves and other Loyalist property, taken by the troops during the campaign, as an enlistment bounty granted to men willing to serve for a period of ten months in the state forces. Marion’s men found this morally wrong EVEN THOUGH it was “legal”!
Brig. Gen. Thomas Sumter
19JUN1781: Maj. Gen. Nathanael Greene breaks off his siege of Ninety-
Six. He is acutely aware that British leaders Francis Lord Rawdon is on his way. He takes his army northward, across the Bush River.
Maj. Greene then issued a scathing report on 25JUN1781 of how the militia failed him yet again (and added that the Virginia militia did not show up either thanks to Thomas Jefferson). Greene now orders Marion to cooperate with Sumter “in any manner he may direct.”
Greene failed to look in the mirror as his inexperience in the ways of sieges had his troops not discover the water source for Ninety-Six fortification that could have made that fortification fall in less than two weeks instead of almost a month. Marion never responded to this letter but I am sure he had words ready for that opportunity should he see Greene again face-to-face.
How does Marion and his men respond? Marion’s Militia still refuses to join him – most of his men have no desire to fight under Sumter, yet they all know it is almost inevitable.
This is the way it should be. The negatives of militias are outweighed by this important fact, real men should be able to “consent” to an action of their own free will. The militia actually acted as a check on the powers that standing armies have in at any time opt for decisions that a amoral and an offense to society as a whole. Bring a true civil war in South Carolina, this Whig/Tory and Patriot/Loyalist split would someday have to be healed for all to live in community once the violence could subside after the British exited the colony.
So how bad was the real impact of Marion not showing up at Ninety-Six? Two weeks after the siege and assault failed, the British left Ninety-Six and they tried to go after Greene but the Irish in wool uniforms and 100F heat were not holding up well and 50 died from heat-stroke.
Returning to Ninety-Six briefly, Rawdon saw that it could not be held as the troops could not be provisioned there and battles won made little difference if the troops were starving. The loyalists in the area (non-military) left with Rawdon and Cruger as their protection and safe passage for Charleston.
Greene had actually won by losing at this point in the conflict. He called together Sumter, Lee and Marion to take advantage of the momentum offered. On 26JUN1781, Brig. Gen. Marion finally collects about 400 men, and after Lt. Col. William Washington urges him to meet up at the
Congarees, he leaves Nelson’s Ferry and marches northward to meet personally with Lt. Col. Washington and Maj. Gen. Nathanael Greene at Ancrum’s Plantation.
Summer fighting in South Carolina requires a lot of a man should he come from Virginia or further north. Greene concluded that the American forces were weakened by the heat and could not survive on the rice in the region and needed bread again. With no beef they resorted to frogs and alligators, because they taste like chicken.
After the next encounter in July 1781, Greene would then moved his troops to the High Hills of the Santee for the rest of the summer.
Sometimes only a nugget of truth can cause one’s mind and heart to seek out the deeper meanings of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
From Clyde Wilson comes this gem:
“there has not been a real opposition party in U.S. politics since Mr. Jefferson sent Colonel Hamilton and His Excellency John Adams heading back north.”
Source: “Annals of the Stupid Party: Republicans Before Trump” by Clyde Wilson
Think about it for a minute. I am sure going back ten or fifteen years almost everyone will lament (maybe only privately) that no matter what party or what president is elected after promising the moon, one always seems to get the same “nothing-burger”.
Well, let’s just say the further you go back in the history of the United States of America, the more you see the two or three parties bringing more of the same to this country, sometime the red team is more “progressive”, sometimes the blue team is, but at the end of the day, the politicians will just politic this nation to its eventual death. There is no major difference in the political parties of 2019, same has been the case since the early 1800s. The two parties are the wings of the same bird!
Another quote I came across that had me thinking:
“A civil war, by denotative or connotative definition, occurs when a faction wishes to overthrow or control an existing government in order to impose its own ideology upon the governed. The Southern states that seceded from the Union had neither the desire nor the plans to take command of the country. They simply wanted to withdraw from it, and arguably, according to even some modern constitutionalists and historians, had a right to do so, based upon the nation’s origins. Virginia, New York and Rhode Island demanded that the right of secession be reserved before they would even agree to the Constitution, thereby implying that secession was indeed a right reserved by individual states.”
Source: “Slavery and The Civil War: What Your History Teacher Didn’t Tell You” by Garry Bowers
It is true, and yet 99% of all Americans think, really do think, that the 1861-1865 conflict was a “civil” war. It is a myth, plain and simple.
So what was it? Well, to be honest, if someone files for divorce, is that ever a reason to be an aggressor on individual as in doing personal harm to him or her? Only psychos will “take out” the other person so “no one else can have him/her”.
To break it down properly, you have to know that EACH state acted independently to weigh the pros and cons of secession. Some state representatives said that exiting the federation was too early, others said it was past time. In the end, from December 1860 until early February 1861, seven sovereign states left the federation and others like North Carolina and Virginia decided to stay in the federation of states.
The very act of leaving verses trying to force seven state’s priorities, beliefs and convictions on the remaining 20+ states, means that they were ready to live and let live. There was zero aggression on the part of the exiting states. Even when these states came together in Montgomery, AL in February 1861, there was never the thought of pushing their agenda on the more northern states or the “union” as a whole.
This was not a civil war. People need to know that. It will become important someday, soon I hope.
Another quote from the same source as above might help convince you of a truth, as you consider whether or not to accept it as such:
“In U.S. official government records, it is known as “The War of the Rebellion.” This title, too, is incorrect. In 1867, none other than U.S. Supreme Court Justice Salmon P. Chase noted, in his declaration that Jefferson Davis (or any other Confederate) could not be tried for treason, that “Secession is not rebellion.”
There you have it. The action in 1860/1861 was the same thing as in 1775, when a year later, in 1776 it was stated:
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Please notice that the word “united” is not capitalized. Words and capitalization matters. These were thirteen sovereign states that decided to separate and divorce the British Empire.
Please notice too that the dissolution of the political bands is something that happens in this broken world, and that separate and equal can be better than together and miserable and abused!
This discussion is needed today, in the USA!
If the USSR can do it (break apart into smaller republics), one would think the US, which was born of secession, could do the same. Right?
Just think about it. Research it. Consider it. You don’t have to accept it as truth you know.
I find it very sad, that the United States of America (formerly known as the ‘united States of America’), had to eventually devote an entire day, or weekend, once a year to honor all our war dead. Who would have thought, in the early days of this republic, that the military deaths of 1.3 million men would one day be the sum total of over 240 years of war and strife.
It would have been one thing IF a majority of these deaths had been due to other nations attacking us, UNPROVOKED, but this is not the case. The United States has NEVER been attacked unprovoked for these major conflicts and wars. Not the War of 1812, not the Mexican-American War, not the so-called Civil War when seven states exited the “union”, not the Spanish-American War, not WWI, not WWII (if you have any doubts, read “Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor“), not the Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War I or even Gulf War II against Iraq and Afghanistan (no, the 9/11 attacks were NOT directed from these two countries, do your research!).
I have become convinced that the creation and adoption of the US Constitution led us to become a warfare state, that even with Thomas Jefferson (who was away during the Philadelphia exercise that removed the Articles of Confederation and replaced it with the Constitution we have today in 1787) as president, even he could not keep this republic, this federation of states from war.
From this 2010 Mises Institute article where H.A. Scott Trask shares excerpts from Chapter 3 of Reassessing the Presidency, edited by John V. Denson, it is clear that Jefferson’s view would have led to many fewer wars, and less of a need for a national holiday to honor all who died, not fighting for our freedom, as that has been our natural right from the begining, but fighting wars that enrich the monied class (protectionist and mercantile segment that looks to find a partner in government and the state and its power) of people in the United States, now known as the Military-Industrial Complex.
Here is Jefferson’s dream:
… the happiness of his countrymen would be promoted best by a policy of “peace, commerce, and friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” He envisioned his country as a peaceful, agrarian-commercial federal republic of self-sufficient farmers and mechanics slowly spreading across space to fill in the beautiful and bountiful land vouchsafed them by Providence. Possessing “a wide and fruitful land,” “with room enough for our descendants to the thousandth and thousandth generation,” and “kindly separated by nature and a wide ocean from the exterminating havoc of one quarter of the globe.” America, Jefferson believed, had the blessed opportunity to keep itself free from the incessant rivalries, jealousies, and conflicts of the Old World. For Jefferson, the wise and patriotic statesman would take advantage of his country’s fortunate geography and situation by defending a policy of national independence, neutrality, and noninvolvement in European affairs.
So what did Jefferson attempt to do to keep these United States from the typical knee-jerk reaction to try to fix problems in other countries and somehow believe in American Exceptionalism? He reduced the standing army substantially (from well over 6000 men to around 3000 men) and relying on the major factor that actually allowed the thirteen colonies to wear down the British Empire, state militias. Not perfect, the fact that every state had a ready force in its own citizens that had armed themselves with state of the art muskets and rifles, would be more than enough to allow a DEFENSE of these states should a foreign power attempt an invasion.
Jefferson’s defense policy was to maintain a peacetime military establishment composed of a small standing army (about 3,000 men) to defend the frontier against hostile Indians and possible Spanish incursions from the Floridas, and a small naval squadron to protect American commerce from the depredations of third-rate powers, such as the Barbary states of North Africa. Jefferson possessed a classical republican aversion to large military and naval establishments both for their expense (which required either taxes or debt to maintain) and their potential threat to the liberties of the people.
Far from being idealistic or Utopian, Jefferson’s vision and policies were based on a realistic understanding of America’s geopolitical situation in the Atlantic world. He believed that it would be pure folly and extravagance to build a large oceangoing fleet, composed of hundreds of frigates and ships-of-the-line. He rightly surmised that building such a fleet would alarm the British and encourage a preemptive strike by their navy in the event of hostilities. Thus, building a fleet could actually increase the possibility of war with England.
Jefferson rejected the Federalist axiom that in order to have peace one must prepare for war — the theory being that the more powerful a country was in armaments the less likely it was to be attacked. Jefferson doubted both the wisdom of this theory and Federalist sincerity in invoking it. He believed that history demonstrated that the more a country prepared for war, the more likely it was to go to war. First, having a powerful military force offered a temptation to rulers to engage in wars for conquest and glory.14 And second, far from deterring aggression, a powerful navy and army often frightened other nations into building up their own forces and forming hostile alliances, tempting them to instigate hostilities for the purpose of gaining a strategic advantage or weakening their rival.
Let us look then to how Jefferson handled and reacted to the tribute the Barbary Coast pirates were demanding of American commercial shipping attempting trade in the world on the free and open seas:
Early in his first term, Jefferson was faced with the question of whether he should use the naval force inherited from the Federalists to protect American trade in the Mediterranean. The pasha of Tripoli, the leader of one of the four Barbary powers on the northern coast of Africa (the others being Morocco, Algiers, and Tunis), demanded additional tribute from the United States as the price for allowing American shipping to trade in the Mediterranean free of piratical raids by his navy.
This was a true test of how “limited” this republic might be when faced with a threat, in this case, half the way around the world.
It does have to be noted that at this point, President Jefferson had at hand a naval force and would not have to rely on Congress to utilize another tool called:
… to vest sovereign authority to use force against enemy nations and their subjects with private parties only. Exercising that power, Congress could authorize so-called privateers to engage in military hostilities, with neither government funding nor oversight (other than after-the-fact judicial determinations of prizes by the prize courts).
Yes, engaging privateers to carry out a mission.
Jefferson actually had a significant navy (more than what he would have desired) that had been enhanced during his predecessor’s (John Adams) term BUT was NOT initiated by President Adams or Congress.
This rabbit trail is especially interesting to this former US Navy sailor that demonstrates that society itself can indeed direct the private initiative to provide port security as well as international trade security means. From this very informative article called “Privately Funded and Built U.S. Warships in the Quasi-War of 1797-1801”:
In 1798, the United States faced an undeclared naval war with France. The existing tax-funded vessels of the U.S. Navy consisted principally of three large frigates–not the ideal weapons for coping with the French threat on the seas. Therefore, a number of self-interested citizens undertook to provide nine additional fighting ships. These privately funded frigates and sloops-of-war served with distinction. Most of them were considered outstanding examples of naval architecture. Some saw action only against France. Others lasted through the Barbary Wars and even the War of 1812.
The lesson to be drawn from this little-known episode in U.S. history seems clear. Effective naval fighting forces can be financed and constructed largely if not entirely by means of voluntary contributions. National governments need not direct the process, and taxes need not be used to fund the projects.
I contend that this method would be much more effective and efficient than the MIC (Military Industrial Complex) method which is to start wars and intervene in other countries around the world (i.e. Syria, Venezuela, etc) to drive the demand for over-priced and poor-quality weapons (i.e. F-35, Littoral Class, Super Carriers, etc):
Back to the main focus of this post, how did Jefferson do when faced with this treat? He indeed did send the frigates USS Philadelphia, USS President, and the USS Essex, along with the schooner USS Enterprise to the Barbary Coast via Gibraltar (at the entrance to the Mediterranean Sea) which constituted America’s first navy to cross the Atlantic. These frigates brought the following speed and power:
They carried 24-60 guns, were up to 175 feet long, displaced up to 1,600 tons, .. had crews of 200-450 men, and were comparable to the cruisers of World War II. With rare exceptions, no frigate could survive one-on-one combat with a ship-of-the-line. However, because frigates were faster than ships-of-the-line, they could usually escape from those more powerful vessels. Owing to their combination of speed and significant firepower, frigates often served as scouts for the battle fleet, as escorts for convoys of merchant ships, or as commerce raiders acting independently. In 1800, the most powerful warships of the U.S. Navy were the 44-gun frigates United States, Constitution, and President.
So was this a “shock-and-awe” moment? No. This action was deliberately annoying in the same way the militia was annoying to a larger force in the colonies backed by a much larger British Empire from 1775 to 1782. Off the coast of Africa, the US Navy harassed the larger forces that harassed our shipping by demanding tributes.
Upon reaching Gibraltar in the late summer, the naval squadron found two Tripolitan cruisers on blockade duty awaiting American vessels. The American squadron chased off the two cruisers; the schooner Enterprise engaged one of them in battle and captured it; and the squadron proceeded to Tripoli where it blockaded the harbor. Thus, for the second time in only four years, the United States found itself in an undeclared naval war.
Jefferson sent additional forces to the Mediterranean each year until, by the summer of 1805, almost the entire American navy was deployed off the shores of Tripoli.
In addition to escorting American merchant vessels and blockading Tripoli (in 1801 and 1803–1805), the American fleet bombarded Tripoli five times in August and September of 1804.
By the early summer of 1805, facing a renewed and even more destructive series of bombardments from the American navy, and hearing of the fall of the town of Derbe to a land force composed of Americans, Greeks, and Tripolitan exiles commanded by William Eaton (the former American consul at Tunis), the pasha sued for peace and signed a treaty ending the war. The June 1805 treaty abolished annual payments from the United States to Tripoli and provided for the payment of a $60,000 ransom for more than 200 American captives, mostly sailors from the U.S. frigate Philadelphia that had been captured after running aground off Tripoli in 1803.
In the end, a land effort by the Marines finally accomplished an end to free trade on the open seas. Up until this time, Europe itself paid these tributes while the American’s fought for the ability to use the oceans as free-trade zones.
How many US military deaths came from this limited engagement?
35 combat deaths
39 other deaths (disease, etc)
Total of 74 deaths of American sailors and Marines in four years.
Compared to the balance of wars that our government engaged in over the course of the following 220 years, this is impressive. I applaud you Thomas Jefferson for doing this honorable thing.
Subsequent larger wars, War of 1812 (15,000 US military deaths), Mexican-American War (14,000 US military deaths) and Civil War (750,000 US military deaths) were horrendous. It was actually at the conclusion of the War Against Southern Independence that the southern women first decided to honor ALL of the fallen soldiers (USA and CSA) of that horrific conflict, as mentioned in this article towards a “Decoration Day” which eventually became ‘Memorial Day’:
In January 1866, the Ladies’ Memorial Association in Columbus, Georgia, passed a motion agreeing that they would designate a day to throw flowers on the graves of fallen soldiers buried at the cemetery, Gardiner said.
However, the ladies didn’t want this to be an isolated event, so Mary Ann Williams, the group’s secretary, wrote a letter and sent it to newspapers all over the United States.
“You’ll find that letter in dozens of newspapers,” Gardiner said. “It got out, and it was republished everywhere in the country.”
In the letter, the ladies asked people to celebrate the war’s fallen soldiers on April 26 — the day the bulk of Confederate soldiers surrendered in North Carolina in 1865.
“That’s what many people in the South considered to be the end of the war,” Gardiner said. Even though Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered on April 9, “there were still 90,000 people ready to fight. And until those 90,000 surrendered on April 26, the war was effectively still going on,” Gardiner said.
At the end of the day, it was the illogical violent reaction, on the part of Abraham Lincoln, towards seven southern states (former American colonies) that had asked for a divorce from this voluntary federation of states established first by the Articles of Confederation (agreed to in Congress 15NOV1777 and ratified and in force 01MAR1781) and eventually by the US Constitution (Created 17SEP1787, Ratified 21JUN1788 and in force 04MAR1789) that ramped up US military deaths!
Why would seven states seek separation towards divorce? Why in 1861? In a 2017 Paul Craig Roberts article sharing the thoughts of Thomas DiLorenzo:
The rate of federal taxation was about to more than double (from 15% to 32.7%), as it did on March 2, 1861 when President James Buchanan, the Pennsylvania protectionist, signed the Morrill Tariff into law, a law that was relentlessly promoted by Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party .. The South, like the Mid-West, was an agricultural society that was being plundered twice by protection tariffs: Once by paying higher prices for “protected” manufactured goods, and a second time by reduced exports after the high tariffs impoverished their European customers who were prohibited from selling in the U.S. by the high tariffs. Most of the South’s agricultural produce –as much as 75% or so in some years — was sold in Europe.
Having separated, the seven states decided in Montgomery, Alabama to take almost an identical constitution and return toward 1775 economic principles that aligns with Thomas Jefferson’s:
The Confederate Constitution outlawed protectionist tariffs altogether, calling only for a modest “revenue tariff” of ten percent or so. This so horrified the “Party of Great Moral Causes” that Republican Party-affiliated newspapers in the North were calling for the bombardment of Southern ports before the war. With a Northern tariff in the 50% range (where it would be after Lincoln signed ten tariff-raising pieces of legislation, and remained in that range for the succeeding fifty years) compared to the Southern 10% average tariff rate, they understood that much of the trade of the world would go through Southern, not Northern, ports and to them, that was cause for war. “We now have the votes and we intend to plunder you mercilessly; if you resist we will invade, conquer, and subjugate you” is essentially what the North, with its election of lifelong protectionist Abraham Lincoln as a sectional president, was saying.
This action by a new federation of seven states threatened northern industry and businessmen. This was the source of fear that had Lincoln reinforce in his 1st inaugural address on 04MAR1861 to try to entice the southern seven states back into the union by declaring:
Lincoln then pledged to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, which he in fact did during his administration, returning dozens of runaway slaves to their “owners.” Most importantly, seven paragraphs from the end of his speech he endorsed the Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, which had already passed the House and Senate and was ratified by several states. This “first thirteenth amendment” would prohibit the federal government from ever interfering with Southern slavery. It would have enshrined slavery explicitly in the text of the Constitution. Lincoln stated in the same paragraph that he believed slavery was already constitutional, but that he had “no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”
This may have sounded good to those in the southern states, but then the abuse they felt the previous 35 years rose up in their minds when they heard Lincoln’s following words:
“The power confided in 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 force against or among the people anywhere” (emphasis added).
The “duties and imposts” he referred to were the tariffs to be collected under the new Morrill Tariff law. If there was to be a war, he said, the cause of the war would in effect be the refusal of the Southern states to submit to being plundered by the newly-doubled federal tariff tax, a policy that the South had been periodically threatening nullification and secession over for the previous thirty-three years.
Once in power, Lincoln’s cabinet was not in favor of war at their first meeting. Since Lincoln wanted to ensure collection of Southern port tariffs, he wanted to hold on to the forts still in his possession at Fort Pickens (Pensacola) and Fort Jefferson (Key West) in Florida and Fort Sumter (Charleston) in South Carolina.
By the end of March 1861, influenced by the fears both northern and western (Midwest today) businessmen had about a free trade zone adjacent to the northern states and the thought of Mississippi River trade being more expensive, war seemed to be the only alternative thought of in the North. Lincoln, a lawyer, knew secession was legal under the Constitution, so he decided to call this a general insurrection that under a 1807 act was under the President’s purview:
Whenever there is an insurrections in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.
Lincoln then proceeded to resupply Fort Sumter, not just with food, but with troops forcing those guarding Charleston harbor to fire on the fort before the supply ships arrived. This accomplished Lincoln’s desire. The coastal defenses around Fort Sumter firing on a US held fort would inflame the hearts of all who remained in the union, or so Lincoln thought.
No one died in this bombardment, and if Lincoln had relented and finally agreed to peace negotiations that had been attempted all of March 1861, things would have been much different.
No need for “Memorial Day”. Thanks Abraham, thanks GOP! Not!
A President’s (Abraham Lincoln) unilateral decision (he failed to call Congress into session until well after war preparations were underway, not until 04JUL1861) to call up 75,000 volunteers on 15APR1861 sealed the deal towards a war. This notice extended to all the states that were in sympathy to the original seven states, and as a result, Virginia and other states would again vote on secession and four more would do so.
Lincoln’s subsequent actions like placing the Maryland legislators who favored southern independence in prison, placing cannon aimed at the Delaware statehouse, closing down hundreds of newspaper presses that called him out on his actions as well as his placing thousands of newspaper press on prison ships indicated the type of tyrant the office of president could produced. This was in my opinion, America at its darkest moment, so far, in its history. By the end of this conflict, ‘total war’ would be adopted as innocent civilians and their homes would be the target of this standing army followed by military occupation of all southern states.
War and military occupation are at the very root of the GOP DNA.
Ever since enacting our existing Constitution in 1787/1788, the US has had issues controlling itself. To pay down the war debt, instead of staying the course with the states deciding on their payback schedule, the general government jumped in for the power grab. It has been rough sledding every since.
So here we are in 2019, while US propaganda spins the latest twists of the expanding trade war with China, one of my favorite bloggers, Moon of Alabama, does a great job of setting the context and teasing the truth out of this current situation.
I can only think that Trump sees his time as short even if it is two terms and he sees this area of US policy as the only place he can “play” with the big boys, and perform his legacy business strength, the “Art of the Deal“.
Other areas like foreign policy are in the hands of the neocons and the domestic games hold little real interest to him (except it gives him plenty of material to Tweet about).
Moon of Alabama is balanced enough to say:
Some aspects of China’s trade behavior can and should be criticized. But overall China sticks to the rules of the game, while the U.S. is now breaking these.
It was not China that moved U.S. factories to its country. U.S. managers did that because the U.S. economic system is based on greed and not on the welfare of its citizens.
There are much better ways to get China to change its trade behavior than by bullying and ever increasing tariffs and sanctions.
Bullies don’t play by the rules, from US/Israel/French nuclear development that the US vetoes the UN on WHILE picking on Iran which has dotted the “I” s and crossed all the “T” s .. to the way the US waged war on itself especially in 1864/1865 with the total war mantra, killing civilians, burning homes, stealing silverware, raping the wives and slave women and wrecking havoc over a large portion of the South, bullies never play fair.
Non-bullies almost have to until the bully is significantly weakened, but having over 5000+ nukes with multiple warheads keeps the US in “business”.
Back to the China tariff “strategy”:
The U.S. started a trade war with China by suddenly putting up high tariffs on Chinese products. China countered with tariffs on U.S. products, but was ready to negotiate a fair deal. The negotiations about an agreement were held in English in the United States. The U.S. provided a written draft.
When that draft reached China and was translated to Chinese the relevant party and government institutions were aghast. The U.S. demanded that China changes several of its domestics laws. It essentially demanded a complete change of China’s trade policies and, most infuriating, was unwilling to go back to the old tariff rates, even if China would comply. It wasn’t Xi who rejected the uneven deal, it was the whole Chinese government.
You see, historically, the US likes to portray an “evil bogeyman” in foreign policy struggles like it likes to paint the “lone gunman” in domestic shootings:
U.S. propaganda is always pointing to one person that solely cases everything and therefore deserves all the hate. It once was Saddam, Saddam , Saddam. Then Ghadaffi, Ghadaffi, Ghadaffi, Assad, Assad, Assad, Putin, Putin, Putin. Now it is Xi, Xi, Xi.
So now what? The “negotiations” that supposedly Trump is so good at (like 4D chess moves, etc) seems to have no real pattern. Maybe that is his genius, random chaos?
“There is no longer an orderly policy process in Washington to coordinate, moderate, or control policy formulation or implementation. Instead, a populist president has effectively declared open season on China.”
So what is the end game here? Does he want this to become a war that he can blame the neocons on (since they are itching for another conflict to insure the Military-Industrial Complex is well “fed” with government revenue, up to $1.2T annually IF you count the ten different accounts that make up the “military” budget).
China will response in kind and asymmetrically. It now restarts to buy oil from Iran. Ambassador Freeman sees no way how the U.S. could win the game.
The White House issued an executive order Wednesday apparently aimed at banning Huawei’s equipment from U.S. telecom networks and information infrastructure. It then announced a more potent and immediate sanction that subjects the Chinese company to strict export controls.
The order took effect Thursday and requires U.S. government approval for all purchases of U.S. microchips, software and other components globally by Huawei and 68 affiliated businesses. Huawei says that amounted to $11 billion in goods last year.
So basically, US chip manufacturers are feeling the same way as soybean farmers .. what did Trump do to our market? Consumers may never know the deal they might have had with solar panels.
Maybe Trump has had enough of the presidency and wants to “kick the can” to the next president to deal with, landmines like rising Walmart prices WILL hit his core base, if they can connect the dots.
