Most US educated people will no doubt prefer a “democracy” because that is what has been taught to them by government schools for well over a hundred years. Most people also dislike monarchies but seem to love “kings” by other names (i.e. presidents, politicians, rock stars and celebrities). Most dislike theocracies since they associate them with Islamic extremists and not the Israel of Hebrew people they might have heard about from the Bible. Most will also be confused by the term ‘federated republic’ and would absolutely nix the term “confederated” (even though the colonies had a weaker form of government governed by the Articles of Confederation). Anarchy is also a scary term for most since they think this means chaos or no rules, but they fail to understand that the local Farmer’s Market is essentially anarchy in action:
It does seem that while anarchy does yield the most freedom for responsible individuals, most will opt for the safety from some other form of government servitude and eventually want and get “democracy”, which is always a stepping stone to socialism, marxism and eventually communism.
One of my favorite writers is Hans-Hermann Hoppe who wrote a book a few years ago called “Democracy: The God that Failed“. (The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order (Perspectives on Democratic Practice)).
The core of this book is a systematic treatment of the historic transformation of the West from monarchy to democracy. Revisionist in nature, it reaches the conclusion that monarchy is a lesser evil than democracy, but outlines deficiencies in both. … Informed by his analysis of the deficiencies of social democracy, and armed with the social theory of legitimation, he forsees secession as the likely future of the US and Europe, resulting in a multitude of region and city-states. This book complements the author’s previous work defending the ethics of private property and natural order. Democracy – The God that Failed will be of interest to scholars and students of history, political economy, and political philosophy.
While this is a rather intense read, it is an extremely valuable exercise in understanding not just cause and effect, but unintended consequences as well. To whet your appetite, try this YouTube video where Hans shares about this book in under ten minutes:
If there is one quote from this book that I would share at this time it would be the following:
“… Thus, privilege and legal discrimination — and the distinction between rulers and subjects — do not disappear under democracy. To the contrary. Rather than being restricted to princes and nobles, under democracy, privileges come into the reach of everyone: Everyone can participate in theft and live off stolen loot if only he becomes a public official. Likewise, democratically elected parliaments are, just like any absolute or constitutional king, not bound by any superior, natural law, i.e., by law not of their own making (such as and including so-called constitutional law), but they can legislate, i.e., they can make and change laws. Only: While a king legislates in his own favor, under democracy everyone is free to promote and try to put into effect legislation in his own favor, provided only that he finds entry into parliament or government…”
Furthermore, even worse than monarchies:
“In sharp contrast, the selection of state rulers by means of popular elections makes it essentially impossible for a harmless or decent person to ever rise to the top. Presidents and prime ministers come into their position not owing to their status as natural aristocrats, as feudal kings once did, i.e., based on the recognition of their economic independence, outstanding professional achievement, morally impeccable personal life, wisdom and superior judgment and taste, but as a result of their capacity as morally uninhibited demagogues. Hence, democracy virtually assures that only dangerous men will rise to the top of state government.”
This last quote shows how easy it is for the SWAMP to grow .. the fact is, this swamp started growing even before the thirteen sovereign colonies emerged from the American Revolution / secession from the British Empire in 1783 when the Treaty of Paris was signed.
But it gets even worse:
“Worse: Under democracy the social character and personality structure of the entire population will be changed systematically. All of society will be thoroughly politicized. During the monarchical age, the ancient aristocratic order had still remained somewhat intact. Only the king and, indirectly, the members of his (exclusive) court could enrich themselves — by means of taxation and legislation — at other people’s and their properties expense. Everyone else had to stand on his own feet, so to say, and owed his position in society, his wealth and his income, to some sort of value-productive efforts. Under democracy, the incentive structure is systematically changed. Egalitarian sentiments and envy are given free reign. Everyone, not just the king, is now allowed to participate in the exploitation — via legislation or taxation — of everyone else. Everyone is free to express any confiscatory demands whatsoever. Nothing, no demand, is off limits. In Bastiat’s words, under democracy the State becomes the great fiction by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else. Every person and his personal property come within reach of and are up for grabs by everyone else.
Are we seeing this in full force today or what? But I digress.
I do hope to share more about this book in the weeks to come. In the mean time, check out the video above or buy the e-book, paperback or hard cover BUT know, when a book commands $40 for paperback and $440 for hardcover .. you know it is a good one!
“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” – H. L. Mencken
Note that the two countries that fought from 1861-1865 (one fought for independence, the other fought to retain seven states worth of land, people, and especially economy) had very different ethics, noted below:
List of towns burnt or pillaged by Confederate forces:
ZERO
List of towns burnt or pillaged by Union forces:
Osceola, Missouri, burned to the ground, September 24, 1861 – The town of 3,000 people was plundered and burned to the ground, 200 slaves were freed and nine local citizens were executed.
Platte City – December 16, 1861 – “Colonel W. James Morgan marches from St. Joseph to Platte City. Once there, Morgan burns the city and takes three prisoners — all furloughed or discharged Confederate soldiers. Morgan leads the prisoners to Bee Creek, where one is shot and a second is bayonetted, while the third is released. ”
Dayton, Missouri, burned, January 1 to 3, 1862
Columbus, Missouri, burned, reported on January 13, 1862
Bentonville, Arkansas, partly burned, February 23, 1862 – a Federal search party set fire to the town after finding a dead Union soldier, burning most of it to the ground
Winton, North Carolina, burned, reported on February 21, 1862 – first NC town burned by the Union, and completely burned to the ground
Bledsoe’s Landing, Arkansas, burned, October 21, 1862
Hamblin’s, Arkansas, burned, October 21, 1862
Donaldsonville, Louisiana, partly burned, August 10, 1862
Athens, Alabama, partly burned, August 30, 1862
Randolph, Tennessee, burned, September 26, 1862
Elm Grove and Hopefield, Arkansas, burned, October 18, 1862
Fredericksburg December 11–15, 1862 – town not destroyed, but the Union army threw shells into a town full of civilians
Napoleon, Arkansas, partly burned, January 17, 1863
Mound City, Arkansas, partly burned, January 13, 1863
Hopefield, Arkansas, burned, February 21, 1863 – “Captain Lemon allowed residents one hour to remove personal items, and the men then burned every house in the village.”
Eunice, Arkansas, burned, June 14, 1863
Gaines Landing, Arkansas, burned, June 15, 1863
Bluffton, South Carolina, burned, reported June 6, 1863 – ”
Union troops, about 1,000 strong, crossed Calibogue Sound and eased up the May River in the pre-dawn fog, surprising ineffective pickets and having their way in an unoccupied village. Rebel troops put up a bit of a fight, but gunboats blasted away as two-thirds of the town was burned in less than four hours. After the Yankees looted furniture and left, about two-thirds of the town’s 60 homes were destroyed.”
Sibley, Missouri, burned June 28, 1863
Hernando, Mississippi, partly burned, April 21, 1863
Austin, Mississippi, burned, May 24, 1863 – “On May 24, a detachment of Union marines landed near Austin. They quickly marched to the town, ordered all of the townpeople out and burned down the town.”
Columbus, Tennessee, burned, reported February 10, 1864
Meridian, Mississippi, destroyed, February 3 to March 6, 1864 (burned multiple times)
Washington, North Carolina, sacked and burned, April 20, 1864
Hallowell’s Landing, Alabama, burned, reported May 14, 1864
Newtown, Virginia, May 30, 1864
Rome, Georgia, partly burned, November 11, 1864 – “Union soldiers were told to burn buildings the Confederacy could use in its war effort: railroad depots, storehouses, mills, foundries, factories and bridges. Despite orders to respect private property, some soldiers had their own idea. They ran through the city bearing firebrands, setting fire to what George M. Battey Jr. called harmless places.”
Atlanta, Georgia, burned, November 15, 1864
Camden Point, Missouri, burned, July 14, 1864
Kendal’s Grist-Mill, Arkansas, burned, September 3, 1864
Shenandoah Valley, devastated, reported October 1, 1864 by Sheridan. Washington College was sacked and burned during this campaign.
Griswoldville, Georgia, burned, November 21, 1864
Somerville, Alabama, burned, January 17, 1865
McPhersonville, South Carolina, burned, January 30, 1865
Barnwell, South Carolina, burned, reported February 9, 1865
Columbia, South Carolina, burned, reported February 17, 1865
Winnsborough, South Carolina, pillaged and partly burned, February 21, 1865
Tuscaloosa, Alabama, burned, April 4, 1865
Sick when you think about it, and which flag do you honor more?
While it could be tempting to wade into the whole Dr. Ford vs. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh circus, it is not worth it. Giving time to the biggest show that our government has produced this year only encourages them. Now I know what all my taxes are for. Entertainment:
There is no doubt that the Military Industrial Complex / Deep State are using this distraction to their own advantage somewhere on this globe, maybe even in Iran itself!
This post, however, is about the last accusations that Israel’s Netanyahu has made about the same old song sung for years about Iran’s secret nuclear weapons program. For well over three decades, Israel / US’ CIA / Mossad (yes, a lot of overlap there) has used this mantra as a way to threaten the sheep with lies so they would be more than happy to use military means towards “safety”:
The lies started shortly after Iran left the US Empire’s orbit in 1979 as shown by this quote in an article written five years ago:
The suggestion that Iran would soon be in possession of, or be in a position to quickly manufacture, nuclear weapons has been in constant circulation for nearly three decades. In 1984, Iran was reportedly moving “very quickly” towards a nuclear weapon and could have one as early as 1986. By the early 1990’s, the CIA predicted Iran was “making progress on a nuclear arms program and could develop a nuclear weapon by 2000,” later changing their estimate to 2003.
Israeli estimates have always been of an especially hysterical quality. In March 1992, The Jerusalem Report, noting that “Israel keeps a wary watch on Teheran’s march to the Bomb,” predicted that, “[b]y the year 2000, Iran will almost certainly have the Bomb.”
This lie has enabled sympathy on the part of many Christians in the US as well as the US government to directly support Israel economically and militarily over the years on an increasing basis and polarizing the world in the post Cold War 1.0 era.
For today’s post, I will just focus on the latest lie OR set of lies where real research sifts truth from. The Moon of Alabama article quoted below not only shows errors in Israel’s claim, but also errors in Iran’s counter-claim. So we have lies, half-truths and truth to sort through, hang on, this will require some critical thinking.
To kick of this adventure, here is what Israel’s leader said at the United Nations this last week:
Netanyahoo said:
“In May we exposed the site of Iran’s secret atomic archive. It’s right here in the Shuabad Distrcit of Tehran. Today I’m revealing the site of a second facility: Iran’s secret atomic warehouse. It’s right here, in the Turkuzahbad Distrcit of Tehran. Just three miles away. Let me show you exactly what the secret atomic warehouse looks like. Here it is. You see, like the atomic archive it’s another innocent-looking compound. Now for those of you at home using Google Earth, this no longer secret atomic warehouse. You have the coordinates, you can try to get there. And for those of you who try to get there: It’s 100 meters from the rug-cleaning operation By the way, i hear they do a fantastic job of cleaning rugs there. But by now they may be radioactive rags. This is the second secret site. Now countries with satellite capabilities may notice some increased activity on the alley in the days and weeks ahead.”
Netanyahoo added the obviously false claim that Iran removed radioactive material from the warehouse and spread it over Tehran.”
So how does Israel’s staunchest ally respond? Well, to it’s credit, it corrects some claims:
But just like back in May, when Netanyahoo presented old material that was long known to the IAEA and relevant governments, no one came out in support of his exaggerated claims. Yes, the ‘atomic warehouse’ in Tehran exists. But it is neither secret, nor does it hold anything radioactive or of current relevance:
“A US intelligence official has said that the speech delivered by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday at the UN General Assembly about the existence of a second secret atomic facility in Iran was “somewhat misleading.”
…
According to the US intelligence official, knowledge of the facility is nothing new to the Americans.
“First, we have known about this facility for some time, and it’s full of file cabinets and paper, not aluminum tubes for centrifuges, and second, so far as anyone knows, there is nothing in it that would allow Iran to break out of the JCPOA any faster than it otherwise could,” the official said.
Another US military official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the United States is aware of the facility Netanyahu announced and described it as a “warehouse” used to store “records and archives” from Iran’s nuclear program.
I am told that the IAEA also knows of the archive and its harmless content.
If you are Iran, how do you respond? Well, in this case, Iran’s press responded rather poorly as Moon of Alabama demonstrates below in reference to this Twitter post:
The first picture in Meysam Yaghoubi’s tweet is indeed the gate to the compound Netanyahoo showed. The other pictures though, which show a carpet cleaning facility, were taken inside a compound on the other side of the street of the archive compound. They were not taken inside the compound that Netanyahoo pointed out. This can be easily discerned by comparing the second picture in the tweet above with a satellite view of the place…The notable gate structure of the archive compound visible at the upper left is not the gate of the compound where the picture was taken, but on the other side of the road.
When you are wading in a sea of lies, you have to be able to pick up on nuances. The Dilbert Test can sometimes help:
Guilty people almost always question the source of the information first.
Innocent people start with a clear denial, or sometimes confusion as to why the question is being asked.
Some guilty people will give you a straight denial if they know the question is coming and they prepared for it.
With state agencies, there is certainly a period of time one has to respond. One can reply in haste and come off as being in error or falling into a well laid trap OR one can use the opportunity to their advantage and again show which state is the “bigger person”.
I have seen Russia take a tactic that places itself above the US’s level of dishonesty by clearly stating the part of a US statement that is true as true but then countering with parts of the statement that are misleading. Such is the way in this world when so many half-truths and statements taken out of historical context are involved.
The tougher part, when considering the typical US citizen is, since they have almost zero historical context, how do you keep their attention long enough to paint the truth as it is? Basically, you cannot. Governments love an ignorant society, they can get away with murder!
However, many people abroad tend to think more critically, and measure what the state puppets across the globe say against their own instinct and research. With that in mind, Moon of Alabama concludes with a challenge:
This ISNA piece and the attached pictures unintentionally confirm exactly what Netanyahoo said about the location of the archive building: “It’s 100 meters from the rug-cleaning operation.”
Iran’s foreign ministry is also somewhat hapless when it describes Netanyahoo’s speech as “false, meaningless and unnecessary”. Why can’t Tehran simply say: “Decades old administrative records of our legitimate nuclear energy program are archived in a warehouse that is well known to all relevant entities. There is nothing secret nor nefarious about it.”
Hapless attempts to debunk Netanyahoo even where he is right will be used by his propagandists to claim that “Iran lies”. Tehran, and its news agencies, must up their game.
I do hope that people in Iran can access Moon of Alabama and challenge their journalists and state writers to “up their game”!
The last post I crafted from Francis Marion’s adventures as a leader of the militia and he re-entered South Carolina had him south of the Great Pee Dee River, poised to once again attack British/Tory forces. These attacks were not just against an invader of their communities, but in response to the British tactic (desperation?) of violence against the innocent civilian population as well as depriving them of life and or property in their efforts in this part of South Carolina. Some of Marion’s men were directly impacted by these barbarous tactics.
Have received Intel about a Loyalist militia being positioned at a cross roads near Shepherd’s Ferry on Black Mingo Creek, Marion had aroused his men after a few hours of sleep and moved south in the night. As his militia crossed the Willtown Bridge only a mile or so from Col. John Coming Ball’s camp the noise from the bridge’s planks alerted the Loyalist militia.
The sentry fires an alarm gun and Marion and his men ride hard TOWARD the tavern at this crossroads. The patriot militia assume that the Loyalists are inside Dollard’s Tavern and some dismount several hundred yards away to make their assault now, like they did at Nelson’s Ferry, having the element of surprise gone BUT having their momentum remaining. Marion commands his cavalry to the left of Dollard’s Tavern and Horry with some of the infantry to the right flank. The Tory leader (and well known relative to Francis Marion himself) Col. John Ball awakes his men at the sound of the alarm and commands them to the open field west of the tavern.
As Horry’s infantry charges through the field, the Loyalist militia is only 30 yards away as they are surprised with the first volley. Three of Horry’s patriot officers fall with Capt. George Logan killed and Capt. Henry Mouzon (author of the 1775 map above) and Lt. John Scott severely wounded.
Patriot Capt. John James, Jr., the man who brought Marion the Intel that made this raid possible, rallies the rest of the men and stops the eminent slaughter. The rest of Marion’s militia creep forward until Capt. John Waties moves up on the right with his men and skirts Dollard’s house called the Red House, causing the Loyalists break and run into the Black Mingo Swamp.
The battle only lasts 15 minutes or so and to offset his loses, Marion and his men captures well needed supplies like guns, ammunition, baggage, and especially horses since they operate best in guerrilla style warfare on fresh horses. Francis Marion gets Col. John Coming Ball’s own horse, which Col. Marion chooses for himself and renames “Ball”. Marion will ride Ball for the balance of this war!
Again, one of the best sources I have found to paint Marion’s world so that one can enter his time and his experiences better is John Oller’s “The Swamp Fox: How Francis Marion Saved the American Revolution“. Here are some clips from his book that gives you a flavor as to the situation Marion found himself on the last day or two of September 1780.
Black Mingo, like so many engagements in the South during the Revolution, involved relatively few men on either side: Ball’s Tories totaled only forty-seven, while Marion had perhaps seventy. (It was one of the few times he actually outnumbered his opponent, although it is not clear he knew this going into the encounter.) But because of the sharp exchange of fire at close range, the casualties were comparatively heavy. The Tories lost three killed and thirteen captured or wounded—a third of their unit—plus some unknown number later found dead or wounded in the swamp and adjoining woods.
It can’t be emphasized enough how valuable the Intel that Marion’s Capt. John James Jr. brought to the attention of his leader. So many times, the ability of the militia to respond the same day or night to this information made a huge difference in the psychological aspect of not only the American Revolution, but also the internal civil war being fought in South Carolina.
Marion suffered two killed and eight wounded, but the psychological loss was greater—one of the dead was George Logan, who had left his sickbed and ridden miles to rejoin the brigade. The wounded included Marion’s friend Henry Mouzon, who was shot up so badly that he never took the field again. Such was the nature of the many small actions and skirmishes in South Carolina, where the death or dismemberment of a few friends or relatives could have a greater impact on the participants’ psyches than the loss of hundreds or thousands of strangers in full-scale army battles.
As in all wars, there are gains, but their are significant losses as well. How better would have been if the British could have promised independence for the American colonies over time, I believe that this country could have morphed into several republics that would not have needed a sense for a strong centralized government to protect itself in this world. With several republics in this land, the so-called “Civil War” would have not been necessary either!
I can dream can’t I?
Back to John Oller’s insights:
.. Several Tories captured by Marion at Black Mingo took an oath of allegiance and joined his brigade. After escaping, Peter Gaillard, the Tory second in command, made it known that he too would like to enlist with Marion’s band if they would have him without unduly humiliating him. Intermediaries (including Gaillard’s brother-in-law, Job Marion) arranged an interview between him and Marion. The partisan commander cordially received his former foe, praised his bravery at Black Mingo, and personally escorted him into the patriot camp in front of the rest of the men so as to quash the bitterness many of them felt toward their Tory neighbor.
Is this not rich or what? Not only the character to pronounce that these temporary enemies could someday be friends, but to welcome an actual enemy to join their militia WITH leadership’s display of vetting and backing is something to remember from the Battle of Black Mingo!
Fifty years ago I was a 10 year old who had just moved cross-country to a new state just in time to start 5th grade. I was not the only new kid at school but very soon, at recess, the playground bully was in my face almost on a daily basis. I just wanted to play football with my new friends, I preferred he just leave me alone.
This went on for a week or so before out on the football field once more, he was in my face just itching for a fight. I looked down, and he looked to the crowd for looks of admiration, and never saw the punch coming under his chin. He lifted up in the air a bit and landed on his back with the wind knocked out of him. Out of the corner of my eye I saw a teacher approaching and I melted back into the crowd while I heard “hey, what is going on here?” My new friends had seen this day AND every day prior and responded: “he must have slipped on something” and as everyone else nodded, the bully was left to get himself up off the ground.
Now I admit, I was a bit lucky because this bully could have come after me WITH some friends any day after school to settle the score, but he didn’t. And for that I am grateful.
I do hope that you are asking yourself, WHY did he write all this? Well, I just wanted to point out that while I was guilty of throwing the first punch, I was not guilty of being the first aggressor.
So like in my previous post about Pearl Harbor and getting behind the “well-known” story of the “surprise” that day, so too must we look into other events that might have been misinterpreted. This article, from Abbeville Institute, walks one through the days and months that led up to the South Carolina forces firing on Fort Sumter in April 1861 and rightly highlights the aggressor as well as the one who “threw the first punch”.
Carl Jones starts with the narrative believed by 95% of Americans here in 2018 when he states:
Too often a narrative is passed from one person to the next until it becomes accepted as fact or “common knowledge.” In the society that we live in critical analysis is rarely applied, and so a notion that if scrutinized would be exposed as silly (or worse), instead becomes “fact.” Such is the case with the situation at Ft. Sumter in 1861.
The narrative goes something like this- “The South fired the first shot, and thus instigated the war. The end.”
While it is true that the South did indeed fire first, there is a much deeper question to be answered. Namely, who committed the first act of hostility?
As in the case of my playground incident, one must rewind the relational history of the parties and assess properly where the responsibility of conflict rests with. In the case of South Carolina, New England colonies as well as other norther colonies were at odds in 1775 which almost led to New England battling the British Empire alone!
In Charleston harbor itself, there had already been some actions that had produced several severe irritants months before the “first shot”. More on that in a minute, but just note that South Carolina aspired to secede peacefully, after their 20DEC1860 secession decision. South Carolina’s governor Francis W. Pickens said after the bloodless victory at Fort Sumter on 13APR1861:
.. When I was called upon to preside over the destinies of this State, after an absence of three or four years from home, I felt that the heaviest and most painful situation of my life had come. But so far as I was concerned, as long as I was Chief Magistrate of South Carolina, I was determined to maintain our separate independence and freedom at any and every hazard. [Great applause.] I felt that the State was in a peculiar position; that we were immediately and at first thrown upon the most scientific and expensive branches of modern warfare. We were then but ill-prepared to meet the sudden issues that might be forced upon us, so that our cause had to present firmness and decision on the one side, with great caution and forbearance. We were, in fact, walking alone over a dangerous gulf. The least misstep or want of coolness might have precipitated our great cause into endless ruin. With the heavy ordnance we had to procure, and the heavy batteries that we were compelled to erect, I felt under these circumstances it required time, exact calculation and high science, and it would have been madness, it would have been folly, to have rushed the brave and patriotic men in my charge upon a work that was pronounced the Gibraltar of the South…
The truth is that the governments of South Carolina and the Confederate States of America had made repeated efforts to resolve the crisis of Fort Sumter, where the Union army had moved to on 26DEC1860, peacefully before any shots were fired. So some background is in order:
During the transition period from the Presidency of Buchanan to Lincoln, there had been two occurrences that had raised the ire of South Carolinians.
First was the fact that 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. 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 the Fort. Although they refrained from attacking the fort, this action by US troops was regarded as an act of war.
Second, 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.
The South Carolina government as well as the Confederacy already had two occurrences where they were deceived by Northern aggression.
Once Lincoln came into office in early March 1861, with William Seward as his Secretary of State, this is what transpired:
.. 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.
South Carolinians were becoming more and more alarmed as the weeks went on, especially due to the fact that Lincoln had delivered in his First Inaugural Address what the seceded States regarded as a Declaration of War:
“.. 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…”
Lincoln had no intention of surrendering, or selling the forts to the Confederacy because doing so would have necessarily signaled to the world that he was recognizing the South’s independence and sovereignty.
Those in Charleston harbor reading the words of Lincoln’s must have wondered what would happen next. Little did they know that only Lincoln and Postmaster Montgomery Blair were for war with the Confederate States of America while the balance of Lincoln’s cabinet wanted peace in March 1861. This all changed later that month when the reality of the United States Congress, reacting to the Confederate States of America’s decision to set tariffs at <10%, raised their own tariff rate TWICE what it was to up to 50% on some items. Having a literal free trade country adjacent to the United States threatened them economically as a majority of the tariff revenue had been collected in Southern ports.
Personally, nothing helps to know a person’s character than hearing what was said by them years ago and compare it to what they do today. Bullies have no character. Compare this quote of Lincoln’s from 1847 to what he was willing to do in 1861:
Interesting, because in 1847 in relation to the secession of Texas from Mexico, Lincoln had recognized the principle upon which America’s War for Independence had been established:
“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.” – Abe Lincoln
But, faced with losing the “duties and imposts” afforded to the US government by virtue of the booming Southern economy, he was forcefully retracting his belief in this “most sacred right.
So bent was Lincoln to reject the attempt of 7 states to leave “the union” of 33 states, that he attempted to do so in a way that he would not be seen as the aggressor.
.. The only question in his mind was how to initiate the war, and his efforts to resupply Sumter were an attempt to maneuver the Confederacy into firing the first shot while simultaneously attempting to not appear as the aggressor. This was obvious to everyone on both sides. Two of Lincoln’s trusted secretaries, John G. Nicolay and John Hay, disclosed that:
“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.”
The ploy was that Lincoln was to resupply Fort Sumter with food, however he directed the US Navy to send troops as well.
Lost in all this was the fact that until Lincoln’s inauguration speech threatening invasion, from December of 1861 when Union General Anderson had informed by then President Buchanan that due to his relationship with the mayor of Charleston and businessmen in the harbor, he (Anderson) had access to all of the food necessary to keep his troops fed.
Bully tactics yield aggression, and aggression leads to distrust. As a result, US Naval ships were sent to Charleston and on 12APR1861 South Carolina troops under the direction of Confederate General Beauregard aware that the fleet was in route, were given the command to fire on the fort.
Many Norther newspapers (soon to be censored or shutdown by Lincoln, occasionally imprisoning the editors and writers) offered the unvarnished truth in the days that followed:
The New York Evening Day-Book opined:
“We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South…. We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding…. Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it.”
While most people have been indoctrinated to think that Lincoln “saved” the union, he in fact killed the “experiment” in this republic held together by a federation of sovereign states:
The Lincoln presidency was a catalyst for many negative developments in the ever-increasing powers of the executive office. His Presidency haunts us to this day, although far too many fail to recognize this fact. Lincoln overturned the outcome of the Philadelphia convention by forcefully relegating the “States” to “provinces” of an all-powerful Central government. He shredded the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th Amendments, concocted the blatantly dishonest notion that the union was somehow older than the States, unilaterally invaded a sovereign country- which desired peaceful relations -without consulting congress, and extended Presidential powers well beyond anything delegated, or even hinted at, within the confines of Article II of the Constitution. As well, Lincoln committed the constitution’s own definition of treason by making war against the seceded States, shut down over 300 Northern newspapers and jailed the owners, arrested Maryland legislators who he “suspected” were sympathetic to secession and used the Federal military to effect re-election of political allies. Considering his numerous actions in defiance of the constitutional restraints on his office, as well as direct assaults against personal liberty, any rational observation must conclude that Lincoln was a dictator.
Conclusion: When you wonder where the swamp comes from in the government we have today, with a foreign policy that asserts that the US exceptionalism enables it to bully sovereign nations all across the globe, bullying independent nations that resist tyrannical forces supported by the US military directly or via the CIA indirectly, know that the source of this sociopathic character comes directly through Abraham Lincoln and what he pulled off in April 1861.
