Tag: constitution

1861: What Triggered Secession and What Triggered War?

I have been reading about the so-called American Civil War  all my life. The more I research this period of the federated republic’s life, the more I see the secession action as filing for divorce and the war as the abusive spouse that refuses to let go.  Over the past few years on social media I have encountered some people who point to the secession documents and scream “told you it was about slavery” even when I know it wasn’t. If it was the Union would have freed ALL the slaves they had control over in 1861, and not in December 1865 well after Abe Lincoln had died.

The writings of Paul Craig Roberts are getting better. I guess that comes with age and wisdom, one tends to let the truth fly. So today I was hit with this article from his website that had me say, “why didn’t I think of that?” Well, it is probably because I was never a lawyer.

I am going to liberally quote the former official from the Ronald Reagan administration below, hang on for some learnin’

In response to my short essay on November 9 ( https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/11/09/the-prevalence-of-myth-over-history/ ), a reader sent me a link to secession documents that implicated slavery, not the tariff, as the reason for Southern secession. It is typical for the uneducated to come across a document of which they have no understanding and to send it off with a rude “got you” note to one who does understand the document.

Bingo. Been there done that. But instead of fighting the good fight a few years ago, I just ignored the pest (now I know they we an uneducated pest, but everyone is “in process”, bless their heart).

Paul goes on to explain the crux of that matter, from a legal position, because just like in a divorce, there was first a contract, and so one has to maneuver into filing for divorce on the proper grounds:

When the Southern states seceded, they were concerned to do so legally or constitutionally under the Constitution so that the North could not legally claim that it was an act of rebellion and invade the Southern states. To make this case, the South needed to make a case that the North had broken the Consltitutional contract and that the South was seceding because the North had not kept to the Constitution.

This presented a legal challenge for the South, because the reason for which the Southern states were seceding was the tariff, but the Constitution gave the federal government the right to levy a tariff. Therefore, the Southern states could not cite the tariff as a breach of the Constitutional fabric.

Slavery was the only issue that the South could use to make a legal case that it was not in rebellion.

Exactly. So out of context, many will think the seven states that initially seceded were not concerned about the tariff (even though that was the primary motivation to file for “divorce” and seek a peaceful separation), but were concerned about treatment of runaway slaves.

Article 4 of the US Constitution reads: “No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.” In defiance of Article 4, some Northern states had passed laws that nullified the Fugitive Slave Act and other laws that upheld this article of the Constitution. The South used these nullification laws to make its case that Northern states had broken the Constitutional contract, thus justifying the Southern states secession.

Legal maneuvering was to be primary in order to exit peacefully and not be considered “in rebellion”. Lincoln, the proverbial lawyer, knew exactly what he was up against:

Lincoln understood that he had no authority under the Constitution to abolish slavery. In his inaugural address he said: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” The North had no intention of going to war over slavery. The same day that the Republican Congress passed the tariff, Congress passed the Corwin Amendment that added more constitutional protection to slavery.

Lincoln said that the South could have all the slavery that it wanted as long as the Southern states paid the tariff. The North would not go to war over slavery, but it would to collect the tariff. Lincoln said that “there needs to be no bloodshed or violence” over collecting the tariff, but that he will use the government’s power “to collect the duties and imposts.” The tariff was important to the North, because it financed Northern industrialization at the economic expense of the South.

Money. Finances were at the heart of why the majority of states north and west (called Midwest today) just could not let the seven states leave in peace. Their economic future looked bleak with a possible “free-trade” country next to the remnants of the Union. “She” could not go, because the lifestyle that was in effect for the previous 40 years simply could not be maintained!

The South’s effort to exit the union legally and constitutionally was to no avail. Secession was declared a rebellion, and the South was invaded.

Get that? Even though the southern seven (and eventually eleven) states had painfully followed the legal route, per the contract (Constitution), the abuse escalated and horror was brought upon these states who attempted to leave, especially during the war itself with innocent women, children and older men never spared, but total war (Sherman style, like we used in Iraq) was waged followed by occupation of the south for 12 more years followed by impoverishment of a whole region for a century. Even today, the South is treated as second class citizens unless they keep the “Union” as their god and master.

Occupation of the South – Military Districts

What about Lincoln himself, the so-called “Great Emancipator”?

The misportrayal of the War of Northern Aggression as Lincoln’s war to free slaves is also impossible to reconcile with Lincoln’s view of blacks. Here is “the Great Emancipator” in his own words:

“I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation [of the white and black races] . . . Such separation . . . must be affected by colonization” [sending blacks to Liberia or Central America]. (Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln vol. II, p. 409).

“Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and . . . favorable to . . . our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime.” (Collected Works, vol. II, p. 409).

“I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people” (Collected Works, vol. III, pp. 145-146).

How was Lincoln turned into “the Great Emancipator”?

Great question Paul. It is the great myth, the deification of a racist president towards solidifying the concept that the Union always was (before the states/colonies) and that this republic is “indivisible”. Epic lies from a politician, who would have thought that?

Finally, in a line that promises much more in the months to come from this writer:

Just as Civil War history is mistaught in order to support the Identity Politics agenda of fomenting hatred of whites, the histories of the two world wars were fabricated in order to blame Germany, more about which later.

Bingo.

When you start to research for yourself all you have been taught, you come up against information that undermines the narrative you might have held as gospel for decades. Only then can you entertain a thought, without accepting it .. and go from there .. in your own time!

Like the old Royal Caribbean tag line goes .. “get out there!” .. research stuff!

-SF1

 

1866 Reflections: What Have We Done?

While I contend that there was a very major shift in “self government” after the thirteen American colonies were able to get out of the British Empire and out of fear opt for leaning toward a large centralized government by 1787, it was nothing like what happened as a result of the so-called “Civil” War.

Accurately called the War Against Southern Independence, this conflict so twisted the Yankee psyche that the northern states (with support of the Midwest and Far West states) pushed hard on shutting down state sovereignty with post war Constitutional amendments. The United States acted and operated very different than it did from 1783 to 1787 with the Articles of Confederation, and with the coup d’etat by Alexander Hamilton and others towards a British style top-down government structure the shift towards centralization in Washington DC was underway. Only 80 years later as the north gained political strength, the southern political forces saw the writing on the wall and desired an exit from the republic.

The north could not bear to let the south leave and their printing presses also influenced the Midwest and West towards fearing the future without them. Peace commissioners were rejected by Lincoln as he pursued war towards retaining the states and their ports from which to collect tariff revenue that was needed to support the general government (now called federal) as well as “internal improvements” which were primarily northern industrial subsidies.

The war raged, sections of the country were ravaged, and by December 1865 the slaves in Union Army territory were finally free (by legislation, well after Lincoln’s death). Union General U.S. Grant finally had to free his slaves four years after the war started because Lincoln only freed the slaves where he had NO control over, those in 1863 that were behind Confederate battle lines.

The southern states paid dearly for daring to do what the norther states had considered in 1796, 1800, and especially in 1814. One fourth of their men were gone or crippled, their property was wrecked both public and private, their infrastructure was shattered as this region became occupied territory not unlike what had been done by the US in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria in this century. The war was done, but much more was lost than was won. Basically, the husband beat his wife back into the marriage.

About this time, a humble gentleman who had loved the Union but could not draw a sword against his own state, his own country, his own people and his own family began to reflect on what had just happened:

IN A LETTER TO LORD ACTON written in 1866, former Confederate General Robert E. Lee noted his concern that if the United States used its victory over the Confederate States of America to destroy the American principle of States’ Rights, then the United States would morph into a country that would become “aggressive abroad and despotic at home.”[

Kennedy, James R.. Yankee Empire: Aggressive Abroad and Despotic At Home (Kindle Locations 107-110). Shotwell Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition.

The book I quoted is the just released “Yankee Empire: Aggressive Abroad and Despotic At Home” by James and Walter Kennedy.

Personally, I have been studying this war since my parents bought me Childcraft books that came bundled with World Book Encyclopedia set. As a six year old I skipped the Childcraft and immersed myself in the World Book set that were by alphabet. Having been born in Georgia, I took towards trying to understand how Georgia went from being a British colony to becoming part of the united States and was perplexed that it later left that federations for another.

Over time I used library resources in high school and in the city where I was raised to attempt to understand all sides to this conflict and found out like most wars that the seed were planted far in advance of South Carolina’s secession in December 1860.

So between my posts on

  • the American Revolution with a series on Francis Marion the guerrilla fighter that kept the British from “slam-dunking” the War for Independence,
  • posts concerning current affairs, US foreign policy, the conflict in Syria and Russia’s struggle to remain sovereign

… I will now select December as the month that I will follow the events as they unfolded in South Carolina over 150 years ago towards an independence modeled after the spirit and passion of 1776.

-SF1

West Virginia: How Did It Happen?

Notice that in this June 1861 map, the Confederate States of America are represented in gray. Look closely and you will see a part of Virginia that reaches within 100 miles of Canada almost slitting what is left of the “Union” in two.

If you could look closer you would see the railroad lines that go through that region that connect the east with the west (current Midwest) … and now you start to see how nervous Lincoln was about this area.

Lincoln already had cannon aimed at Dover, DE to prevent that state from considering secession, and in MD Lincoln placed all who were suspected of voting for secession in jail. Dealing with those counties in Virginia that had the railroad lines, coal and timber would take a little bit longer. However, being a new dictator has its privileges.

To know why Virginia seceded, you have to know what happened. The first time Virginia voted, they said NO to secession. Then Lincoln attempted to resupply two southern forts still under his control (Fort Sumter in South Carolina and Fort Pickens in Alabama) there was cannon fire in Charleston Harbor BUT no one was killed. The fort surrendered and then Lincoln called up 75,000 volunteers from all his states (36 minus the 7 that had left the union) to put down an “insurrection” (he took care not to call them states) and he did not fathom the fallout from that fateful decision. Four more states would leave the union with Virginia voting again and this time in favor of leaving. If the reason was to keep slavery, don’t you think the vote would have been the same both times? If it was the high tariffs, the vote should have been the same as well. Maybe, just maybe, these regions did not want to be a colony of another empire yet again!!!

One look at the demographics will reveal a lot about the area south of Wheeling that had ZERO say in what happened next according to quotes below from the Abbeville Institute article from June:

.. In 1860 the mountainous counties of northwestern Virginia cared little about slavery. Even in the southern counties McDowell had 10% slaves, Mercer 150 of a total population of 4500. …. The B & O Railroad, running across northwestern Virginia, provided a vital link between the Yankee states and the West. This explains why the first battle of the War took place at Philippi ‘West’ Virginia…

People generally can tell when the weather is changing .. no different by 1860 when those in western sections of Virginia and the rest of the south saw this:

… western Virginians were horrified by the hijacking of the federal government by Northern industrialists and bankers in 1860. Money had totally bought out the law. A railroad corporate lawyer, Abraham Lincoln, president, swore to defeat the Democratic states even in the North, i.e., New York State, Ohio and the so-called Copperhead states in the West. To the so-called Radical Republicans this was a real civil war. They had to subjugate the Democratic Party representing the workers’ interests. The world was shocked. Even the pope called Lincoln a “tyrant and a usurper” and sent President Jefferson Davis a crown of thorns…

Yes, they sensed what had been coming for several generations, something Patrick Henry prophesied about that rule by a corrupt majority to the north was coming true.

Then, the fallout continued as key US Army personnel had to make some big decisions based on selfish interests OR on principle:

.. General Lee (today called a traitor in the national media) had to resign his commission in the US Army so as not to help subject his native Virginia to the rule of Northern bankers. In the Sound of Music, Captain von Trapp was similarly forced to flee the Nazis…

Since this “Union” that Lincoln professed to keep seemed so very fragile, (actually, it was his party’s inability to hold on to political power indefinitely) it was decided to manufacturer another state for electoral votes needed in 1864 (they admitted Nevada prematurely for the same reason). The method they used is found no where in the Constitution .. but like all things of the Republican party at that time .. you just make things up because the ends justify the means:

.. Just create a “Restored Government of Virginia” in federally controlled areas near Washington. Appoint a governor, Francis Pierpont, and of course an ad hoc legislature. Propose one bill, devoted to the question of secession of the northwestern counties. Vote for it, get paid and go home. Democracy was somewhat crushed, of course. Twenty-two counties did not vote. One county “sent” one representative, some guy who elected himself, etc. But the whole thing worked like a charm, at least in the Union media. The cover-up was well under way. As of June 20, 1863 the federal government declared West Virginia a new state. ..

So even after the war, West Virginia was kept from being part of Virginia again .. politics:

… In legal limbo, ‘West’ Virginia did not democratically or legally secede. Neither was it annexed with any real popular support. Like India as a British colony, our people are seen as second-class citizens, if that. We are berated for our accents and behavior. And we are blamed for a system we did not create. Like the rest of the Confederate states we are in fact a colony…

I contend that except in the big political power centers of major metro areas, the rest of this country is treated as colonies … taxed to feed the federal beast. The American Empire.

Sick I know, but true. Now you know what your high school history teacher forgot to tell you.

-SF1

Is It Too Early to Evaluate Trump’s Impact on the USA/World?

In some ways, the Constitution did us all a disservice by giving us an “almost king” government office called the president of the United States. While some believe that office can right the wrongs of the last president or even the last decade or so of bad decisions, others believe that there are forces that remain hidden in government structure and other power structures in and outside of this country that use this position as a puppet of theirs. It was evident from our first president that the power of the office would be abused, and abused often.

From The Burning Platform comes an interview with Doug Casey that reflects on the good, the bad and the ugly from the latest president and what it means for us going forward. Just a few snips from this article I would like to highlight as you could go to the link above and see what you think:

Let me start by saying that I’m very pleased that Trump was elected because, first and foremost, he’s not Hillary. In addition, he’s never been in political office. So he lacks some of the vices common to professional politicians. Even better, all members of the Deep State reflexively hate him.

That’s a good thing, because there’s some truth to the meme “the enemy of my enemy just might be my friend.”

I also like some of the things Trump’s done since he’s been in office—besides driving liberals and Deep Staters insane. He’s done some deregulating—not nearly enough, but he’s moved in the right direction. Of course, he did this not because he understands Austrian economics, but simply because he’s a businessman. He has some personal experience with the destructiveness of regulations.

So he has disrupted politics to a degree, which is good, but to inact long-term change requires more than just randomly hitting some things. He is missing something at his core which has been obvious all along in the way he approaches problems and seeks solutions almost “off-the-cuff”.

I do like that at the end of the day he would rather talk to the Russians than escalate things, but it is obvious he is limited by his deep state handlers as far as how far he can take this. Sanctions are stupid and are in fact usually the first step towards conflict. At the end of the day there seems to be no overarching philosophy for foreign policy. Trumps knee jerk firing of Tomahawks at sites in Syria a year ago after accusations of Assad using chemical warfare on his own people was an epic stupid move on the part of Trump .. but maybe there was a gun heald to his head like was held to JFK’s?

On the negative side, Doug Casey focuses on the obvious:

…. starting with running a trillion-dollar deficit. Where does he think that money’s going to come from? The Russians and the Chinese aren’t buying US debt anymore. Foreigners are looking to offload US paper.

Americans aren’t buying much, either. The only real alternative is to sell it to the Federal Reserve. Which is a real problem when the Federal Reserve is not only trying to deleverage, but has to refinance hundreds of billions of short-term paper coming due. Recall that almost all the $20 trillion of Treasury debt is very short term. Interest rates are going to rise, a lot. And so will the interest portion of the government deficit. Interest payments alone will be a trillion a year by the end of Trump’s second term—assuming he gets one.

Trump also—like all red-blooded Americans—loves the military. So, he’s adding to the already bloated military budget. It’s ridiculous, dangerous, and provocative. The United States already spends more than the next 10 or 12 biggest nations in the world put together. And most of that money is wasted and misallocated. It’s being spent on dinosaur technologies. What he’s doing there is very foolish. It’s accelerating the looming bankruptcy of the Government. And of course the Government will drag the country down with it.

He’s foolishly antagonizing the Russians by placing troops in the Baltics. He’s doing the same with China by sending ships to the South China Sea, which is their equivalent of the Gulf of Mexico.

But my biggest problem with Trump is that he has no philosophical core. He’s not by any means a libertarian. He’s a pragmatist, and an authoritarian. He’ll do whatever seems like a good idea at the time.

He’s got no background in or understanding of economics or history. I think it’s true that, as his critics say, he hasn’t read a book in 50 years. He goes strictly on gut instinct.

Exactly. So what we have is someone that keeps kicking things and reacting but never solidifying long-term change. But at the same time, the swamp is huge and he can’t be the only one draining it. While Congress remains inept at doing anything productive (like dismantling spending programs that have outlived their usefulness and mission) because that might keep them from getting re-elected. With an 11% approval rating, incumbents get re-elected at a 95% rate. If voting changed anything they would NOT let us do it!

So basically, this is essentially entertainment that your tax money pays for, the bread and circus distractions that empires do in their dying days.

At the end of the day all we can really do well is love our families, love our neighbors and pray that God has a plan to keep our kids and grand-kids is His care as this American Empire spins down.

SF1

 

Which Slaves Did Abe Lincoln Free?

The easy answer is none.

The Emancipation Proclamation was written to only free the slaves that were behind enemy lines. Those slaves were not under his jurisdiction.

The Emancipation Proclamation declared the slaves in ten states free, but there were seventeen states in which blacks were held as slaves…

There were exemptions as well .. as Abe readily admitted that this move was a “war measure” (i.e. hoping to incite a slave uprising to end the war earlier, as he had no real desire initially to “make slaves free”)

..the portions of Virginia and Louisiana which were occupied by Union forces were exempt from it, meaning that their slaves were not freed. This was made clear by a circular issued by Union Provost Marshall Captain A.B. Long in New Liberia, Louisiana on April 24, 1863. In it, he informed the slaves in St. Martin Parish who thought that they were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation that they were not because that Parish was exempted in it … Lincoln declared the slaves not under his control free, but not those who were under his control.

This make perfect sense as Abraham Lincoln had offered perpetual slavery in the states that had seceded IF they returned to “the Union” according to his first inaugural address when he referenced the Corwin Amendment.

The slaves in the District of Columbia had been freed by act of Congress on April 16, 1862, and those in U.S. territories by the same on June 17, 1862, before the Emancipation Proclamation was issued. Lincoln then tried to get Delaware to be the next entity to free its slaves, but the state refused. Under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, Washington, D.C. and the territories were the only jurisdictions over which the Federal Government had authority. Authority over slavery in the states was reserved to the states themselves.

So Lincoln had no authority under the Constitution .. but we know that many presidents of the United States have disregarded that document ever since. Even George Washington’s “Whiskey Rebellion” move was not constitutional.

So what law actually freed the slaves in the United States of America?

The date on which the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified was the date upon which the last of the slaves were truly freed. Therefore, December 6 should be celebrated as Emancipation Day.

From Abbeville Institute

Lysander Spooner had it right: