Whether it be a nation or an empire, leaders always know that the fear card can produce unity and an excuse to utilize totalitarian measures against their own people, and the masses will love it, because the feels.
In reading about why the CIA and FBI saw threats with both JFK’s and MLK’s trajectories. Jacob Hornberger states:
Why did they target Kennedy? For the same reason they targeted all those other people for assassination — they concluded that Kennedy had become a grave threat to national security and, they believed, it was their job to eliminate threats to national security.
It has to sound familiar, especially over the past few years and the Russian threats due to Trump’s ‘friendly’ attitude to Russia (as he ramps up the sanctions, sending missiles to bases in Syria that Russian troops are based, etc.). Give me a break.
Although the article specifically attributes these actions as starting after WWII as the OSS operations were then made permanent by Truman’s creation of the CIA, the very psychological mechanism of fear has been a real thing in America since the colonial days.
It was the fear of American Indian raids that had independent and autonomous farmers in the colonies agree to pay takes to raise an army to remove those threats. It was the fear of a free trade zone in the southern United States in 1861 that prompted the northern politicians to “put down the insurrection” in a way that forever altered the US government to be highly centralized and a source of significant tyranny. Many southern states were subject to 12 years of military rule that not only wrecked the south economically, but revealed the desperate measures this totalitarian US government would take to keep itself “safe”.
By the 1890s this fear extended to the world for the US government, using the USS Maine incident in Havana harbor to make war with the failing Spanish Empire and seize lands around the world. By 1918, the progressive thought that the US was to be a power for “good” in this world, to keep the world safe made the people accept that sending millions of men overseas to die in France in WWI “worth it all”. Even Franklin Roosevelt knew that the end game of war was the only way to maintain his and his political party’s power, and used deceptive embargoes and tariffs to manipulate the Japanese Empire to lash out predictably allowing the US to enter WWII.
It was after this war that included the US immorally using nuclear bombs against primarily civilian populations that had little strategic military value that the US added yet another immoral weapon in their suite of tools to keep the world safe for democracy. Assassination. How totalitarian, how Communist!
The US using tactics that their “evil” enemies use are ever apparent these days when it can be argued that the US is the largest exporter of terrorism in the 21st century. It is no accident that securing the largest opium producing area in the world to secretly fund the CIA might be what keeps the politicians in line, with drug money ..
But I digress.
I guess the point of all this is to show how the US has developed into the very totalitarian state that it was fighting against in WWII. In Jacob’s article it points out that the way the nation/empire fights abroad always comes home. The domestic “fight” to retain power will start to use tactics that were only used in “war” or in classified CIA operations:
State-sponsored assassinations to protect national security were among the dark-side practices that began to be utilized after the federal government was converted into a national-security state. As early as 1953, the CIA was developing a formal assassination manual that trained its agents in the art of assassination and, equally important, in the art of concealing the CIA’s role in state-sponsored assassinations.
In 1954, the CIA targeted the democratically elected president of Guatemala for assassination because he was reaching out to Russia in a spirt of peace, friendship, and mutual co-existence. In 1960-61, the CIA conspired to assassinate Patrice Lumumba, the head of the Congo because he was perceived to be a threat to U.S. national security.
So inside of a decade, the CIA developed the tools that the FBI could assist them with in these domestic threats ..
After the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy achieved a breakthrough that enabled him to recognize that the Cold War was just one great big racket for the national-security establishment and its army of “defense” contractors and sub-contractors.
That’s when JFK announced an end to the Cold War and began reaching out to the Soviets and the Cubans in a spirit of peace, friendship, and mutual coexistence. Kennedy’s Peace Speech at American University on June 10, 1963, where he announced his intent to end the Cold War and normalize relations with the communist world, sealed President Kennedy’s fate.
This deep state action over 50 years ago has served to keep a reign on US presidents ever since. This also was extended to other leaders that threatened the deep state:
… one day after his Peace Speech at American University, Kennedy delivered a major televised address to the nation defending the civil rights movement, the movement that King was leading.
What better proof of a threat to national security than that — reaching out to the communist world in peace and friendship and then, one day later, defending a movement that the U.S. national-security establishment was convinced was a spearhead for the communist takeover of the United States?
You now know why US media is the lapdog for deep state propaganda, to keep the narrative alive that the US is perpetually fighting terror and fighting to keep itself and the world safe while the US government has developed a ..:
… totalitarian-like governmental structure that has led our nation in the direction of state-sponsored assassinations, torture, invasions, occupations, wars of aggression, coups, alliances with dictatorial regimes, sanctions, embargoes, regime-change operations, and massive death, suffering, and destruction, not to mention the loss of liberty and privacy here at home.
No one should be surprised here in 2020 when we can see clearly how things are done, especially with Soleimani’s assassination.
The US has evolved into the very thing it was created to avoid.
The illusion of safety remains, but the reality of despotism is already here.
I am a detail guy, so sometimes I get lost in the rabbit trails just 50 foot above the tree line doing my CSI work, but then there is something that demands that I soar to 10,000 foot or more to get a handle on the big picture. I wonder is that is what is behind the saying ‘can’t see the forest for the trees’?
Retired USAF lieutenant colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, Ph.D. has an article on Lew Rockwell today that helped me see the big picture. While I want to be aware of the details of life (micro and macro, local/state/national and global) I also do not want to be caught off guard by the trends.
Karen offers that there have been four major efforts so far in the coup that has split DC in two and a fifth effort that is already underway:
If the predictable election of 2016 fails to deliver the controllable neoconservative president,
if a pseudo-McCarthyite campaign against an economically recovering and energy-independent Russia fails again,
Yes, the war party, the CIA/FBI/Deep State, a majority of Republicans and Democrats, the MIC , many evangelical Christians and all those that hate peace are aligned as never before. Their collective effort is focused to:
… stop Trump’s early promises to put America first, bring our troops home, secure borders, and spend the American taxpayer bounty on American production and infrastructure – have paved the way for a wholesale public acceptance of the neoconservative agenda.
If you doubt that these state-centric actors just happen to be able to align the stars and have MSM mimic its very words .. consider just one element of the apparatus that is a parasite to this country:
The CIA, now nearly 80 years old, has become a global power, with global influence. It should surprise no one that the CIA is also a major influence over US territory, the US Government, and the very opinions and perspectives of the average US citizen. Media and entertainment, technology and communications, access to cash, total information awareness of our money, movements, thoughts and speech, with the complete opacity of its own budget and actions – all of this this is part of the CIA’s mission today. If you thought it was just other country’s riots, assassinations and regime changes, you are behind the times.
Talk about power and influence .. and a whole lot of sociopaths all rolled into one, these people and this collective will not be going away any time soon, and they are not susceptible to the results of elections either (like anything is) .. but I digress.
Now about VP Mike Pence as a hedge to keep things status-quo back home in the old USA:
Mike Pence was a predictable vice-presidential choice. A nondescript statist, evangelical “good” man, he served his role as a non-threatening, mildly competent second. He would also be a fourth or fifth tier hedge against the uncontrollable populist and hearty sinner Donald Trump, a man who had never won an election in his life before 2016. The CIA has decades of experience in choosing presidents, and vice presidents, manipulating both campaigns and popular opinion, creating crises on demand, and surveilling citizens and parties and candidates – in other countries. The unexpected spontaneous and massive patriotic crowds convening for Trump throughout the 2016 campaign alone must have told the CIA what was written on the wall. Even with then CIA Director Brennan’s assistance, and that of the FBI, Hillary couldn’t catch the imagination of voters, or bring them out to see her preach, even when she spoke in our native accents.
While Trump has been elusive enough combating the first four efforts listed above, there has been damage to what he can actually impact that would bring him anywhere close to what he promised on the election path:
In these four failures to bring down Trump, the deep state/CIA alliance has indeed achieved much, and won much. Trump has been constrained in his efforts to fulfill his most popular domestic initiatives, while the continued direct and indirect attacks on him in the mainstream, left-leaning “independent” and government media have worn down his popular support. Independents and libertarians who may have leaned Trumpward have all but peeled away and are looking at other parties and candidates. NeverTrumpers already favored Pence, and that was a major reason for his inclusion on the 2016 ticket. Troop deployments, Pentagon funding and interventionist wars have all been reignited. The Federal Reserve, once a Trump target, is enthusiastically burning up the printing presses, with very little mainstream discussion and with Trump applauding, not auditing. The upcoming nuclear destruction of Iran and the unleashing of a long wave of war and terror is just around the corner.
So if you are the CIA, you can’t just duplicate what you did in the 1950s (assassinate Iran’s elected president) or in the 1960s (rub out JFK who threatened to splinter the CIA into the wind) you have to get innovative:
Who will best serve the deep state/CIA/petrodollar empire in November 2020 and beyond? Trump, if he lives long enough will be re-elected by actual voters, and as a lame duck he may prove difficult. The Democratic field is split between reliable lackeys and unreliable ones, and while wars may be ensured, there’s nothing the CIA hates more than unpredictability. What to do with the gift of four failed domestic operations against Trump?
The answer is, devise a health event (mental or physical or both) that results in a sitting President Pence just in time for a reasonably short campaign, in a time of war, against an uninspiring array of old white man from a divided opposition party.
Plan E. This is the last resort the CIA has available up its sleeve. The common person on the street sees Trump and Pence as one in the same. Nothing could be further from the truth. I really hope we do not see the day when Pence is president, like Hillary, their view is the more war around the world, the better.
So how does this play into the incredible events of the last week when the US executive branch can just go drone a military leader of another country that we are not even “legally” at war with? You have to know the back story that MSM fails in their journalism to provide the American public:
There you go. When your VP starts to be involved in things without you, you have to know that something is up. In my mind, Trump has his hands full and has enemies at every turn. The only things that holds him back is:
self-preservation (he knows the story of JFK)
brainwashing (with neo-cons 360, he readily comes under their influence in time)
We have seen this full on with the decision to drone murder an Iranian general on a peace mission in Iraq and the Iraqi general host:
So like a tragic play, here we are on 11JAN2020 where Trump’s week ahead involves impeachment proceedings. I am sure that there is plenty of stress .. so …
… if Trump takes a break or sees a doctor now, our public suspicions of mental and physical incompetence are 100% confirmed, and we “expect” his imminent decline from the stage. The “surprise” strike on Soleimani has given the Senate a new “Constitutional” reason to be angry with Trump, so it improves the chances of a serious trial, and even removal from office. It’s a win-win because even if not removed, the Senate trial, and Trump’s predictable reaction to it, will serve to explain away a stroke, embolism, heart attack, or mental breakdown, all leading to a welcome peacefulness and stability of an ascendant Mike Pence.
Just know that Karen’s last line was pure sarcasm. I guess all us veterans have this baked into our character as a result of our experiences.
I am not a fan of Pence as you probably can tell. A dangerous man because he fully buys into the zeal, passion and noble cause to usher in the “End Times” on an express lane.
Pence, an evangelical neoconservative who deserves to be President as it is surely God’s Will, will also need support from his deep state friends Gina Haspel and Mike Pompeo. He will have it in spades. The warfare-welfare empire is saved for another day.
The anticipated fallout of a Pence presidency:
Property values will continue to rise in the five counties surrounding D.C., Americans will continue to get poorer and angrier, and in their frustration and fear, many will even demand more state assistance, and probably a draft. A new kind of draft, whereby soldiers can “earn” student loan debt relief, and the like. Socialism, American-style, who can oppose that? What fun we can expect under a Pence presidency, and I give him a second and maybe even a third term.
This is not said to scare anyone, just a reality check on what kind of America to expect in the 2020s with someone like Pence (or Hillary) driving.
It is my grand-kids who I would weep for, another generation of cannon fodder for the war party elite to use and abuse.
There is a constant in politics. Smoke and mirrors, nothing is what it says it is or was, and everything comes down to the ability to lie well, “for humanity’s sake”
While I am picking on the GOP today, it would be equally easy to pick on the Democratic or even the so-called Libertarian Party as well.
A Republican today is someone who thinks .. :
*That unemployment compensation for laid-off workers is socialism and multi-billion dollar bailouts for banking and stock swindlers is capitalism.
*That killing women and children with high explosives in remote corners of the earth is defending “our way of life.”
*That the purpose of education is to train good workers.
*That immigration is good because it supplies good cheap workers.
*That the 10th Amendment means that the federal government should tell the States what to do rather than do it itself.
*That criticism of Lincoln is near treason.
*That the President is “Commander-in-Chief” of the country, especially when he is a Republican.
*That freedom is protected by undeclared wars and military tribunals.
*That “right to life” is a good campaign gimmick, but not to be taken seriously.
*That any campaign promise or slogan should gull the saps who are not in the know but is not to be taken seriously.
*That the way to beat the Democrats is to take up whatever they propose and promise to do it better
On that last one, know that Trump-care would follow Obamacare, the same thing only different. But I digress.
I think we can all agree to what these three parties are today, however, I do think we might have some disagreement on what these parties were in years gone past.
Today I will limit myself to the Grand Old Party, since I have limited time …
Here is some popular thoughts accepted by the masses and the people they trust from Paul H. Yarbrough:
[we can] blame the Democrat party for slavery, Jim Crow and most every other popular racial badness. The Republicans supposedly are angels wiping out these evils.
Yes, aligns perfectly with everyone’s history books, so this data must be good, but not so fast. It should be noted that:
Many, if not most, slave traders were Northerners regardless of political party.
Republicans, for the most part, were not opposed to slavery. They just did not want it extended into the western territories. They sided with the abolitionists only in that they wanted slaves freed so as they might be repatriated to Africa.
Republicans sponsored the Corwin Amendment introduced in 1860 by prominent Republicans William H. Seward and Thomas Corwin that would have kept slavery in perpetuity. The amendment was only ratified by two border states, Maryland and Kentucky and three Northern states: Ohio, Rhode Island and Illinois (which had passed laws prohibiting entry by free blacks into the state).
Let’s look at this amendment (would have been the 13th if ratified):
“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.””
This does NOT sound like a party that is anti-slavery does it? No, this sounds like a party that changed its mind in 1862 when its invasion of the South was being frustrated, so it changed its mission from “Saving the Union” to “Free the Slaves” (to encourage a general slave revolt in the South to end the War Against Southern Independence faster).
About the Jim Crow laws that today’s Republicans claim is a legacy of the Democrats:
.. the Republicans who controlled the South during the military occupation following the war, forced the Black Codes, nonexistent in the South, on the South in 1866. The Black Codes were a Republican concept. And Northern Republicans were the creators of the later to come Jim Crow Laws.
Surprised? You should never be surprised when your beliefs based on political books like the ones on history are revealed as mere myths.
Now, how “republican” is the Republican party? About as “federalist” as the Federalist party was in the 1790s. Politicians even lie when naming their own parties, it has always been that way!
The Republican party is no more republican then the Democratic party is democratic. Both are oligarchies promoting their namesakes as if those in charge (power) have the interests of the people firmly in their hearts (with their pocketbooks in their hands).
True. When one looks at the legacy of the Republican party, one really has to stretch the meaning of the word to apply it even in 1856/1860 (thanks to Laurence M. Vance for his work on these very accurate attributes):
The Republican Party is the party of Lincoln. Republicans who liked to accuse Obama of being dictatorial some years ago have forgotten all about their beloved Lincoln. He issued a proclamation that freed no slaves. He destroyed the country to save the union. He presided over the first income tax. He supported an amendment to the Constitution that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with Southern slavery. He shut down Northern opposition newspapers and imprisoned Northern political dissenters. He oversaw the deaths of 500,000 to 800,000 Americans. He destroyed the system of states’ rights and federalism created by the Founding Fathers.
Dang. Maybe in “peacetime” Republicans are more in line with the founding fathers and this federated republic? You can bet the GOP plans ZERO peace in the near-term. It is just not in their DNA to be anything but like the Democrats, only different.
Other attributes:
The Republican Party is the party of the drug war. Although Republicans say they are the party of the Constitution, they show their contempt for the Constitution by their ardent support of the unconstitutional drug war that has ruined more lives than drugs themselves. Republicans are the greatest advocates of locking up people in cages for possessing substances the government doesn’t approve of.
The Republican Party is the party of the warfare state. Closing a domestic military base is implausible. Scrapping a weapons system is out of the question. Cutting the bloated defense budget is inconceivable. Invading and occupying other countries is viewed as defensive warfare. Bombing, maiming, and killing whomever the government labels as “the enemy” is viewed as defending our freedoms.
The Republican Party is the party of empire. Republicans support the stationing of troops and the maintaining of foreign military bases all over the globe—including in Germany, Italy, and Japan even though World War II ended 70 years ago. Closing an overseas military base is unthinkable. Bringing all of the troops home is unimaginable.
The Republican Party is the party of the welfare state. Republicans are welfare statists just like Democrats. They believe that it is the proper role of government to provide public assistance, have entitlement programs, maintain a safety net, and guarantee income security. They continually support food stamps, WIC, TANF, federal job training programs, rent subsidies, heating assistance, farm programs, SSI, and refundable tax credits that allow some Americans to receive tax refunds when they paid no taxes to begin with. They support the government providing unemployment benefits so that those who work can support those who don’t. They have no philosophical objection to the government fighting poverty by taking money from some Americans and redistributing it to others. When Bush the president and had a Republican majority in both Houses of Congress for over four years, the Republicans could have eliminated or substantially rolled back the welfare state. They did neither.
The Republican Party is the party of Social Security. Although Republicans may criticize FDR and many of his New Deal programs, they love his Social Security program and want to “save” it so future generations of young people can support the elderly via an intergenerational, income-transfer, wealth-redistribution welfare scheme.
The Republican Party is the party of socialized medicine. Although Republicans rail against Obamacare, they are silent about their passage of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003—the greatest expansion of Medicare since LBJ. Like Social Security, Republicans are some of the greatest champions of “saving” Medicare. And just because they criticize Obamacare doesn’t mean that they favor a real free market in health care, the total separation of medicine from the state, the complete deregulation of the health-insurance industry, or the establishment of medical freedom. Republicans believe that some Americans should pay for the health care of other Americans.
The Republican Party is the part of foreign aid. Republicans have no philosophical objection whatsoever to taking money from American taxpayers and giving it to corrupt foreign regimes, including bribing them with cash and military equipment to get them to obey U.S. dictates. Spending on foreign aid practically doubled during the Bush years.
The Republican Party is the party of federal control of education. The Democrats may have given us Common Core, but the Republicans gave us No Child Left Behind. Republicans support the federal student loan program, Pell Grants, the National School Lunch Program, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and Head Start. And instead of eliminating the federal Department of Education when they had a majority in both Houses of Congress for over four years during the Bush presidency, they practically doubled the department’s budget. Republicans believe that some Americans should pay for the education of the children of other Americans.
The Republican Party is the party of an aggressive, belligerent, and meddling interventionist foreign policy. Republicans believe that the United States should be a busybody who polices the world and tells every other country what it should and shouldn’t do. They fully support CIA covert activities and torture—as long as the American people don’t find out about it.
The Republican Party is the party of taxes. Tax reform is unacceptable unless it is revenue neutral. Tax deductions, credits, and loopholes that allow some Americans to keep more of their money should be eliminated. “The rich” should pay their fair share via a progressive tax system. The government is entitled to a portion of every American’s income.
The Republican Party is the party of the national security state. Republicans gave us the Department of Homeland Security when we already had a defense department. They gave us the Patriot Act to violate our liberties. They gave us the TSA to grope us when we travel. The current vocal criticism by some Republicans of the NSA would be reduced to a whimper under a Republican administration. Republicans support a CIA that spies on the whole world and works mischief throughout.
The Republican Party is the party of massive government spending and debt. The national debt rose almost a trillion dollars between the Republican Revolution that wasn’t in 1995 and Bush’s first inauguration in 2001. During Bush’s presidency, government spending skyrocketed, the national debt almost doubled, and the federal deficit exceeded $1 trillion for the first time. Republicans in Congress regularly vote to raise the debt limit under Republican presidents. They have no philosophical objection to spending billions of taxpayer dollars on thousands of departments, agencies, grants, and programs that are not warranted by the Constitution.
Now you have a flavor of a political party that in no way reflects the “republican” nature of government that Thomas Jefferson, who formed the Democratic-Republican Party (formally called the Republican Party) around 1792 to oppose the centralizing policies of the new Federalist Party run by Alexander Hamilton, who was Secretary of the Treasury and chief architect of George Washington’s administration.
Words matter. You know, like the “Patriot” Act. As Ron Paul points out:
The Patriot Act waters down the Fourth amendment by expanding the federal government’s ability to use wiretaps without judicial oversight. The requirement of a search warrant and probable cause strikes a balance between effective law enforcement and civil liberties. Any attempt to dilute the warrant requirement threatens innocent citizens with a loss of their liberty. This is particularly true of provisions that allow for issuance of nationwide search warrants that are not specific to any given location, nor subject to any local judicial oversight.
The Act makes it far easier for the government to monitor your internet usage by adopting a lower standard than probable cause for intercepting e-mails and internet communications.
How patriotic is that?
It is a minefield out there. Be careful in your assumptions! The labels are many times very misleading.
As I have stated many times before, there is a bit of misinformation out in our world that can lead people to believe things that are not actually true. This happened well before the Internet’s “fake news” and “fact-check” phenomenon as Mark Train points out here:
“If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed. If you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed.”
So take all your history books (especially if they have anything to do with the South and the North and were published after 1865) with a grain of salt when you read them. Source material is out there but mining that is more and more difficult as search engines have been compromised.
While I never expect any politician except perhaps Ron Paul to get history > 90% correct, this latest article laments how Ted Cruz has latched on so some fake history in the last few days:
It is also appalling to me when a conservative such as Glenn Beck or Ted Cruz—who would never allow the politically correct to deceive them on contemporary issues—routinely allow themselves to be hoodwinked on historical topics. Nathan Bedford Forrest is a prime example.
So hang on now and consider these thoughts without accepting them as truth until you do your own homework. Context, as always, is imperative in making wise judgements:
The year 1865 was pivotal in American history. It was the year the Civil War ended, the Confederacy died, the Ku Klux Klan was born, and the Democratic Party transitioned from the party of slavery to the party of white supremacy.
It must be known that the GOP/Republican party was originally a Free Soil party that believed in white land ownership exclusively. Lincoln himself is on record saying many times that the black race was subpar to the white race:
“…I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”
Let’s look at the initial focus of this organization instead of focusing on what it became, especially in the 1900s when members were waving the stars and stripes and intimidating the general public into a race war like you see below:
1925 KKK March on Washington DC
Today’s focus if on the first version (1.0) of the Ku Klux Klan that ran from 1866-1869:
It (KKK) was born in the law offices of Judge Thomas Jones in Pulaski, Tennessee. Half its original members were attorneys. Its initial standards were high. One had to be in the Confederate Army at the time of the surrender or in a Union prisoner-of-war camp to be eligible for membership. Its original mission statement called for it to be “an instrument of Chivalry, Humanity, Mercy and patriotism” which was to “relieve and assist the injured, oppressed, suffering, and unfortunate, especially widows and orphans of Confederate soldiers.”
You have to know how much the North, especially the government, hated everything about the South after Lincoln was assassinated. In fact, there is some contention that the assassination might have been orchestrated much like our current FBI and CIA helps unstable individuals to carry out these kind of things when a large public figure might go a direction they are not willing to travel. It was well known that Lincoln wanted a peaceful transition back to the Union for these eleven states. Not everyone in government was ready for that, in fact, they rather loved the way Lincoln shifted the republic towards a centralized, tyrannical state. “States rights” were violently dismissed by 1865. Eventually, military districts were established as these states were raped and pillaged one more time for the North’s benefit.
[US government] have a 47% tax on cotton, which they used to subsidize Northern railroads and other large corporations. On the other hand, they did provide pensions to Northern widows and orphans at the expense of Southern widows and orphans.
As 1866 dawned, here was the real ‘state of the South’ under Union occupation:
The loss of the war and the death of the Confederacy were not isolated events. They also signaled the breakdown of the Southern economy and the collapse of law and order in many localities. Gangs of criminals and individual thugs had a field day throughout the South. Union deserters, Southern outlaws, recently freed slaves who did not know how to handle their freedom, and professional criminals ran amuck. Arson, robbery, rape, and murder were the order of the day. At the same time, Carpetbaggers and collaborators pillaged the public treasuries, increased taxes 300% to 400%, ran up huge public debts, pocketed the proceeds, stole land and farms, and enriched themselves at the expense of a helpless and impoverished people.
African Americans suffered most of all. Much of the South’s land was ruined during the conflict, and 1867 was a year of famine. The new Northern rulers had no interest in the Southern people, black or white. Tens of thousands of Negroes literally starved to death. No effort was made on the part of the new rulers to even keep records of how many died.
Public health was almost completely ignored. Smallpox epidemics periodically raged throughout the South in the 1862 through 1868 period. The weakened and malnourished black folks were especially susceptible, often dying at rates of three or four times higher than Southern whites, who were themselves not well nourished. Black children were particularly hard hit. In one six-month period in 1865, 30,000 African Americans died in North Carolina and South Carolina alone. The epidemic lasted six years.
Much like the aftermath of the Iraq invasion in 2003 when the USA really did not have a game-plan except to overthrow their old partner Saddam Hussein, the North did not really want the blacks migrating north and so the GOP used the government offices of the south to entice them to stay. In the end the GOP “used” the blacks to maintain their control in these southern states. Not until the corrupt Grant administration was there the trade-off to allow the people once again to vote in even honorable ex-Confederate officers and enlisted men to public office and allow these states re-entry into the Union in the late 1870s.
It was in this context that Northern politicians actually entertained the thought of a 2nd Civil War:
Not content with theft and neglect, a significant minority of Northern politicians openly advocated a second Civil War. They included Thaddeus Stevens, the chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives; General Benjamin F. “Spoons” Butler; Governor Richard Yates of Illinois; carpetbagger Governor Andrew J. Hamilton of Texas; and Senator Jim Lane of Kansas, among others. U.S. Congressman William Anderson Pile advocated “death to all supporters of the South, past or present.” General William T. Sherman wanted Southerners demoted to “demizens”: people who were given certain rights (such as the right to pay taxes) but not others (such as the right to vote). Governor William G. “Parson” Brownlow of Tennessee. A former Methodist preacher, slave owner, and newspaper editor, he believed slavery was “ordained by God.” He nevertheless supported the Union and a second Civil War. “I am one of those who believed that the war ended too soon,” he declared, and “the loyal masses” should not “leave one Rebel fence rail, outhouse, one dwelling, in the seceded states. As for the Rebel population, let them be exterminated.”
About this time in correspondence between Robert E. Lee and Lord Acton in England, Robert E. Lee responded:
.. while I have considered the preservation of the constitutional power of the General Government to be the foundation of our peace and safety at home and abroad, I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.
At this point in time, in the middle of a despotic domestic scene, great men will arise and protect their families and their land. The character of Nathan Bedford Forrest can be seen in his quotes:
“I have never, on the field of battle, sent you where I was unwilling to go myself; nor would I now advise you to a course which I felt myself unwilling to pursue”
“I went into the army worth a million and a half dollars, and came out a beggar”
So here is Nathan’s entry into this foray and the real source of the term “wizard”:
The government were it was functioning at all was often in the hands of criminals, and they felt compelled to take the law into their own hands. There is a point between civilization and anarchy in which vigilantism is an acceptable, temporary measure, until law and order can be restored. Into that breach stepped Nathan Bedford Forrest. He was receiving a hundred letters a day from his former soldiers, relating eye-witness accounts of outrage and lawlessness .. Forrest applied for membership … In the spring of 1866, the leaders of the KKK met in the Maxwell House in Nashville, Tennessee, and created the position of “Grand Wizard,” a tribute to Forrest’s wartime nickname, “Wizard of the Saddle,” and gave it to the general .. Under Forrest, it [KKK] became, as he said, “a protective political military organization,” i.e., a paramilitary force, a counterbalance to [Governor] Brownlow’s Loyal Legion.
All government would react, but it is interesting how Tennessee’s governor reacts:
Governor Brownlow sought to pass a law making it legal for anyone to shoot a former Confederate on sight.
Now there is a data point to think about. What was it that really made the Union and the GOP so hateful? The treatment of blacks? I highly doubt it, it was more like when a spouse seeks to leave a marriage due to abuse and the other spouse ramps up the abuse to keep them in the “union”. What the South was to the North before the war was tariff income. After the war it became conquered territory to be used and abused.
Forrest knew the support he had from his former soldiers:
If that law passed, Forrest declared, there would be a second war, although he did not want it, but he would look upon the activation of Brownlow’s militia as a declaration of war. He also declared that he could raise 40,000 Klansmen in Tennessee and 550,000 throughout the South in five days. No one wanted to fight a half a million man cavalry army under Nathan Bedford Forrest ..
The Tennessee governor relented.
Just a few years later:
In February 1869, Brownlow resigned as governor. His successor sought to work with the Democrats, was conciliatory to his former enemies, and restored voting rights to Southern veterans and Confederate sympathizers. Forrest, meanwhile, became concerned that white trash elements were taking over large parts of the organization and were using it for their own nefarious and hateful purposes. As a result, Nathan Bedford Forrest issued General Order Number One, disbanding the Ku Klux Klan. “There was no further need for it,” Forrest commented later, “. . . the country was safe.”
So was Nathan Bedford Forrest this horrible guy? No. He had a heart for the people oppressed by the likes of Brownlow and other Northern politicians that had a hate streak for all things of the South. Obviously, if the South was that bad, why didn’t Northern politicians just let her go?
Lindbergh with Marine pilots, a F4U Corsair in the South Pacific.
As promised, I will now offer the bright side of the two heroes who emerged in the United States in the early 20th century. I had hoped to include Charles Lindbergh in my last post, but there was way to much hubris to deal with in writing about FDR, and the sad fact was, there was actually way more material, but I do hope y’all get the point. Much less principled men and politicians get the attention of the masses than do the true heroes who stand by their principles.
I think perhaps of all the things a police state can do to its citizens, distorting history is possibly the most pernicious”
-Robert A. Heinlein
Once again I will heavily reference the 5 year old article by John J. Dwyer from ‘New American’ called “FDR vs. Lindbergh: Setting the Record Straight”. John’s article weaves his article more of the angst that FDR had with the popular Lindbergh over the truth-telling Charles shared over the years. The example of the executive order FDR flubbed in replacing a private industry with army pilots was the first issue that Lindbergh brought to light in 1934:
Lindbergh had never pursued political causes and had retreated with Anne from public view — and the vulture-like pursuit of the media — following the staggering loss of their son, but then Roosevelt, riding a historic wave of success and popularity, issued an executive order in early 1934 that outlawed an entire industry, private airline mail carrying.
There is a lot to be said of those who prefer to stay out of the limelight and shine their own light via more humble arenas. Lindbergh at his core was a humble man, but sometimes even the humble has to stand up for what is right:
The “Lone Eagle” [Lindbergh’s nickname] burst back into the limelight with a brief letter to the president protesting his actions. Lindbergh declared them “unwarranted and contrary to American principles” in their wielding of federal government power over the private sector whose production funded that government.
FDR, on the other hand, was an arrogant SOB that came across as a more gentle soul in public. What a facade:
FDR attempted to portray Lindbergh as a tool of the airlines. “Don’t worry about Lindbergh,” he scowled to an aide. “We will get that fair-haired boy.”
About five years later, prompted once more to come out of the shadows, Lindbergh caught on to the war-fever that came out of the FDR camp and Charles could not let this one go either:
Lindbergh presciently discerned the gathering dangers to the nation, and began a series of radio broadcasts and public speeches in September 1939 against America’s involvement in yet another European war. In one speech, he issued “a plea for American independence,” asking, “Why in this second century of our national existence must we be confronted with the quarrels of the old world that our forefathers left behind when they settled in this country?”
This is straight up US founder’s non-intervention foreign policy. Reluctantly, Charles became political one more time:
Though he personally disdained public involvement in controversial political issues, he eventually joined America First, the 800,000-strong noninterventionist (but not pacifist) organization, and he crafted a platform comprised of four main elements: 1) an embargo on offensive weapons and munitions to warring nations, 2) the unrestricted sale of purely defensive armaments to anyone who wanted them to protect themselves from attack, 3) the prohibition of American shipping from the belligerent countries of Europe and their danger zones, 4) the refusal of credit to belligerent nations or their agents.
Lindbergh’s tenets were intended to ward off another experience like World War I wherein U.S. banks loaned the Allies the funds to buy American munitions and, hence, pushed strongly for American involvement in the war and for Allied victory in order to ensure repayment of their loans.
It sounds like a boat-load of common sense to me, but to a government trying to mask its failure of addressing the Great Depression Rx call the New Deal, it desperately needed some distraction. In response to this, FDR goes all out to get that “fair-haired boy”:
In response to Lindbergh’s opposition to the president’s aggressive policies, Roosevelt loosed all but the hounds of hell on him, and the media — a media that Lindbergh biographer Scott Berg stated “had grown to resent Lindbergh’s uncooperative attitude, [and] instantly revised history.” FDR’s political allies excoriated the aviator with an armada of untrue accusations. They called him an “isolationist,” though he advocated vigorous American commercial trading around the world and urged the United States not to “build a wall around our country and isolate ourselves from contact with the rest of the world.” .. Roosevelt’s allies also called Lindbergh a defeatist and appeaser of Germany, though at the same time Lindbergh managed to gain unprecedented access to the German Luftwaffe (the German air force) and became the first non-German to fly the legendary Messerschmitt 109 fighter plane, and he provided intelligence to the U.S. military about Nazi capabilities. Hap Arnold declared, “Lindbergh gave me the most accurate picture of the Luftwaffe, its equipment, leaders, apparent plans, training methods, and present defects that I had so far received,” and Arnold invited him to serve on an elite U.S. military aircraft development board.
Lindbergh was called a Nazi “fellow-traveler,” and Roosevelt and others privately said he was a Nazi. Yet Lindbergh spoke and wrote in many venues of his disgust with Nazi excesses and wrongdoing.
He was called an anti-Semite, primarily due, as historian Duffy wrote, “to a single claim he made,” in one Des Moines speech, “that Jews were among the influential groups [including the British and the Roosevelt administration] that shaped America’s war policies…. Lindbergh never blamed American Jews for their attitude toward the war. To the contrary, even as he criticized Jewish support for war, he expressed sympathy and understanding for the Jewish position.”
All this sounds too familiar, being called a Russian-bot today comes to mind. Some things never change either, like the “anti-Semite” accusation. But the propaganda smear was not enough for FDR, as he wanted to bury Lindbergh:
Roosevelt’s forces went after Lindbergh, other non-interventionists, and even critical letter-writers to the White House in additional ways, as Duffy chronicled. These included telephone wiretaps, room listening devices, public smear campaigns, and in general trying “to find some dirt” on them. The president himself initiated a cooperative venture with J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI in which the White House supplied the bureau the names and addresses of the letter senders so that the FBI could provide information on them.
Y’all thought that these tactics against whistle-blowers was a recent thing, think again. Politics operates primarily on having dirt on other people as leverage. Government in particular thrives on this, which is why the NSA does what it does every single day with your tax money, spy on everything you say and do and track wherever you go, the ultimate police state.
But I digress .. back to some more principled Lindbergh moments:
The enduring vindictiveness of Roosevelt evidenced itself in his determination to keep Lindbergh from any military role in the U.S. war effort, despite the aviator’s wholehearted support of the war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and his stature as one of the world’s foremost aviation experts. Wiser heads eventually prevailed, and Lindbergh’s wartime resumé was extraordinary.
He corrected problems in the Army’s B-24 Liberator bomber, flew high-altitude test flights in the P-47 Thunderbolt fighter, and conducted dangerous research on combating airborne oxygen blackouts, using himself as guinea pig. At 42 years old — virtually invalid age for a fighter pilot — he flew 50 combat missions in the Pacific. Colonel Charles MacDonald, commander of the famed “Satan’s Angels” fighter group, said, “Lindbergh was indefatigable. He flew more missions than was normally expected of a regular combat pilot. He dive-bombed enemy positions, sank barges, and patrolled our landing forces on Noemfoor Island. He was shot at by almost every anti-aircraft gun the Nips [Japanese] had in western New Guinea.”
He also increased the bomb load of the Navy’s F4U Corsair fighter plane to 4,000 pounds, the heaviest ever carried by the fighter, then personally dropped it on Wotje Island, demolishing a Japanese anti-aircraft gun battery. After he devised how to extend the P-38 Lightning fighter’s flight distance by hundreds of miles, Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers in the Pacific Douglas MacArthur engaged him as a consultant and offered him whatever plane he wished to fly. Lindbergh’s discovery of how to improve the P-38’s flying distance enabled the fighter plane to escort bombers to the Japanese-held island of Palau, aiding in the capture of the island and leading to its use as a launching pad for MacArthur’s triumphant return to the Philippines.
In a head-to-head aerial dogfight with a Japanese group commander, Lindbergh missed crashing head-on with the enemy’s plane by five feet and shot it down. Aiding a fellow pilot in another dogfight, he got jumped by a Mitsubishi Zero that fired from directly behind him as he “commended [his] soul to God,” but another American fighter shot down the Zero in the nick of time.
I never hear of all this. My last recollection from my history teachers was that Charles melted into obscurity after challenging the thought that the US must enter WWII.
Charles experience in the South Pacific left him reflective on what he saw. Once again he would not keep quiet:
Having personally confronted the true horrors of war in the Pacific, though, Lindbergh bitterly denounced it in his private journal: “As the awful truth of the German crimes against the Jewish people came out, here we were, doing the same thing to the Japs.” He wrote about the attitudes he encountered: “‘They really are lower than beasts. Every one of ’em ought to be exterminated.’ How many times I heard American officers in the Pacific say those very words!… And ‘Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?’”
He chronicled the shooting of Japanese soldiers attempting to surrender so that other Japanese soldiers would remain in the jungle and slowly starve; Marines firing on unarmed Japanese swimming ashore at Midway; troops machine-gunning prisoners on a Hollandia airstrip; Australians shoving captured Japanese out of transport planes over the New Guinea mountains; Japanese shinbones carved off for letter openers and pen trays; Japanese heads buried in ant hills “to get them clean for souvenirs”; and “the infantry’s favorite occupation” of poking through the mouths of Japanese corpses for gold-filled teeth. He added, “What is barbaric on one side of the earth is still barbaric on the other.”
“Judge not that ye be not judged,” he continued. “It is not the Germans alone, or the Japs, but the men of all nations to whom this war has brought shame and degradation.” He also wrote of the legacy of using violence to solve mankind’s ills: lynchings, witch-burnings, “burnings at the stake for the benefit of Christ and God.”
Epic stuff that history books failed to capture. This is all by design as the US Empire has to hide heroes like this to keep the narrative intact that the US Empire, the state, is worthy of worship. As a result, the masses say the pledge, worship that flag, do your duty and vote, but don’t you dare be critical of the US government, that would be unpatriotic, or would it? What did our founders do with the British Empire?
So now what? In summary:
Franklin Roosevelt graduated onto the front of textbooks, currency, and best presidents’ lists. Charles Lindbergh, meanwhile, won the laurels of hatred and slander reserved for the truest patriot, he who loves his country enough to criticize her for her own good — a lesson that patriots of today know only too well is repeated almost daily in America through the cooperation of likeminded media and politicians.
Charles would lead a quite life after WWII retiring to Hawaii and dying there in 1974. I never even knew he was still living when I was reading about him in my history books and World Book Encyclopedias.
It is time to unearth these real heroes from having been buried by our government. We can’t afford to return to the days like John Adams’ administration when the Alien and Sedition Act made it a crime to be critical of the US government:
Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which made it a crime for anyone to criticize the government ”through writing or any other shape, form, or fashion.” Specifically, criticizing the president, Congress, the military, or the flag was made illegal.
Just over 20 years after divorcing the British Empire, the federation, now under the Constitution did this? Fast forward another 100 years and then you had this:
U.S. Sedition Act of 1918 … made it a crime to ”willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of the United States.”
Our true history ain’t pretty, can’t we just be honest about this?
A true test of freedom is when you find out who you can’t criticize, am I right?
Enough for now, get out there and enjoy your weekend all!
