All the talk from US President on tariffs lately and how China ripped the US off on $5B worth of trade yada, yada, yada. I honestly felt like puking. Here is this reality TV star .. errr I mean president of the USA totally falling for the whole “trade deficit” economic term made popular every now and then to distract citizens (direct tax slaves) from what is really going on.
One would think that twelve years (and more in many cases) of public education would have introduced kids and young adults to the realities of economics, but you must understand that this is “government” education. Need I say more?
I am so glad that Justin Amash (Republican Representitive – MI) called out Pres. Trump on this aversion of his tariff war and his protectionist tendencies and their unintended consequences:
Why is the president of the US, philosophically, the “people’s choice” (part of the balancing attribute of this “experiment” to tweak “representative government” of the executive, legislative and judicial branches), totally all in on making sure that certain producers in the US are protected from foreign competition?
Well, truth be known, there is and has been a consistent propensity since the nation’s birth toward having the general government (as it was called back in 1787 when the coup de’tat that jettisoned the Articles of Confederation and adopted the Constitution in secret) building protective bridges with the republics budding industries (like railroad, steel manufacturing, canal building, etc).
The Whig party from the early 19th century was all about the big business – general government “partnership” (dysfunctional co-dependency) that utilized tariff income, mainly from the southern ports to fund canal projects in the north and subsidize the steel industry since it was new and vulnerable to foreign competition. Abraham was big into this mercantilism philosophy that continued to grow (imagine a government program growing like a cancer) and demand more and more tariff revenue that led to the “Tariff of Abominations” in the 1828 that South Carolina almost decided NOT to pay this tariff:
It set a 38% tax on 92% of all imported goods. Industries in the northern United States were being driven out of business by low-priced imported goods; the major goal of the tariff was to protect these industries by taxing those goods. The South, however, was harmed directly by having to pay higher prices on goods the region did not produce, and indirectly because reducing the exportation of British goods to the U.S. made it difficult for the British to pay for the cotton they imported from the South.
One would think that especially our political leaders would want to learn from history, but in fact, they want short term political bonds with big business to secure funding for the next political election season. By definition, a democracy (which this republic has become) is never interested in long term consequences to the decisions made, it is almost as bad as full on Marxism, socialism and communism in the way it treats future generations of a nation/region.
Last year when Pres. Trump first issues this threat of a tariff increase, Martin Armstrong (of Armstrong Economics) shed some truth on the matter:
The big problem is that Trump FAILS to understand how the economy truly functions. Imposing tariffs on foreign imports because they can produce something more efficiently is NOT protecting American jobs – its is imposing higher costs on the American public.
If America cannot compete against foreign steel and aluminum, the answer is not tariffs, but TAX REFORM and UNION REFORM. If unions fail to understand that demanding higher wages in an UN-competitive manner will only lead to the loss of jobs, then end result cannot be prevented by tariffs.
Once upon a time, New York City was the largest port in the United States. Because of unions and outrageous demands, little by little they killed their own jobs. Shipping moved to New Jersey, Philadelphia, and Virginia. What used to be a viable industry today is just a shadow of what it once was. No matter what the field, everything is subject to competition. Imposing tariffs is simply subsidizing overpaid jobs and higher taxes.
Another popular independent media personality, Pete Raymond, also pointed out to Pres. Trump that 150 years ago, Bastiat had already settled this issue:
What is hilarious is that even Bastiat in 1845 when he wrote this piece, (called “Candlestick Makers’ Petition” directed at the French Parliament) said:
We anticipate your objections, gentlemen; but there is not a single one of them that you have not picked up from the musty old books of the advocates of free trade. We defy you to utter a word against us that will not instantly rebound against yourselves and the principle behind all your policy.
Will you tell us that, though we may gain by this protection, France will not gain at all, because the consumer will bear the expense?
Even in 1845 (and in 1828) there were plenty of books, musty books, on shelves unused and unread by government officials. The same holds true today, the idiots are elected while the wise refuse to wield power, the ugly and self-serving political type.
I do hope that some of you are aware of the Candlestick Makers’ Petition as Frederic Bastiat had a way in his short life to make economics simple enough that even a politician could understand. A teaser clip is below. Enjoy Mother’s Day celebrations today!
-SF1
You are on the right track. You reject abstract theories and have little regard for abundance and low prices. You concern yourselves mainly with the fate of the producer. You wish to free him from foreign competition, that is, to reserve the domestic market for domestic industry.
We come to offer you a wonderful opportunity for your — what shall we call it? Your theory? No, nothing is more deceptive than theory. Your doctrine? Your system? Your principle? But you dislike doctrines, you have a horror of systems, as for principles, you deny that there are any in political economy; therefore we shall call it your practice — your practice without theory and without principle.
We are suffering from the ruinous competition of a rival who apparently works under conditions so far superior to our own for the production of light that he is flooding the domestic market with it at an incredibly low price; for the moment he appears, our sales cease, all the consumers turn to him, and a branch of French industry whose ramifications are innumerable is all at once reduced to complete stagnation. This rival, which is none other than the sun …
This point in time (1860) was not when friction started between the three major regions of the “united States of America”. Please note that in many documents, the “u” in union was because the emphasis on this “new nation” launched in 1776 was on the States and the powers it reserved for themselves verses the power delegated to the general (now called federal) government. The Articles of Confederation spelled this out better in print and in practice. The Constitution, however, was construed in secret backrooms in Philadelphia in 1787 and became a document that Patrick Henry would prophetically claim “I smell a rat”.
The most telling aspect of the state bent of the original view of this “republic” experiment was the language used to describe it until 1860. An example is the phrase “the United States are a republic.” Yes, you read that right. It sounds wrong only because everyone has been taught that the United States is singular and not plural. In our eyes, it is a nation, it is “one” .. and as the socialist pledge teaches us, it is indivisible.
So what happened? Well if you can imagine a marriage of two regions, south (the strongest region in the 1770s) and the north (the weakest region at this time) set aside their differences to fight off an empire. Successful as they were, they knew that only because England was pulled into a world war on various fronts and the assistance of the French, they were very lucky. Exiting these war years with the Articles of Confederation holding them somewhat together (general government could not tax, raise armies or borrow money), there came an effort to “strengthen” these bonds out of fear. The new marriage vows were designed to allow a stronger bond, general government taxes (a whiskey tax of 25% that put the British Empire’s stamp tax that the colonies revolted against to shame) and other new powers that centralized control. Patrick Henry, George Mason and Richard Henry Lee all saw through the sham of this shift towards tyranny. Eventually Thomas Jefferson would see the defects of this modified republic experiment, but it was too late. A great quote by William M. Robinson, Jr. about this moment in time is:
“The successful working of the dual system (Madison’s ‘dual sovereignty’) depended on the concert and mutual respect of the State and federal governments. When this noble experiment in government was launched in 1789, the world watched with interest and wondered whether human nature would be equal to it.”
Human nature was not equal to it. Compromises was made and even though eventually ten amendments were added (but note these “bill of rights” were not central to this document), these modified “vows” hung heavier and heavier as the country grew and expanded.
Working from a piece from Abbeville Institute on the defining differences in constitutions it is shared about what changed between 1787 and 1860:
Between 1789 and 1861 the US Constitution became a cudgel splintering on the anvil of human nature. No Founder could foresee the social, political and economic upheavals of the next 70 years: the stunning acquisition of land called the Louisiana Purchase doubling the size of a once small Republic cuddled along the Atlantic seaboard; the explosive value of cotton in the 1800 teens; our Industrial Revolution in the 1820’s; a population growth from 3.9 million in 1790 to 31.5 million in 1860, mostly in the North. Neither Jefferson nor Hamilton believed a Republic could govern so large a landmass and diverse a population. By 1860 Washington was long rutted on the road of Empire where human nature roams by instinct to the acquisition of further wealth and power.
By 1860 there was a strong North who had emerged as a leader in political power that left the south and the west (both Midwest and Pacific West) in the shadows. The ability of the general government to tweak tariff revenue dis-proportionally among the regions and subsidize northern “internal improvements” and industry were particularly prominent since about the 1830s. Redistribution of tax monies is never an easy pill to swallow. By 1860, the South felt backed into a corner and when the election results were in, it understood that the North could elect a regional president with only 39% of the country’s votes. This was a marriage that they could no longer be a party too.
However, instead of arguing purely on emotional lines, they decided to use the legality of their exit, by stating that “slavery” was their reason in many of the secessionist documents. Secession/divorce was never ruled out as an option as the North had considered that when it was the weaker partner in 1798 and 1814. Even Lincoln knew he could not push on the slavery issue legally during his first inaugural address in March 1861:
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—
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.
So here we are, seven states had legally seceded from the united States and the newly elected president, the first one elected specifically by a section of the nation alone, is saying that the Constitution limits his ability to end slavery.
Lincoln does not stop there however, from his same speech he says:
I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
Yes, Lincoln was willing to make slavery permanent in the states that desired this, IF these seven states would return.
When you read the first inaugural address you can’t say that slavery was the issue for the war that followed, because to Abraham Lincoln, slavery was not worth fighting over. A future post will discuss why a war had to be the only response the North considered when the southern seven states refused to re-join the union. It should be noted that the reasons for secession differ from the reasons for war.
As a side note, when comparing the US and CSA constitutions (again, from the Abbeville Institute article referenced earlier), the slavery sections are identical:
… the CSA [constitution] enunciates what was understood but not written in 1787, especially in three places: 1) the CSA extends the Fugitive Slave Clause to Territories; 2) in the governance of Territories the CSA allows slavery until the Territory becomes a State. The people of that State then choose whether to be a Slave or Free State; 3) the CSA explicitly forbids the Central government interfering with slavery in any State. This last was also the 1861 US Corwin Amendment that Lincoln supported. All three were part of the original, unwritten understanding of the US Founders.
In summary, the major differences were not about slavery, but about sovereignty, which is as follows:
1. Eliminated ‘dual sovereignty’. No powers were granted to the Central government. Specific powers were delegated.
2. Created a Defined and Unmistakable Federal government.
3. Mandated a solitary 6 year term for the President; gave the President a line item veto; required a mere majority vote in Congress for fiscal spending initiated by the President, but a 2/3’s majority if initiated by Congress.
4. Placed Constitutional amendment conventions entirely in the hands of the States. The Central government had no role but the mandate to issue a call for a convention when 3 of the 7 States had already proposed amendments.
That alone does not look like a slavery-centric divorce/exit plan. This is about letting states have primary powers and specifically giving the general government limited powers. This had been the rub all along!
Also, on a final note, Lincoln too used the marriage analogy in his first inaugural address, but claimed that the “nation” could not do this:
Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse [communication], either amicable or hostile, must continue between them.
Lincoln has been proven wrong many times on this .. especially with the breakup of the USSR and the subsequent republics that were successfully birthed as a result.
In summary, 1860’s election changed the course of this federated republic, and the reactions to this new reality included the death of over 700,000 men and the ravaging of the southern region physically, emotionally and financially for the next hundred years. In the northern mind, one must pay an eternal price from desiring separation and divorce. Forced to be in this marriage, the south has never been the same, and this marriage has never been the same. Is it over yet?
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.
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.
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.
