Tag: secession

Honorable Rebellion, Honorable Leaders and the Naming of Army Forts

I am sure this title caught your eye. The point is that rebellion is actually GOOD once in a while. Personally, teenage rebellion is good as well, otherwise the teenager stays in one’s basement for decades and no honorable person, parent or child, wants that long term. Allowing and encouraging these young adults to “be all that they can be” is a most honorable path I would think.

Countries and cultures are similar in that there comes a time when going separate ways brings out the best for all parties.

Thomas Jefferson was one that spoke to the benefits of rebellion:

God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13 states independant 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.- Thomas Jefferson (1787)

Rebellion is a warning shot that liberties have been violated. This is an honorable recourse when peaceful approaches have been ignored time and again. Liberty can grow in the way that the American Revolution’s conclusion was conducted, not so much how the French Revolution was conducted.

If the 1776 rebellion was honorable, why not the 1860/1861 rebellion? What might help to set the context is to compare the presidential inaugural addresses of both President Lincoln and President Davis.

Lincoln’s 1st Inaugural Address 04MAR1861

Lincoln made the strongest case ever in the defense of Southern slavery even supporting its enshrinement in the text of the constitution to be a perpetual right but on the issue of tax collections he would definitely go to war to enforce the newly doubled federal tariff.

Davis defined the South as an international trading community that sought free trade with the world and promised to resort to the sword if the North were to invade to put an end to the Confederacy’s free trade policy.

Davis also set the context for the formation of an agent to work on the principle’s (13 sovereign states) behalf when he said:

The declared purpose of the compact of the Union from which we have withdrawn was “to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

He continued on why the seven states had voted to leave such a Union:

When in the judgement of the sovereign states now composing this Confederacy, it had been perverted from the purposes for which it was ordained, and it ceased to answer the ends for which it was established, a peaceful appeal to the ballot box declared that so far as they were concerned, the government created by that compact should cease to exist. In this they merely asserted a right that the Declaration of Independence of 1776 had defined to be inalienable .. they, as sovereigns, were the final judges, each for itself ..

What few people know is that this man was so honorable and such a Unionist up until his home state of Mississippi seceded, that his logic, actions and words were honorable to their core.

So what do we do with men like this after a War for Southern Independence is fought and lost? We honor honorable men of that day by naming military forts after them, even when they in the end were not victorious in securing an independent country against a country who secured a victory in less than honorable means.

Walter E. Williams addresses this in his article at Lew Rockwell today. He lays the groundwork as to why we have forts in the US today that bear the name of honorable Confederate generals who were fighting for their homes and families against a tyrant who violated the US Constitution left and right.

Walter addresses a statement made by an ignorant military man, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley, who said in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee arguing in favor of renaming Confederate named military bases:

The Confederacy, the American Civil War, was fought, and it was an act of rebellion. It was an act of treason, at the time, against the Union, against the Stars and Stripes, against the U.S. Constitution.

Ignorance knows no bounds, as I pointed out yesterday that Lincoln himself was the one that acted treasonous and also acted violently against the US Constitution. The Southern state’s secession was NOT an act of treason, even if your feelings and emotions convince you and Gen. Mark Milley that way. He needs to find a safe space, and by renaming these forts I do hope he feels better soon.

But I digress ..

Walter E. Williams starts with context of the union in the first place:

Let’s start at the beginning, namely the American War of Independence (1775-1783), a war between Great Britain and its 13 colonies, which declared independence in July 1776. The peace agreement that ended the war is known as the Treaty of Paris signed by Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Jay and Henry Laurens and by British Commissioner Richard Oswald, on Sept. 3, 1783. Article I of the Treaty held that “New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and Independent States.”

This fact is something that Lincoln himself ignored to retain his narrative that the “Union” preceded the states, which then dovetails into his own personal thought that the states should have asked permission of all the other states before leaving.

Walter continues:

Delegates from these states met in Philadelphia in 1787 to form a union. During the Philadelphia convention, a proposal was made to permit the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, rejected it. Minutes from the debate paraphrased his opinion: “A union of the states containing such an ingredient (would) provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”

The fact that Lincoln never acknowledged the states as having seceded, left him with the complicated aspect that he actually violated the principle above, that his making war on states still in the union meant the compact was in fact dissolved. He wanted to ask for the “divorce”, he did NOT want the spouse(s) to have that status!

With this thought, that each of the sovereign states would voluntarily join this union one at a time, each state also understood that they each could voluntarily leave this union.

During the ratification debates, Virginia’s delegates said, “The powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.” The ratification documents of New York and Rhode Island expressed similar sentiments; namely, they held the right to dissolve their relationship with the United States.

Note that northern states also expressed interest in the ability to exit. Only 16 years later, there was talk of that from that section of the federation:

Many New Englanders were infuriated by President Thomas Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase in 1803, which they saw as an unconstitutional act. Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, who was George Washington’s secretary of war and secretary of state, led the movement. He said, “The Eastern states must and will dissolve the union and form a separate government.” Other prominent Americans such as John Quincy Adams, Elbridge Gerry, Fisher Ames, Josiah Quincy III and Joseph Story shared his call for secession.

Sparking secession talk again was the War of 1812 that hurt the New England commerce the most, rekindling this viable option:

While the New England secessionist movement was strong, it failed to garner support at the 1814-15 Hartford Convention.

By early 1861, many Northern government officials and presses were well aware of the dangers of not allowing an honorable rebellion to take place and voiced such before Lincoln took action to send armed reinforcements to Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor:

  • Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, “Any attempt to preserve the union between the states of this Confederacy by force would be impractical and destructive of republican liberty.”
  • New-York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): “If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861.”
  • The Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): “An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil — evil unmitigated in character and appalling in extent.”
  • The New-York Times (March 21, 1861): “There is a growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go.”

Walter summarizes this so well in saying:

Confederate generals fought for independence from the Union just as George Washington fought for independence from Great Britain. Those who label Robert E. Lee and other Confederate generals as traitors might also label George Washington a traitor. Great Britain’s King George III and the British parliament would have agreed.

Spot on Walter, you rock as an 80-something!

Named for Confederate General Braxton Bragg, who had previously served in the United States Army in the Mexican-American War.

Should the ten forts named after Confederate officers be renamed? No. But it seems that stupid people with a lot of feelings now rule. While the name of a fort does not do anything physically, it is a part of the culture cleansing going of to remove whatever is left of this country’s honorable past.

In my mind, the past was already being erased a little at a time over the last 100+ years. I think it is the shear momentum of this now that has many feeling that it is over the top and openly wondering when if ever will it stop.

Honestly, can we start talking secession now, or is it too early yet? Asking for a friend.

Peace out.

-SF1

Will President Trump Refrain from Total War Against Some States, Unlike Lincoln?

A couple posts ago I lamented about the GOP’s DNA from the birth of that political party that Lincoln was elected under:

.. in 2020, the Trump administration would never concede to have GOP majority states secede from the US and allow the Democrats to have the empire. The GOP’s DNA is war and empire.

However, could the Trump administration stray from their DNA (I mean with politicians, “principles” are easily discarded)? Could the GOP part with large sections of California, New York and New England? Could the city-states of Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland and Cincinnati (along with other Democratic majority cities in various states) be allowed to go on their own and pay their own way?

This is a real question. No one, I mean no one brings this up because supposedly states can’t secede, but I really think it is because BOTH parties are Marxist at their core.

Lincoln was adored by Karl Marx, and the Progressives since 1901 have been in control of this country’s leadership and cemented the deal in 1913 with Constitutional amendment to place the private entity the Federal Reserve in charge of the fiat currency (USD).

While I really doubt any politician these days thinks philosophically, the statesmen of yesterday did. It was important for the likes of Jefferson, Calhoun and even Jefferson Davis to get it right, based on principle.

While the Constitution is not in the forefront of 2020’s political debates between Twitter Trump and Dementia Joe, the statesmen of 1861 saw it all clear as day. I would say that the following is why the southern seven states that seceded were so confident of a peaceful separation, because in their mind their ancestors did the same in 1776.

Article 3 Section 3 of the US Constitution defines treason as follows:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or to adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort

The words THEM and THEIR refer to who? Well, the truth is the first time the “United States” was written it was the “united States”. That is why it is plural, a collection, a federation, a confederacy of states. So levying “War” against them was about going to war with Massachusetts or Virginia, or any other state!

Technically then, there is NO treason except that against the individual states themselves according to the US Constitution. Opposition to Washington DC is NOT therefore treason! Nor is defending your own state from Washington DC.

Let that soak in before I proceed. Doesn’t this all have a connection to 2020?

Now look at 1861 from this Constitutional perspective and we see that Lincoln made war, not just on the seven states that left the union by FEB1861, but also against the four others that left after Lincoln called up volunteers in APR1861 after Fort Sumter’s surrender. Lincoln is guilty of treason, but don’t expect the US history books to state that fact.

In essence, Lincoln engaged in treason for four years and redefined treason, not by a constitutional amendment, but with cannon and rifles. Treason became to include anyone who was critical of the US general government or himself. As a result he suspended the writ of habeas corpus and had his soldiers arrest and imprison thousands of northern civilians for speaking up against him in public, for publishing newspaper articles in opposition to his policies.  Lincoln had congressmen arrested, arrested the grandson of the author of the Star Spangled Banner, Francis Scott Key and also had a congressman from Ohio deported to Canada. Lincoln even arrested those who chose to remain silent when hearing Lincoln’s policies discussed!

The man who stands by and says nothing when the peril of his Government is discussed cannot be misunderstood. If not hindered, he is sure to help the enemy, much more if he talks ambiguously – talks for his country with “buts” and “ifs” and “ands”. – Abraham Lincoln

The bottom line is that Lincoln never publicly admitted that secession of any state took place and placed his trust in Article 4 Section 4 of the US Constitution that allows the federal government to protect the citizens of any state from “domestic Violence”.  However, the Constitution couches this in first receiving a request to do so from that state’s legislature or governor. The southern eleven states NEVER asked for assistance with “domestic violence”.

Lincoln is a certified tyrant guilty of treason.

How tempting it must be for President Trump, in command of the American Empire’s military might, to only bring a fraction of that force “for good” against any state that is currently dealing with domestic violence.

If he is wiser that Lincoln, he would have followed the US Constitution and waited until asked.

Will Trump pull a full-on Lincoln? Time will tell.

Peace out.

-SF1

Yesterday’s Decisions Impact Tomorrow’s Options – How Lincoln’s Reaction Crippled the USA

USA Communist Party Convention – 1930s

I am not sure I am the only one thinking this, but why does it seem that NO ONE is really about assisting the PEOPLE here in July 2020? It is almost as if there is this standoff that prevents common sense from prevailing. I guess that is the definition of politics, the absence of common sense and logic.

In my last post I said:

In an effort to mask the underlying financial hole that consumes a large part of the world, Covid-19 followed by accusations of racism and white supremacy have been followed by … Covid-19 again. Take 3.

Yes, it should be very obvious by now that in spite of declining Covid-19 deaths, the emphasis has changed to “cases” (more accurately called ‘positive tests’ that mean one may have had Covid-19 or another corona-virus, including one that can cause the common cold).

The psychological effect of this is the ability to easily make face coverings the norm even though the science clearly states that these masks are not effective with this 120nm virus. The social impact of everyone in public being masked up like the OK Corral in the Wild West is to clearly accelerate the distrust factor in this country towards continued division. Governments are great at distracting the masses, so this election year there is plenty of “stuff” to cover up their own critical failures, especially with the US economy and the US debt.

But I digress.

My purpose here is to give a bit of insight into the bind we (USA) find ourselves in. It is rather obvious from the accusation of systematic racism to the cancel culture that everything can be a potential target for those that have no use for other’s property (their bodies and their legal possessions). We have unveiled the great cultural divide in the USA that has been here for decades.

Thomas Jefferson faced a similar issue during and after his presidency, but his approach is never considered.

In a 1803 letter to John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky:

if there is to be a separation .. then God bless them both and keep them in the union if it be for their good, but separate them if it be better

In 1804 Jefferson wrote:

Those of the Western Confederacy will be as much our children and defendants as those of the Eastern, and I feel myself as much identified with that country, in future time, as with this, and did I now foresee a separation at some future day ..

I can understand why the GOP can’t say this, but why can’t the Democrats? (Hint – Marxism requires the WHOLE country to feed on)

SECESSION is the only path forward .. but the US is stuck!

Sometimes, in any relationship, parting can actually be therapeutic for both parties. We can see this with divorce as well as with business partnerships. None of these are really “perpetual” relationships UNLESS both parties work on making it all work without abusing each other.

The GOP is stuck because the DNA in their party rests with Abraham Lincoln and his reaction to having seven states PEACEFULLY secede from the united States of America (written as it was inked in the 1783 Paris Peace treaty with the British Empire). As a result, Trump’s options are like this:

Lincoln forever made the barrier to peaceful secession almost impossible when 80 years after the 13 colonies seceded from the British Empire he decided that “union” was to be achieved at all costs, even that of 750,000 American lives.

It seems that American Exceptionalism is a myth. How come, could Maine seceded from Massachusetts in 1820, Hungary secede from Austria in 1867, Norway secede from Sweden in 1905, Singapore from Malaysia in 1965, the Czech Republic from Slovakia in 1993 and especially the 15 republics that seceded from the USSR? Instead, a four year war is waged on Americans to make permanent something that never was, by invading his OWN nation.

You see, by Lincoln’s logic, the southern states NEVER left the union and its citizens were still American citizens when he direct his armies into the 11 states that eventually voted to secede. This legal gymnastic was needed to allow Lincoln to utilize George Washington’s actions during the Whiskey Rebellion that was described as an “insurrection” so he could unilaterally, WITHOUT Congress, move forward with violence and a plan of war. Legally, secession was not forbidden by the US Constitution and three states, New York, New Jersey and Virginia all had clauses in their ratification document to voluntary join the union.

Another S-word was also not forbidden by the US Constitution, slavery. While most lazy historians accept that slavery caused the southern states to secede, what they don’t know is that the US Constitution would have PROTECTED the slave owners and that Lincoln offered to protect them as well .. FOREVER! There was zero to be gained by any southern state to secede regarding slavery as the Fugitive Slave Act mandated run-away slaves had to be returned to their owners, something Lincoln was also 100% in favor of.

I have seen so many posts that claim the Democrats are the party of slavery and the KKK, however, one only has to look at Lincolns words and actions to know that the birth of the GOP centered on a platform that kept slavery intact!

Here is part of the 1860 Republican Platform:

Resolved: That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions (chattel slavery) according to its own judgement exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend ..”

Lincoln himself quoted the above statement word for word during his 1st inaugural address on 04MAR1861. He also reiterated his support of the Fugitive Slave Act.

Earlier in his address he said:

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Interestingly, near the end of his address, he says:

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.

Total support of an amendment he has not seen? Come on Honest Abe!

Seriously, this is the 1st 13th Amendment (it was never fully ratified so it never because part of the law of the land) called the Corwin Amendment and it is a very interesting part of our history, as well as that of the GOP which were the primary sponsors since seven southern states has already left by FEB1861 when this was first put on the floor of Congress.

The hope was that this amendment would entice the seceded seven southern states to return to the union.

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 passed the US House of Representatives 133 to 63 on 28FEB1861 and passed the US Senate 24 to 12 on 02MAR1861. Lincoln proceeded to send a letter to each governor explaining this amendment.

With Lincoln’s encouragement, the following states ratified:

  • Kentucky 04APR1861
  • Ohio 03MAY1861
  • Rhode Island 31MAY1861
  • Maryland 10JAN1862
  • Illinois 02JUN1863

Pretty amazing that the “Land of Lincoln” voted for cementing slavery into the US Constitution as late as 1863. What is this all about?

It is pretty apparent that one more piece of the puzzle needs to be looked at here. Why invade the south if slavery was not the issue? Why ramp up the war machine and NOT call Congress into session until 04JUL1861? The War Aims Resolution that Congress passed on 25JUL1861 has a clue.

this war is not waged upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union ..

‘Save the Union‘ was Lincoln’s motto until that inspiration to the masses lost steam in 1863, and then he shrewdly wove in to end slavery as something to keep the masses engaged. (this is not unlike the Covid-19 –> Racism –> Face Coverings –> ??? we are seeing today)

So in summary, in 2020, the Trump administration would never concede to have GOP majority states secede from the US and allow the Democrats to have the empire. The GOP’s DNA is war and empire.

However, could the Trump administration stray from their DNA (I mean with politicians, “principles” are easily discarded)? Could the GOP part with large sections of California, New York and New England? Could the city-states of Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland and Cincinnati (along with other Democratic majority cities in various states) be allowed to go on their own and pay their own way?

Somehow I doubt that. The Marxism agenda is really about taking the whole enchilada and to redistribute whatever survives this process. This is why Marx himself was so encouraged by Lincoln that the two exchanged letters!

Isn’t it a bit ironic that the GOP figurehead and the Democratic party’s role model are one in the same? Totalitarianism of the right boot or the left boot feels the same to “we the people”. The US is crippled in being able to address this rift in culture and society. Splitting up is hard to do!

Something to think about when you might be looking forward to a Republican (stupid party) or Democratic (evil party) win in NOV2020.

Peace out

-SF1

Can Economic Crashes Lead Toward Independence? – Follow the Money, Politicians Do

Catalonia Independence Movement

Without a doubt, the current overarching panic has been framed to be that of COVID-19. From all angles, those opportunists are hoping that this crisis can assist them in burying some past or paving the way to some glorious future. Whether it is the unsustainable debt, the banking sector, the pharma sector or even those that deal in welfare (to both corporations (GOP) or individuals (Dems)), everyone it seems are bent on not wasting this crisis.

The very last thing on these people’s mind is that of personal liberties or the free market. To them it is the desire of command and control that consume their soul. Real men (when I use this word I use it the same way our Creator would, meaning men and women), men of character, principled humans who are both compassionate for others and yet principled in not attempting to fix other’s lives or circumstances. Help is afforded when both the opportunity presents itself and the help aligns with what is on the giver’s heart, because surely, Jesus did not heal everyone in the crowds, only those that were on His Father’s heart.

So here we are again where a divided nation is fighting both the effects of a virus as well as the proper method to achieve that. Authoritarians (even the ones that were libertarian just weeks ago) want the government to mandate nothing less than house arrest and martial law all across this land. Libertarian leaning people think the people themselves can figure this out on their own, since only they know their specific and unique circumstance. They might be a city dweller with a network of like minded people that CAN achieve social distancing while also bartering for what may be needed in the weeks to come, OR they might live on a farm or ranch that is miles from their neighbor who can also be in their network for critical supplies.

Montana “social distancing”

What comes to mind then, out of an article penned as Brexit was achieved, is that this is not too different than what face the American people in 1860. Yes there were those who felt righteous enough to demand that others free their slaves immediately, and yet if anyone knew how prepared these slaves were for freedom, it was probably their owners and others on the plantation or farm. While slavery was in fact winding down, there were people willing to demand their agenda no matter the cost, even if it was 700,000 dead soldiers and economically ruined regions of the country that would not recover for a century.

The American leader that most people black and white still rally around today as a man of principled freedom and equality for all is Abraham Lincoln. At times, if you read his very words you have to wonder when in fact he had his heart on the fate of the black slaves and IF his version of “the union” which he was so fond of keeping intact was the best for the marriage that existed between the north and south.

John Marquardt from the Abbeville Institute only a week ago penned an article that is rich in unpacking what really happened 150 years ago as well as the economic factor that was at the root of almost all the BAD decisions by politicians along the way. Lets work our way through some critical quotes and see where this leads:

1775:

… thirteen of its major colonies, with a cry of “no taxation without representation,” declared their independence, seceded from the British Empire and joined together to form the United States of America. Faced with the loss of a vast source of the revenue needed to fill coffers drained by its seemingly endless wars with France, Great Britain opted to wage war on its own colonies.

1860:

… seven of the States in the new American nation felt that the weight of long economic oppression by the Federal government was more than they should be forced to bear and opted to secede from the Unites States to form their own more perfect union . . . and once again the action brought forth a war in which the central government attacked its own citizens to prevent their departure.

At this point I think it is helpful to see Lincoln’s own thought processes and see how they changed through the years (an inevitable characteristic of being a politician as there is nothing off the table morally when a crisis is at hand):

1848:

.. when Lincoln was a U. S. congressman from Illinois, he gave a speech in the House of Representatives in which he stated “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.”

1858:

“neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave States, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists.”

Lincoln said that he did not understand the Declaration of Independence “to mean that all men were created equal in all respects,” and added that he was not in favor of “making voters or jurors of Negros nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people.” He then went on to say 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.”

Lincoln was not a huge fan of the blacks it is very apparent, but his core philosophy that he never gave up was that the blacks were never to be allowed to migrate north and take away jobs from whites, which would cause economic upheaval. One has to come to terms that back in 1860, it was conceivable that the northern regions were more racist than southern regions who interacted with blacks on a daily basis:

The North feared that slave labor would compete unfairly with its own low-wage, largely immigrant labor force which, unlike slaves, could be willfully hired and fired as needed and did not require food, housing, clothing or even rudimentary medical attention.

It is at this point that John paints the real economic condition of the United States in 1860. Have you ever been taught this in schools as part of a CSI to understand what businessmen around the country thought about seven states leaving the Union? I doubt it, so here it goes, consider it COVID-19 home schooling:

In regard to the true economic cause behind the War, just as it was with Great Britain’s case in 1776, the gaping hole that would be formed in the Federal revenue served as the actual rationale for the Union to wage war on the departed Southern States. In 1860, there were more than thirty-one million people in the thirty-three States and ten Territories, with only a third of these, including almost four million slaves, living in the South. According to the U. S. Federal Abstract for 1860, the total Federal expenditures for that year amounted to some sixty-three million dollars, with over eighteen million of this being used mainly to finance railways, canals and other civil projects in the North. On the other hand, Federal revenues at that time amounted to a little over fifty-six million dollars. As there was then no corporate or personal income tax and revenue from domestic sources, such as the sale of public land, amounted to less than three million dollars, the remaining fifty-three million dollars were provided by what was termed “ad valorem taxes,” in other words, the tariff on foreign goods imported by the United States. The basic problem with this, however, was that as much as three-quarters of that revenue was collected in Southern ports, which meant that there would be a loss of up to forty million dollars in Federal revenue if the Southern States left the Union. Added to this was the fact that well over half of America’s four hundred million dollars in exports in 1860 were agricultural products from the South, mainly cotton, rice and tobacco.

You can see the predicament that Lincoln had when he was inaugurated in early March 1861. You can also see what the British view was back in 1775 and why they did what they did.

Now project yourself forward in time and try to understand what the so-called united States of America faces in 2020.

  • Will the economic crisis cause everyone to stick together and pay the $25T in debts over the next hundred years OR will regions of the US be allowed to go their separate ways?
  • Would anyone in the federal government be willing to let ANY state go in peace?

These are the questions one must answer themselves, along with, what is the moral path forward? Personally I think that bankruptcy is the only moral path forward, but as I was told in the US Navy, ‘opinions are like *ssholes, everyone has one’.

Ok then, let us look to see how Lincoln (Trump-like?) evolved as President:

04MAR1861:

Lincoln stated that he would “hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the (Federal) government, and collect the duties and imposts . . . but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using force against, or among the people anywhere.”

.. [then] stating he had “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.”

Pretty clear that economics forced his hand to propose the absurd notion that tariffs would still be collected in the seven states that LEFT the union while he had no real heart change on the fate of the black slaves.

Early April 1861 before Ft. Sumter:

Virginia, which still remained in the Union, commissioned a three-man delegation headed by John Baldwin, a pro-Unionist and former judge of the State Supreme Court of Appeals, to meet with Lincoln at the White House in an effort to negotiate a peaceful settlement. During their meeting, the president was reported as saying privately to Baldwin “but what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery (i.e., the Confederates)? Am I to let them go on and open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry with their ten-percent tariff? What, then, would become of my tariff if I do that, what would become of my revenue? I might as well shut up housekeeping at once.”

By early April, Lincoln and his cabinet, the majority of the New Englanders as well as the farmers in the West (now called the Midwest) all saw clearly the economic ramifications of having just 7 states leave the union. Like today, the panic and gross exaggeration seemed to consume people and they were all looking to the US government to do something, ANYTHING!

Lincoln’s Cabinet

It is well documented that Lincoln’s plan to send troop transports to Charleston harbor where his Union garrison had broke a gentleman’s agreement on Christmas 1860 and moved from Ft. Moultrie to Ft. Sumter was to have the South Carolina cannon to fire the first shot (not unlike FDR’s efforts to have Japan do the same at Pearl Harbor, or Bush II’s efforts to have 9/11 be allowed) so he could be “justified” in his next action:

Lincoln’s call to the Union for seventy-five thousand volunteers to suppress what he termed the “rebellion” of the Southern States. Lincoln’s call not only led to the secession of Virginia, but Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee as well, and brought about a war that made casualties of five percent of America’s population, devastated a third of the nation’s States and left deep wounds in the American psyche that to this day have not yet completely healed.

Lincoln, a lawyer, never addresses the seceded states from this point forward, but relied on George Washington’s legislation created during the Whiskey Rebellion to “legally” put down the southern “insurrection” as if it was an unorganized scene of violence that had to be safely extinguished for the safety of the masses.

Keep this in mind for 2020, just sayin’.

By 1862, it was obvious what had happened:

A comparison between the conflicts of 1776 and 1861 was also made in a “London Times” article of November 7, 1861, in which it was said of the War Between the States that the “contest is really for empire on the side of the North, and for independence on that of the South, and in this respect we recognize an exact analogy between the North and the Government of George III, and the South and the Thirteen Revolted Provinces.”

In a letter written in March of 1862, Dickens stated “I take the facts of the American quarrel to stand thus; slavery has in reality nothing on earth to do with it . . . but the North having gradually got to itself the making of the laws and the settlement of the tariffs, and having taxed the South most abominably for its own advantage, began to see, as the country grew, that unless it advocated the laying down of a geographical line beyond which slavery should not extend, the South would necessarily recover it’s old political power, and be able to help itself a little in the adjustment of the commercial affairs.”

So whatever became of Lincoln’s transition toward loving the black slave? Well, we do know that Lincoln was surrounded by a culture that he was totally in alignment up to the so-called Civil War:

… pertaining to racial discrimination, Dickens said “Every reasonable creature may know, if willing, that the North hates the Negro, and until it was convenient to make a pretense that sympathy with him was the cause of the War, it hated the Abolitionists and derided them up hill and down dale.”

When the war went poorly and Lincoln was doubtful to his re-election and the possibility of an externally arranged peace conference, he issued the Emancipation Proclamation which sounded good but did not actually free one slave (and later admitted that this was a “war measure”). One can see that even this act was not from his heart as can be revealed by the following quotes:

“Send them to Liberia, to their own native land.” ~ Lincoln, speaking in favor of ethnic cleansing all blacks from the United States.

“I cannot make it better known than it already is, that I favor colonization.” ~ Lincoln, in a message to Congress, December 1, 1862, supporting deportation of all blacks from America.

“They had better be set to digging their subsistence out of the ground.” ~ Lincoln in a War Department memo, April 16, 1863

 

After securing a 2nd term as president he continued to meet with northern Black leaders about his plan to export blacks to the Caribbean or back to Africa after the war. For those black slaves that remained:

“Root, hog, or die” ~ Lincoln’s suggestion to illiterate and propertyless ex-slaves unprepared for freedom, Feb. 3, 1865.

So here you see that war and economics changes everything and allows politicians to make decisions that in peacetime or prosperity would have been prevented, one way or another.

It seems that today, most Americans have given in to their lot as tax slaves happy for just enough freedom for them to claim they live in the land of the free and are able to worship the flag and eat the occasional apple pie. To a majority of Americans, they know little of their history that would help them to see the red flags all around them as freedom and liberty evaporate in this once free land (mainly in 1783-1878).

May a new generation and a new remnant of Americans see though the infectious nature of government and decide for the future that they will take responsibility for themselves, their livelihood and the education of the next generation and never trust any government again.

I can dream can’t I?  One day at a time everyone, one day at a time, however, it is good and well to dream and hope for a better tomorrow where the lessons of this crisis are well learned!

Peace out.

-SF1

Bigger is Better? Not So Fast .. Liberty and Freedom Benefits from SMALL

26 Cantons in the Swiss Federation

Two articles (each dated by a year or five) caught my eye this week about small governments serving their people where happiness thrives. The first is Donald Livingston’s Abbeville blog post from JAN2019 that states:

Switzerland is regularly ranked by the UN’s World Happiness Report in the top ten happiest countries in the world. The top ten are usually always small states. The U.S. has yet to make the top ten.

The second one is a five year old Abbeville blog post (recently re-shared) that states:

In his time [Nathaniel] Macon was widely admired by Americans as the perfect model of a republican statesman. By republican I mean republican with a small “r.” I definitely do NOT mean the Republican Party, which, from its very beginning, when it stole the name from better people, right up to this minute, has stood for the exact opposite of what Nathaniel Macon meant by republican government.

It should be noted that the thirteen British colonies that seceded from the British Empire chose to fashion their guiding document, the Articles of Confederation from the Switzerland’s confederation documents. So when on Nov. 15, 1777, the Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, he articles vested the conduct of war and foreign policy in a Federal government, but left everything else to the States.

The Swiss Confederation was chosen in part due to it having been established more than four centuries earlier and was still intact and the federation in 1777 was still thriving. Historically, in 1315, the Swiss defeated the powerful Austrian empire in the Battle of Morgarten, when the men of Schwyz (one of the Swiss cantons / sovereign states) lured the Austrians into the mountains and ambushed them in a pass. The men of Schwyz killed 1,500 Austrian troops, drove hundreds more into Lake Lucerne and put the rest to flight. The country’s inhabitants were so grateful they changed the name of their nation from Helvetia to Switzerland. The country has remained free, independent and faithful to its own Articles of Confederation for nearly 700 years.

What this means is that the small republics, cantons, allow the people in a federation to tolerate differences across these unique cultures and lands. Smaller is better, but bigger can allow for protection from external forces, the problem is when there are internal forces that attempt to use the larger body for their own agenda.

The republics themselves have the following guiding principles modeled by the Greeks:

There are four principles to this republican tradition: First, republican government is one in which the people make the laws they live under. But, second, they cannot make just any law. The laws they make must be in accord with a more fundamental law which they do not make but is known by tradition. Third, the task of the republic is to preserve and perfect the character of that inherited tradition. And finally, the republic must be small. It must be small because self-government and rule of law is not possible unless citizens know the character of their rulers directly or through those they trust.

The Greeks created a brilliant civilization that was entirely decentralized. It was composed of 1,500 tiny independent republics strung out from Naples to the Black Sea. Most were under 10,000. One of the largest was Athens with around 200 thousand people. For over two thousand years, up to the French Revolution, republics seldom went beyond 200-300 thousand people, and the great majority were considerably smaller.

Having only 300,000 people to a republic, is small enough to personally kick the *ss of a politician who has done the people wrong. Large states have whole groups of people that live above the law and not under the laws they themselves get to create. Large states are also known for killing large amounts of their own people as in the case of Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China. It was not that long ago that the USSR disintegrated into 15 republics proving that they too found the downside of the large centralized state.

So we have the options of small republics and large nations, but it was a German Calvinist Johannes Althusius (1563-1638) that proposed a federation of small polities in a state larger than the classical republic, but smaller than a European monarchy. He called it a federation! In this structure, to prevent the central government from consolidating the smaller polities into a unitary modern state, Althusius introduces a constitutional right of secession from the federation. If a federation grew too large, it could always be brought back to a republican scale by secession.

This was why the founders, BEFORE the full force of the British Empire was on their shores, thought that this arrangement like the Swiss had (see below) would work across the cultures from New England to the Southern colonies:

Switzerland is so decentralized that its central government has no original taxing power. Its power to tax requires a constitutional amendment approved by a majority of the cantons, each of which has one vote, and a majority of individuals.

Switzerland (including all 26 cantons) would fit in South Carolina

After the revolutionary war, many founders abandoned the Swiss model as being too week and opted again towards the large-state model which is why we are in the mess we are in today!

It was at this point as the Revolutionary War ended that a reluctant Nathaniel Macon appeared on the scene:

Macon was born in 1758 on a plantation in Warren County, where he lived his entire life. He was a student at what is now Princeton when the War of Independence broke out in 1775. He left school and joined the New Jersey militia on active service, and then went home and joined the North Carolina troops. He was offered but refused a commission and he refused also the bounty that was paid for enlisting. He served in the Southern campaigns until he was elected to the General Assembly near the end of the war while he was still in his 20s. In the next few years he was offered a place in the North Carolina delegation to the Continental Congress which he declined.

You can see Macon’s character here, refused a commission (G. Washington would never do that), declined a place on the North Carolina delegation to the Continental Congress, but when the wheels started coming off the liberty and freedom wagon, he showed up!

As soon as the U.S. government went into operation, Hamilton and his Yankee friends, claiming that they were acting in behalf of “good government,” began to turn the government into a centralised power and a money-making machine for themselves by banks, tariffs, government bonds, and other paper swindles that would be paid for out of the pockets of the farmers, who produced the tangible wealth of the country. To oppose this Macon accepted election to the U.S. House of Representatives for the Second Congress. He served in the House 24 years and the Senate 13 years—representing North Carolina in congress from 1791 to 1828, from the age of 33 to the age of 70 when he retired voluntarily.

He was in this fight to the end as his own philosophy did not change at all from his farm in Warren County, North Carolina to the swamp (which it literally was in those days) called District of Columbia.

During all this time Macon was admired because he never changed from the principles with which he began. What were these principles? The federal government should be tightly bound by the Constitution. It should not tax the people and spend money any more than was absolutely necessary for the things it was entitled to do, nor go into debt, which was just a way to make the taxpayers pay interest to the rich. Eternal vigilance was the price of liberty. Power was always stealing from the many to the few. Office-holders were to be watched closely and kept as directly responsible to the citizens as possible.

Nathaniel Macon

His priority at all times was the people, not himself, not his agenda. He was a learned man who know the history of other peoples in different times and learned from their mistakes:

It might be nice to pay for everybody to go to college, or to build a fancy temple for the Supreme Court, or to issue bonds for rich people to invest in, or overturn a dictator 5,000 miles away. But the politicians had no right to take away the citizens’ earnings for whatever they thought was good. ..

History showed that the stronger and more centralised a government became the less free were the people. And the richer the government and its politicians and beneficiaries became, the poorer were the people. That was what had always happened, but America, with governments created by the people, had a chance to avoid the bad tendencies of government of the past.

It had a chance but even Nathaniel know the momentum was against those who saw the eternal vigilance against state powers was needed but was found wanting toward the end of his life:

By the end of his life Macon had realised that the cause of republicanism was lost at the federal level, and also that the North was determined to exploit and rule the South. South Carolina tried in 1832 to use “nullification,” state interposition, to force the federal government back within the limits of the Constitution. After he read Andrew Jackson’s proclamation against South Carolina, Macon told friends that it was too late for nullification. The Constitution was dead. The only recourse was secession—there was nothing left but for the South to get out from under the “Union” and govern itself.

Patrick Henry saw the American Republic die with the 1787 US Constitution when he said “I smell a rat”. Nathaniel Macon tried fighting the good fight until 1832 before he admitted that the Constitution was dead.  Lysander Spooner saw this all real clear by 1867 when he said:

It was over before any of us were even born. The American Empire is what is rolling on now to its eventual grave, which those in command trying to take as many tax slaves with us to potential early graves.

-SF1