Tag: secession

1868: When You Think You Have Been Taught All You Need to Know: Andrew Johnson – Impeached But Not Convicted

Impeachment proceedings in the US Senate 1868

Back in the day, when the newspaper would list all those convicted in the local courts, you (and I) probably developed a bias towards that person. Especially if you knew of the crime and all what was written in the paper you (and I) felt we knew the whole story and if we ever met that person on the street, there probably would have been no meeting of the eyes.

However, if you knew that person, the person’s character and past history and things did not seem to line up, you might have had doubts, but in the end if the courts (i.e. State) did their job, they must have been guilty as charged.

But, if you had been “there”, witnessed the “crime”, maybe that is when the court’s performance might have been suspect. We hear all the time these days, quietly, how convictions from decades ago are overturned due to DNA testing or false positives on hair samples, etc.

Also, if one has just been accused of a “crime” and has to go through the very public fight for justice, there is a blemish on their record in our eyes that their character is flawed and that they can’t be trusted.

All this to say, when you compare the reputation of Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson in the State’s textbooks, it is the comparison of “good” and “bad” respectively.  Right there is a hint that something might not be right, because if the State’s narrative suggests Andrew Johnson is indeed bad, and that the State is known to lie, well then, why don’t we research Andrew Johnson himself and determine who he really might be, since we weren’t there and we don’t personally know him.

From the Abbeville Institute comes a sort but informative overview of Andrew’s life, from humble beginnings to his days as the president of the United States right as the War of Northern Aggression (Civil War) concluded and how the general government should treat the states that left (according to them) or wanted to leave (according to Lincoln and his supporters).

Andrew Johnson was born into poverty in rural North Carolina. His father died after saving some town locals from drowning and left the family to fend for themselves in a two-room shack. A young Andrew began working as a tailor’s apprentice and developed an appreciation for the laboring class early on. Johnson was poorly educated and learned how to write from his wife, while he was still working as a tailor.

Michael Martin – Abbeville Institute “Lessons in Conservatism from Andrew Johnson”

OK, so he was not like Lincoln, born in a log cabin, but he did have very humble beginnings. A self-made man whose passions led him into politics, but NOT as a politician, oh no, his idols were statesmen!

Johnson admired true statesmen, hated politicians, and was most conservative when it came to government spending. He would debate anything that required the expenditure of public funds, having introduced bills to reduce Congressional salaries and even opposed proposals like the Smithsonian Institute because he thought it would be an unjust burden on the treasury.

Michael Martin – Abbeville Institute “Lessons in Conservatism from Andrew Johnson”

Johnson also had “ownership” in how the country’s revenue was spent. Undoubtedly, his time as a politician especially during the war years showed him how easily that money could be squandered by all those bureaucrats that had no “skin in the game”.

When Johnson faced Reconstruction, he was initially welcomed by Radical Republicans that wanted to punish the South. However, Johnson’s plan differed from Lincoln’s only slightly, favored leniency, and virtually ignored the freed slaves. This put him at odds with the radical plan for the South to be run by a bayonet, carpetbag government. Most narratives portray Johnson as a Southern racist who wanted to deny equality to newly freed slaves. Johnson, however, had stated years before that he supported emancipation and was mostly opposed to the outrageous spending habits of Congress.

Michael Martin – Abbeville Institute “Lessons in Conservatism from Andrew Johnson”

We see here that in summary, Johnson’s philosophical views differed from his political opponents in the House and Senate of the US Government. That was all it took for impeachment to take place. When Johnson tried to follow the letter of the law, the Constitution, and keep from squandering the people’s money, he was brought up on trumped (no pun intended) charges.

On the issue of the Freedmen’s Bureau, for example, Johnson vetoed a bill to make it permanent and then three days later gave a speech where he charged Congress with seeking to destroy the fundamental principles of the Constitution. His exact words were that “There is an attempt to concentrate the power of the Government in the hands of a few, and thereby bring about a consolidation, which is equally dangerous and objectionable with separation.”

Michael Martin – Abbeville Institute “Lessons in Conservatism from Andrew Johnson”

In my mind, the previous president (Lincoln) paid so little attention to the US Constitution that the Congress felt that it was to be a free for all! The former president in fact, never validated the fact that the 11 states that left the union actually did so, because as a lawyer he knew he could use post-Constitution laws to justify “putting down a general rebellion / insurrection” for all his war efforts in the south. The spouse (in his mind, actually 11 spouses) that left needed to be beat back into the home. Now that the spouse was back in the home, the Congress wanted to abuse her even more and Johnson said NO!

In his veto of the Freedmen’s Bureau bill, Johnson explained that opposed it because he was against a military government of the South, against the unlimited distribution of funds to former slaves and their families, and against taking land away from Southerners. In Johnson’s mind, the defeated Southern states were part of the Union and did not need further punishing, and he broke down how virtually every part of the Freedmen’s Bureau bill was incompatible with the Constitution. His main focus was on government spending and the fact that the Constitution was not designed to guarantee any type of special privileges, just basic rights.

Michael Martin – Abbeville Institute “Lessons in Conservatism from Andrew Johnson”

The Radical Republicans indeed wanted a dependency class in the south and the newly freed blacks was to be that class and it remained that way until 1877 in the military districts that were formed to further suck the life out of this abused spouse yet again.

This is effectively what the Northern Union / US Government did to the south. Recovery in this region would take a century economically however, psychologically, it’s culture has never been the same.

Andrew Johnson can be shown as about the only Unionist who cared, and so he was targeted and marginalized in all the US History books published these days.

Four million slaves were emancipated and given an equal chance and fair start to make their own support-to work and produce; and having worked and produced, to have their own property and apply it to their own support. But the Freedmen’s Bureau comes and says we must take charge of these 4,000,000 slaves. The bureau comes along and proposes, at an expense of a fraction less than $12,000,000 a year, to take charge of these slaves. You had already expended $3,000,000,000 to set them free and give them a fair opportunity to take care of themselves -then these gentlemen, who are such great friends of the people, tell us they must be taxed $12,000,000 to sustain the Freedmen’s Bureau.

Andrew Johnson 1866 in Cleveland, OH

So the slavery of 4 million souls in 1865 transferred into the tax slavery of 350 souls in 2018 as the cancer of centralized government continues to suck the life out of all who remain, and there are no Andrew Johnsons allowed to enter politics and gain any political power again.

“Johnson, in fact, continually upheld his oath of office, making him one of the best presidents in American history.”

Brion McClanahan

-SF1

2020: When Divorce Renders Peace

As a child of a “broken home” back when it was much less common, in the late 1960s, I was routinely asked by my new friends about my parents. When I mentioned that they were divorced, my new friends would say “sorry”. I would say “don’t be sorry, it is actually better this way”. You see, for over five years before the separation (divorce was final after X months of separation in those days I guess) I lived in a very NON peaceful environment. While the arguing did not always happen in front of me, it did happen at night when they thought I was sleeping. I am sure others had it much worse as the frustration led to physical abuse of the kids in the home, but after years of hearing crying, shouting, the whole range of emotion, I felt very much at peace in the separation year and beyond. These two people in my life, that gave me life, when together could not find a peaceful path forward.

Now think about what is called the “united” States of America (USA). Can anyone find peace today as politics, narratives, intrusive government (and government linked) spying on every aspect of our lives flourish? Those that pull the levers love to pit us against each other and emphasize our differences and cause us to focus on each other instead of the root of the issue that has cause discord, violence and lack of trust 360 degrees.

In an article by the Abbeville Institute, a very astute writer renders a fairly short piece that should give everyone pause in what is going on. Maybe there is a path forward that includes a lot more peace than we experience today. However, this will take some critical thinking and a bit of pushing aside old narratives that we have always believed to be true. This thought consideration involves the S-word, you know, the one that most believe is the dagger to the heart of this republic as we have been taught in both public and many non-public schools. That word is secession.

Lately, this word has gotten more air time from the same people that months ago (when Obama was President) would scoff at such an idea, but with Trump in office, they all now are thinking about this . Even California has had interest in this road forward.

Below I will quote some prime examples of GOOD secession that has brought decades of peace as well as some wisdom from those who helped design our republic:

in 1991, 15 states peacefully seceded from the Soviet Union and the world applauded

How was this divorce not good? You tell me. The collectivism of the old Soviet Union had ruined families, finances, the environment and involved so many levels of corruption that the whole things was going bankrupt. (Sound familiar?)

Says Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Joseph Priestley in January of 1804, “Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the Western confederacy will be as much our children and descendents 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, yet I should feel the duty and the desire to promote the Western interests as zealously as the Eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power.”

Was Jefferson wrong? Actually, there were many in the North about this time were also considering secession, especially around the War of 1812. Research the Hartford Convention held in Hartford, CT from 1814-1815.

1796 Election – showing real split between New England and the South

In Canada, Quebec nearly seceded in 1995, Scottish secession was narrowly defeated in 2014, Catalonian secession was voted on in 2017 and Brexit (the secession of England from the European Union) continues to be an important topic of discussion.

I do believe that people are figuring out that bigger is not necessarily better. The USA, being trillions in debt having spent almost $6T on the war on terror alone since 2001 (not including money not accounted for by the Pentagon or the CIA’s black budget). The path forward, together, arguing about finances is never good for a family!

– Thomas Paine

“For over 2000 years, most governmental bodies were not much larger than the Athens city state. But since the French Revolution, governments have adopted attitudes of ‘monster states’.” The thought was that in America, new states or even city states – like Cantons in Switzerland – would be carved out of secession from older states.

While this is not an exact recipe for peace, and can merely reset the clock that ticks toward another world war, it is something that “could” bless this land. As this author stated earlier in this article:

Driving the 10+ hour trip to Dallas on Friday, opting to traverse the backroads through small towns, passing through the already somewhat seceded communities of native Americans in Oklahoma, and witnessing the flavor of life scattered throughout the hills and plains of the Midwest, I couldn’t help but be thoughtfully impressed by the diversity of people that I encountered. Men, women, old, young. Black, White, Asian, Hispanic, Native American. Many areas could readily be seen as being predominantly Christian, with signs proclaiming the sanctity of life, or where one’s eternal destination might lay. But on the flip side in other more “progressive” urban areas, I could also see the glaring evidence of an unfortunate and obvious animosity between those who clearly don’t share the same views as their more conservative neighbors.

Amen. In the last few weeks, I too had the privileged of driving some distances through urban, suburban and rural areas and found the diversity of economics and core principles extremely significant. Also, over the past decade plus I have commuted regularly in an area of the Midwest to see two to three sides of most states. Whether it is Chicago or southern IL, Detroit and the UP of MI, or even Atlanta and rural GA, there remains a significant difference of vision, mission and values that seem to be increasingly incompatible in almost every region of the USA.

Key to going down this path I believe is to learn from history, foreign as well as domestic. Those in power today will not relinquish that power quickly or easily and revolution has rarely produced a freer people as a result.

 

We know what happens when seven states exit LEGALLY.  Do you think the same (or worse) collective government would allow any place inside the US borders to leave, peacefully?

At the end of the day, one has to hope for a better future for our kids and grand-kids while at the same time to be grounded in the reality that without some divine intervention, this whole thing could end real bad, especially if those who are desperate enough opt for the nuclear option.

Conclusions? Yeah, no. If you have faith, pray, dialog. If you don’t have faith, try it and see if in the quite you can hear Hope in the middle of this storm. Beyond this, prepare as your gut guides you, for you, your family and for your community. Be vigilant, do your research and always question the narrative that is being forced on us all. Maybe, just maybe, a peaceful secession can be had. History tells us that we will always have wars and rumors of wars, but we can read about times of peace that flood in for a season and blesses a people can happen as well. Pray.

 

-SF1

1861: What Triggered Secession and What Triggered War?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Occupation of the South – Military Districts

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

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

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

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

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

How was Lincoln turned into “the Great Emancipator”?

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

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

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

Bingo.

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

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

-SF1

 

When Emotional Fear Drives Decision-making (Brexit, Secession, Separation, Divorce)

Over and over I have seen in my brief (60 trips around the sun) life when emotional and sometimes irrational fear grips leaders, a people group or even a spouse. Yes, from macro to micro, relationships of nations, to regions, to states, to communities and even to marriages there is fear of the future.

Some of this fear is good, some of it is bad. The fact the fear does dominate our thinking as humans is that we are unsure about tomorrow. That is a healthy fear, that we do not have everything in our control. The bad fear is when it gets blown out of proportion and we make decisions on the worst possible scenario. This is the type of fear (economic and political) that I see in this article from Zero Hedge called: “An Unparalleled Economic & Political Crisis”: Brexit Optimism Collapses As Ministers Fear “Historic Catastrophe” on the evaporating Brexit optimism:

“I have near zero optimism because I think it is going to be very messy,” warned one UK minister, speaking to Bloomberg on condition of anonymity. The prospects of getting an agreement are slim, the minister said. “If we crash out without a deal, it’s going to be a historic catastrophe.”

When this level of fear grips anyone, the likelihood of a peaceful and logical solution is increasingly unlikely. It takes two parties to agree on a union, and two parties to behave well as one or both desire to dissolve the union.

I do believe, that many times it is the abused partner that can have the most balanced approach to the process of dissolution in that they have seen this coming for a long time and are ready to state their terms for the exit.

Reflecting back in history, one has to say that the path communist USSR took to split into all those republic peacefully says volumes about the abuse that happened during the rigid communist era. Not only in the political realm, but also in terms of religion (communists were bent on atheism) and society in general.

Reflecting back in history, one has to say the path the republic USA took to split into two republics shows the opposite path, whereas the southern seven states (the abused) desired to exit peacefully, the balance of the states, especially the northern and western (Midwest), feared for the future that awaited them without those seven states. Those regions feared economic uncertainties and the government feared the loss of revenue first and foremost. Between the month where Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861 toward April, even the newspapers shifted from the assumption that those seven states would exit soon to that of economic panic. In their minds, without the “customers” in those states AND the fact that they wanted to be a free-trade zone with minimum tariffs scared the heck out of people and politicians (especially the new party called Republicans that just took control of the US government and doubled the tariff as they did).

The Brexit effort is similar as once the people’s will was displayed, the political fear escalated which sets the stage for a potentially bad deal no matter what path is taken. The nation of England had wedded itself into the EU to the degree that separation will cause pain, however, the long term future is much brighter. One can only hope that common sense and level heads prevail, that real leadership emerges and leads this people towards a better future. Who knows, may this success could be a model for the USA to try this secession/exit thing one more time, and maybe instead of splitting in two (which is long overdue), possibly splitting into six nations might be optimal as a first step. While it still depends on statism, my hope is that more freedom may emerge as not all these entities remain on the Marxist track the whole of the US is currently on.

SF1

Just Say NO to “Civil War” and Try Some Peaceful Secession!

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”

― Alexander Fraser Tytler

So, it is time to end this “experiment” (Thomas Jefferson always thought that it might end within his lifetime .. and was fine with the federation at that time splitting into North, South and West (current Midwest) nations.

Secession CAN be done peacefully (as long as you keep tyrants like Abe Lincoln away) … California agrees to split into three states and become part of a Pacific Coast nation, then a Mountain West nation (two to four states north and south), and Texas obviously as a real lone star nation. When you get to the east it becomes pretty difficult as many existing states have some very different cultures. Here, city-states might work best (i.e. Chicago, Atlanta, etc.) and allow the balance of these states for form alliances (federations) that make economic and cultural sense.

In hindsight, why couldn’t Lincoln have just let the South (7 states) secede peacefully? It wasn’t his love for blacks that’s for sure (read his quotes from the 1830s – 1860s and you will see) .. it was about both finding the general government (revenue) and keeping the “Union” big enough for the big business to be able to parasite on government .. and therefore become dependent and under government’s control (railroads, steel industry at the time and more).