Tag: tariff

Character Flaw: US Government Has Lied Us .. Into the War Against Southern Independence (Civil War)

“.. They have surrendered, and this proud fortress [Fort Sumter], that was attempted to be a fortress for despotism, has now become, as its name indicates, a fortress for our independence. Besides one of their most scientific officers on the 26th of last December escaped from what he [Union Maj. Gen Anderson] called a weak fort and untenable, and went over to this strong and powerful position, because he could maintain himself, and because it was pronounced the key of our harbor. He left Fort Moultrie because it was untenable and at the mercy of Sumter. He chose Sumter as his fortress…” – Gov. Pickens of South Carolina 13APR1861
I am continuing the theme that the US government has lied us into all wars, even the War on Covid-19 (to cover up the financial bubble being burst in parallel). We were lied to about the rationale for the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War and here we will talk about the so-called ‘American Civil War’.

Character Flaw: US Government Has Lied Us into War of 1812 All the Way to the War on Covid-19

As I have mentioned before, “civil war” is a misnomer due to the fact in a true civil war both parties want to be in power of the WHOLE country after the war is complete. With this war, more appropriately called the War Against Southern Independence, the southern states had no eyes on any of the northern territory or states.

In fact, we do need to separate out a few things here. Secession itself did NOT cause this war. Slavery, protected under the US Constitution, did not trigger this war even though it was pointed to in secession documents to cover the South’s legal exit.

The South wanted their secession to be constitutional in order to deprive the North of a pretext for invasion.  This made it impossible for the Southern states to argue that they were seceding because of the tariff.  The tariff was a federal issue.  The Constitution gave the federal government the right to pass tariffs.  So the real reason the South was leaving the union left the South with no constitutional argument.  On the other hand, slavery was a state’s right guaranteed by the Constitution.  This caused the South to seize on the noncompliance of some northern states with the federal law requiring the return of run-away slaves and make a constitutional issue out of it. This argument then appeared in some of the secession documents of the southern states. – Paul Craig Roberts

So we need to understand that the southern seven states that had seceded had voted on secession AND had withdrawn peacefully.

Southern Independence was indeed achieved as these seven states formed a confederation that Jefferson would have been happy with and saw as inevitable since the early 1800s.The Confederate States of America even took their peaceful approach a step further, they offered to pay the US for the federal property (forts, etc) in the south! Beyond this, they even sought peace negotiations even offering European leaders to be a neutral party as part of this peace conference. Lincoln ignored all of this to preserve his notion that this was an insurrection only and that the states were still part of the union.

In a neat case of Throwback Thursday, try on this Lincoln quote from 1847:

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.

Imagine that, by 1861 Lincoln changed his mind, placing expediency and power over principle. The commensurate politician!

So fast forward to late 1860 and early 1861 when things were happening fast-n-furious, most people with standard high school history probably believe that the firing on Ft. Sumter was the first hostile act of the war.

“FAKE NEWS” Just a little research shows that it just ain’t so. From DEC1860 to APR1861 some definite acts of aggression were made:

  • The first act that torpedoed trust in the relationship between federal units still in occupation of forts in the southern seven states AFTER the state seceded occurred when 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 in the night of 26DEC1860. 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 Fort Sumter in the middle of Charleston harbor.. Although the South Carolina state troops refrained from attacking the fort, this action by US troops was regarded as an act of war.
  • Florida seceded on 10JAN1861 the very day the US commanding officer in charge of the Pensacola Bay fortifications transferred his command from Fort Barrancas to Fort Pickens. He made the decision to transfer his forces after hearing rumors that the people of Florida were going to seize all of the forts around Pensacola harbor and also that all of the forts in Mobile Bay, Alabama had already been taken. On the night of 13JAN1861 ten men were seen outside of the fort. These men from the Florida State guard were scouting the area to find out more information about the fort and it’s defenses when a shot was fired, a return shot was fired. These were the first shots of the War Against Southern Independence.
  • 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 on 13JAN1861
  • As the Confederate government was formed in FEB1861, and as Abraham Lincoln took office on 04MAR1861, correspondence between the two entities continued. William H. Seward, Lincoln’s Secretary of State, ostensibly acted as mediator between the Confederate government and the Lincoln administration. Cooper suggests that Seward had presumed to speak on behalf of Lincoln when no such authority had been delegated to him. In all probability, whether intentional or not, Seward was advancing a delaying action on behalf of the administration while a plan of action was formulated. 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.
  • Lincoln’s First Inaugural included the following myth that shocked the seven southern states who knew for fact that voluntary union meant voluntary disunion: “.. 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 … In doing this [rejoin the union] there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. ” – A. Lincoln on 04MAR1861
  • NOTE: Back on December of 1861, Anderson had informed President Buchanan that, due to his relationship with the Mayor of Charleston, as well as with the town merchants, he had access to all of the food necessary to keep his troops fed. This relationship only came to a halt with Lincoln’s inaugural address which the South received as a threat of invasion.
Pres. Abraham Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address 04MAR1861
  • 15MAR1861 Lincoln called a cabinet meeting and asked each member of his cabinet to submit in writing their view of what should be done with regards to Fort Sumter. Every member, except Postmaster General Montgomery Blair, voted against resupply and voiced their opposition to send reinforcements.
  • By 18MAR1861, a press laid clear what was ahead for the region: “.. The ‘Boston Transcript’ presented the underlying Republican argument for a Federal conquest of the Confederacy: specifically to keep prices of manufactured goods high by ensuring collection of Federal import taxes , not only in seceded States, but in Federal States as well. The Confederate Constitution prohibited all but modest taxes on imports, far below the Federal tax rate, which Republicans would soon triple on average: The Transcript argued “it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding States are now for commercial independence.
  • 20MAR1861 United States Senator James A. Bayard of Delaware began a three day speech on the prospects of war and the legality of secession. He began by offering a resolution in the hope of avoiding what he predicted would be a long, bloody conflict. It read: “Resolved by the Senate of the United States, That the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, has full power and authority to accept the declaration of the seceding States that they constitute hereafter an alien people, and to negotiate and conclude a treaty with “the Confederate States of America” acknowledging their independence as a separate nation; and that humanity and the principle avowed in the Declaration of Independence that the only just hosts of government is “the consent of the governed,” alike require that the otherwise inevitable alternative of civil war, with all its evils and devastation, should be thus avoided.
  • Senator Orville Browning, a close friend and confidant of Lincoln’s, advised him: “In any conflict…..between the government and seceding States, it is very important that the traitors shall be the aggressors, and that they be kept constantly and palpably in the wrong. The first attempt……to furnish supplies or reinforcements will induce aggression by South Carolina, and then the government will stand justified, before the entire country, in repelling that aggression, and retaking the forts.”

So 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.

After Lincoln maneuvered the South into “firing the first shot” on 12APR1861, in a 01MAY1861 letter to Gustavous Fox, who commanded the naval detachment charged with resupplying Sumter, the following:

You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail, and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result.

Mission Accomplished, Lincoln had successfully provoked war while, in his mind, maintaining the appearance of a non-aggressor. FDR took note of this in 1940 many months before Pearl Harbor in DEC1941.

At this point war was still not a sure thing, but Lincoln used the firing on federal property, even though no man was killed, as his justification to keep Congress from meeting until he had called up volunteers and prepared for war on the south.

The only reason a War for Southern Independence was needed was because the northern states invaded the south. The north, under Lincoln’s leadership would not let the south go and would call their action the putting down of a general insurrection. I have plenty of previous posts (post, post, post, post, post, post, post, in 2020 alone) that touch on much of the lead up to this war.

Remember US Senator James A. Bayard who spoke eloquently with logic back on 20MAR1861 to anyone who would hear. Later in 1861 when his son-in-law went off to fight for the Union Army in this War Against Southern Independence he again spoke wisdom:

“In embarking on this war therefore, you enlist in a war for invasion of another people. If successful it will devastate if not exterminate the Southern people and this is miscalled Union. If unsuccessful then peaceful separation must be the result after myriads of lives have been sacrificed, thousands of homes made desolate, and property depreciated to an incalculable extent. Why in the name of humanity can we not let those States go?”

Today, here in the awesome year of 2020, I ask the same question about portions of California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, Minnesota and much of the New England states, can’t the United States federal government honor the possible roadmap shown in the 1990s by the USSR and peacefully split into many republics that can “serve” their own cultures the best?

Peace out.

-SF1

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