We can learn from 1774/1775/1776 as well as from 1860/1861 when politicians short term thinking causes a societal rift that most times lead to violent revolutions that result in further oppression of the common man.
The last great rift in the US’s history is none other than the victor’s name for that war, the American Civil War (War Against Southern Independence). A blog post from the Abbeville Institute by John Devanny helps unpack not only what happened in the 1860s .. but also what is happening now. Consider:
The guns of that [Civil] war have long since been silenced, slavery has thankfully ceased, and racial bigotry has waned greatly in the succeeding generations, no matter what the “woke” among us believe; we who have more years and experience know better. An older conflict, however, re-emerged. One need only consult an election map broken down by county to see this ancient Anglo-American conflict in colors of red and blue, center versus periphery, court versus country. The great metropolitan cities and suburbs, college towns, the financial centers, the techno-autocrats of the left coast, and their suburbs arrayed against the small towns and rural counties of America. Neither slavery nor sectionalism nor the two-party system obscures the conflict now. A wide and deep enmity and distrust now separates Americans and reaches its icy hands to divide colleagues, friends, and families.
The year 2020, perfect vision, should make it clear, crystal clear to everyone, that there is a great divide in this land. There are those that think no one should be responsible for themselves, and for the greater good allow politicians and bureaucrats dictate society’s every move who oppose those who believe in the individual, their natural right to life, liberty and property.
So in reflection, it can be seen that in 1860, the legitimacy of the newly elected government was in doubt, as it was obvious by the rhetoric of these politicians that the northern states would accelerate the wealth transfer (via tariffs) from south to north. No longer did the south give their consent to this federal compact.
The election of 1860 and the actions and policies of Mr. Lincoln called into question the legitimacy of the federal government for many Southerners. It brought to life the warnings of John Randolph of Roanoke and John C. Calhoun, the South would be governed by the North, Southern interests, and not just slavery, were put into the hazard. For Calhoun, one of the dangers to the federal republic’s integrity was the rejection of the principle that the union’s benefits and burdens were to be shared equally by the states. The Republican Party’s motto might as well have been that of every other conqueror in history, “Woe to the conquered, spoils to the victor.” The Republican Party had no intention of resisting the temptation of indulging their libido dominandi, and with John C. Calhoun, Daniel Webster, and Henry Clay removed from the scene after 1850, compromise was impossible. This being the case, Southern states concluded, one by one and often for somewhat different reasons, that the federal government lacked legitimacy. The resort to military force upon the part of the federal government only confirmed their suspicions.
Back in 1860, there was a great swath of Christians that allowed many military conflicts to avoid destruction to innocent civilian bystanders until later in the war when the likes of Sheridan, Sherman and Grant were desperate enough for total victory that their total war strategy would be used to exterminate the southern culture and then be used on the plains Indians to do the same.
Today, society is very post-Christian and also post-rational as the blog author points out. The years to come will not be pretty.
The great crisis of legitimacy that resulted in the War Between the States proved our country’s greatest and bloodiest war. For the states of Maryland and Kentucky, it was a true civil war, where brother fought brother, cousin fought cousin, yet these implacable foes did retain their humanity toward each other, ‘twas a more Christian age. All of America is now Maryland and Kentucky, circa 1860. The difference is the Court and the Country revile each other, and the lessons of the classics and Christianity will not provide restraint, not in a post-Christian and post-rational society. Three of our greatest statesmen: Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, and John C. Calhoun could only forestall the awful conflict. Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stephens, and Stephen Douglas, all able men to one degree or another, they and the others of their generation blundered the nation into a horrible conflict. What are we to make of likes of Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Janet Yellen, Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi, Mike Lee, William Barr and the vast sea of mediocrities and blackguards inhabiting the foggy bottom swamp upon which the Court stands? No one can seriously entertain the notion that these persons are of the caliber of the Framers, the Great Triumvirate, or the Blundering Generation. Are they even capable of discerning the mischief their policies and negligence have wrought upon the country, or the deep mistrust they have helped to sow among their countrymen? What shall future generations make of such men and women?
We can only pray that a minority, a remnant, would rise up and give hope to those who value freedom and liberty not just for themselves, but for the generations that follow.
I think most people understand that secession is a bad word, because the last time that was attempted in the US it was to keep slavery intact, at least that is what our school books say. Even our socialist Pledge of Allegiance implicitly says that “one nation, indivisible”, which is a lie. The US Constitution never suggested that. In fact, the Articles of Confederation actually said that it was to be a “perpetual union” and yet it was disposed of rather quickly in secret in Philadelphia in 1787 when the convention was intended to “tweak” the articles.
I have said before that some of the northern states thought seriously about secession from 1796 to 1814 (Danbury Convention) but after they became a more powerful region in the 1830s they quietly quit talking about it. The southern states talked nullification in the 1830s and by the 1860s it became talk of legal, peaceful secession.
Do note, according to Lincoln’s first inaugural address in 1861 he outlined that as long as the southern states continued to pay tariffs (taxes), that nothing would happen. Lincoln also used the Corwin Amendment bait to tempt the 7 southern states to reenter the union to gain protection of their domestic institutions (slavery) forever, guaranteed by a new 13th amendment to the US Constitution that was already getting support in Congress consisting of the states that were still in the union at that time.
Legally is the way the southern gentlemen approached secession, as outlined by what was mentioned in the secession documents and what was not there. What was there was insecurity about their domestic institutions (which is why Lincoln, in a Trump like move, called them out on). What wasn’t there was the elephant in the room, the fact that a majority of collected tariffs, what the general (federal) government had for operating income (tax revenue), came from southern ports. Since the 1830s the northern dominated Congress had squeezed that income to fund its internal improvements, a majority of such took place in the northern states. Income redistribution was already a thing! However, this complaint is more difficult to prove in “divorce hearings”, so slavery, an issue that the abolitionists had been harping on for over a decade, would do. Data was easy to come by to prove their point.
Secession itself did NOT start the war between the states. Non-payment of tariffs was the trigger as promised by Lincoln in his early MAR1861 address. Note that in the weeks following Lincoln’s offer, the economics drove the fear and war-talk:
.. the VERY day after the Confederate Congress set their tariff rate at 2% to effectively become a free trade zone, Lincoln’s Congress UPPED their tariff to even 60% on some items ..
It was Lincoln’s REACTION to tariff non-payment that ended up being worse than the exit of seven southern states would have been if it could have remained peaceful.
.. Lincoln called up 75,000 troops WELL before he called Congress into secession on July 4th, 1861 to put down the “insurrection” as Lincoln never admitted that these states had legally seceded ..
Who would think that government REACTION to a perceived threat (Covid-19) could be worse than the disease itself. But I digress …
For years, decades and over a century has passed and the scars of keeping the “spouse” in an abusive marriage has taken its toll, not to mention the 750,000 young men dead, the economic destruction of the south and the war debt that resulted. Reconstruction following the war helped to set the stage for intense hatred that is used by political types ever since to stoke race wars.
The GOP run Union also introduced “total war” domestically before they did a road show (WWII Dresden, Japan & Korea & Vietnam & Iraq, etc)
List of towns burnt or pillaged by Confederate forces:
ZERO
List of towns burnt or pillaged by Union forces:
Osceola, Missouri, burned to the ground, September 24, 1861 – The town of 3,000 people was plundered and burned to the ground, 200 slaves were freed and nine local citizens were executed.
Platte City – December 16, 1861 – “Colonel W. James Morgan marches from St. Joseph to Platte City. Once there, Morgan burns the city and takes three prisoners — all furloughed or discharged Confederate soldiers. Morgan leads the prisoners to Bee Creek, where one is shot and a second is bayonetted, while the third is released. ”
Dayton, Missouri, burned, January 1 to 3, 1862
Columbus, Missouri, burned, reported on January 13, 1862
Bentonville, Arkansas, partly burned, February 23, 1862 – a Federal search party set fire to the town after finding a dead Union soldier, burning most of it to the ground
Winton, North Carolina, burned, reported on February 21, 1862 – first NC town burned by the Union, and completely burned to the ground
Bledsoe’s Landing, Arkansas, burned, October 21, 1862
Hamblin’s, Arkansas, burned, October 21, 1862
Donaldsonville, Louisiana, partly burned, August 10, 1862
Athens, Alabama, partly burned, August 30, 1862
Randolph, Tennessee, burned, September 26, 1862
Elm Grove and Hopefield, Arkansas, burned, October 18, 1862
Fredericksburg December 11–15, 1862 – town not destroyed, but the Union army threw shells into a town full of civilians
Napoleon, Arkansas, partly burned, January 17, 1863
Mound City, Arkansas, partly burned, January 13, 1863
Hopefield, Arkansas, burned, February 21, 1863 – “Captain Lemon allowed residents one hour to remove personal items, and the men then burned every house in the village.”
Eunice, Arkansas, burned, June 14, 1863
Gaines Landing, Arkansas, burned, June 15, 1863
Bluffton, South Carolina, burned, reported June 6, 1863 – ”
Union troops, about 1,000 strong, crossed Calibogue Sound and eased up the May River in the pre-dawn fog, surprising ineffective pickets and having their way in an unoccupied village. Rebel troops put up a bit of a fight, but gunboats blasted away as two-thirds of the town was burned in less than four hours. After the Yankees looted furniture and left, about two-thirds of the town’s 60 homes were destroyed.”
Sibley, Missouri, burned June 28, 1863
Hernando, Mississippi, partly burned, April 21, 1863
Austin, Mississippi, burned, May 24, 1863 – “On May 24, a detachment of Union marines landed near Austin. They quickly marched to the town, ordered all of the townpeople out and burned down the town.”
Columbus, Tennessee, burned, reported February 10, 1864
Meridian, Mississippi, destroyed, February 3 to March 6, 1864 (burned multiple times)
Washington, North Carolina, sacked and burned, April 20, 1864
Hallowell’s Landing, Alabama, burned, reported May 14, 1864
Newtown, Virginia, May 30, 1864
Rome, Georgia, partly burned, November 11, 1864 – “Union soldiers were told to burn buildings the Confederacy could use in its war effort: railroad depots, storehouses, mills, foundries, factories and bridges. Despite orders to respect private property, some soldiers had their own idea. They ran through the city bearing firebrands, setting fire to what George M. Battey Jr. called harmless places.”
Atlanta, Georgia, burned, November 15, 1864
Camden Point, Missouri, burned, July 14, 1864 –
Kendal’s Grist-Mill, Arkansas, burned, September 3, 1864
Shenandoah Valley, devastated, reported October 1, 1864 by Sheridan. Washington College was sacked and burned during this campaign.
Griswoldville, Georgia, burned, November 21, 1864
Somerville, Alabama, burned, January 17, 1865
McPhersonville, South Carolina, burned, January 30, 1865
Barnwell, South Carolina, burned, reported February 9, 1865
Columbia, South Carolina, burned, reported February 17, 1865
Winnsborough, South Carolina, pillaged and partly burned, February 21, 1865
Tuscaloosa, Alabama, burned, April 4, 1865
You wonder why the south remembers? Like ISIS only different, right? There are many nations in this world that remember the last time the USA tried to bring “democracy” to them!
So since the US government has now educated generations of Americans to believe somehow that secession in 1776 from the British Empire was honorable but that secession in 1861 from the Northern and Western united States was not, there seems to be no option in 2020 for secession, only nationalism or globalism.
This is extremely sad for future generations of Americans. Somehow, we are so “exceptional” that we can’t even achieve what the USSR did in 1991, to split into 15 republics PEACEFULLY!
The US just can’t do this, give up empire and lose the 5th largest economy (California alone) in the world when in 1861 it could not give up 70% of the federal government’s tax revenue. Plus, giving up the west coast means all those ports for US fleets, and you know Hawaii would go with California, Oregon and Washington State. The US has a character flaw.
The ramp-up on sanctions against Russia and China has been in preparation for this moment in the American Empire’s timeline to cover the excessive debt needed just to survive Covid-19, not to mention expanding the US Navy from 300 ships to 500 ships to meet the “threat” in the South China Sea. (Don’t ask me how this threatens Americans in the 50 states, because it doesn’t)
This kind of looks like the NATO encroachment on Russia the last 25 years:
Who is the aggressor here? But I guess empires are like that and we better get used to this kind of talk. The only talk anyone will NOT speak of is SECESSION apparently. No one really wants peace, except the people, who are but pawns in this game the oligarchs have going on.
I prefer federalism as perceived by Lincoln (in 1846, well before he flipped on that issue when he was president):
“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. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movements.” ~ Lincoln January 12 1848, expressing the near-universally held Jeffersonian principle
I prefer Jefferson’s thoughts as well:
“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 & descendants 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 & 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.” ~ Letter from President Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Joseph Priestly, Jan. 29, 1804
These thoughts have been lost now that nationalism and globalism reign. We and our kids and grand-kids have lost much in 200 years.
After a month away from this blog, I looked back at my last thoughts on this attempt by politics to hijack this virus scare:
Will our existing political class figure this out? Not a chance.
Will voting help? Not a chance.
The US still has the USPS and Amtrak, if they can be trusted with little things, you can safely say they can’t be trusted with MAJOR things.
This nation will have to split into many smaller republics before any of this can be addressed.
Whoever can be trusted with smallthings can also be trusted with big things. Whoever is dishonest in little things will be dishonest in big things too. – Luke 16:10 (Bible)
Is there any doubt by those that can critically think that our political apparatus from DC to the state’s governors and to the large (and small) city mayors are not full of want-to-be tyrants and sociopaths? When one follows the money, it gets even more immoral as the political class (BOTH sides of the so-called aisle) want to be re-elected so bad that they were all willing to place a big old pacifier in the mouths of millions of let go workers so that 65% or more would receive more weekly income than they had prior to this crisis. This is indeed immoral since to entice people to sit on their couches in their homes in time will lead to lives without any purpose. Life on the government plantation has ruined other cultures like the American Indian and the African American groups in the USA. This is how you emasculate the male population towards a purposeless life as government becomes both nanny and daddy.
But I digress. We should be in better position today to see the federal and state governments for what they really are. This “union” has been poisoned for some time. In fits and starts one can see how the federal government opted to be the “safety net”, like somehow a “neutral” entity could care for our communities and societies better than the locals could. That this safety net could extend to big business so that there was no risk in forgoing savings and instead buy back stock shares to prop up the stock prices. So whether this is individual or corporate welfare, both are immoral as one robs some people of their money and uses it to its own agenda’s purpose picking winners and losers in the marketplace as well as in towns and cities and farms across this land.
The southern states endured the reallocation of their taxed and tariff-ed economies from at least the War of 1812 up until the so-called Civil War (War Against Southern Independence). The South attempted to be “above-board” with their last ditch effort to save themselves from economic ruin by legally seceding (at first only 7 states) from this “union” (marriage). But Lincoln would not have his cash cow as a next-door free-trade zone, so he labeled it an “insurrection” and used George Washington’s illegal put down of the Whiskey Rebellion (25% tax thanks to Alexander Hamilton, so how bad was King George for wanting 3%?) as a template for saving the union.
This HAS to sound familiar right? The whole US government (in parallel to so many other governments) is trying to “save” us from Covid-19 while actually killing society and communities in the process. From 1861-1865 the “union” lost about 800,000 lives. What will the final death count be for the Covid-19 response by 2024 when the unintended consequences of good intentions has run its course with suicides, PTSD, mental health issues from the economic fallout AFTER the unemployment checks run out (now slated for 31JUL2020 but many want this extended to 31DEC2020)?
Smaller republics are the only answer that makes sense. Not existing state lines, although that would be a start, but republics that have like-minded people geographically grouped so that government reach can be minimized for liberty folks and maximized for totalitarian minded folks.
Reflecting on the course of what the southern states sailed can be very helpful. Sure they were not perfect and should have jettisoned chattel slavery at the very start (although this would have upset both white and black slaveholders) and compensating these owners with hard currency.
Consider what the Confederate government learned in the 80 years under the US Constitution.
That unlike the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation which BOTH had God, our Creator, as whom we derived our natural rights from, the US Constitution written in 1787 failed to give such indication as its North Star
That the US Constitution failed to protect the people from the 1798 Alien and Sedition Act that made it a crime to criticize the US Government.
That the US Constitution failed to protect various regions of the land from the plundering ambitions of other region’s agenda and greed.
That the US Constitution’s Supreme Court hijacked the ability of the states to determine which laws were unconstitutional.
It is the last point that is highlighted in this article from Abbeville Institite here. I do think it is the proper time to consider what real justice is these days and know how much a failure this a-political Supreme Court has been.
Although the Court would increasingly try to narrow the realm of States Rights, Madison [author of the US Constitution] denied that “the Federal judiciary” was the ultimate judge of such limits because it was the people of the states themselves who were the final authority.
It was in fact the US Government’s (called General government in those days, now labeled the Federal Government) over-reach that set-off a push back politically:
The conflict became obvious when President John Adams pushed through the 1798 Sedition Act, making it a crime to speak ill of the President or Congress. Since it was harshly enforced for some of the mildest criticisms, strict constructionists respond. Among them was future President James Madison who is known as the Father of the Constitution. He denied that the Supreme Court was the ultimate authority on States Rights. This can be seen from the 1798 Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions he helped write with Thomas Jefferson condemning the Sedition Act as unconstitutional.
Jefferson’s presidential victory in 1800 guaranteed that the 1798 Alien and Sedition Act would be eliminated, but by 1833 things were simmering again. By this stage of the republic’s life the South was losing its position as being a strong entity within this federation and saw New England culture and character make huge inroads into the federal government’s choosing of winners (railroads, canals and the steel industry) over losers in the marketplace:
Calhoun would build upon the Resolutions to formulate his nullification theory that South Carolina invoked in 1833 to nullify the 1828 Tariff of Abominations. Calhoun argued that the tariff was not uniform in terms of geographic economic impact and therefore unconstitutional. When the Federal Government crossed over constitutional lines, a state could take action as the final authority of constitutionality in its borders, not the Supreme Court. All states could only be forced to conform to such a law by passing a new amendment specifically making it constitutional.
This “one-size-fits-all” approach (sound familiar?) is a recipe for disaster, for just as all individuals are different, so too are the states.
The Supreme Court early on made a huge mistake that made it necessary to add an 11th amendment in 1795 when the US Constitution was less than ten years old:
When a 1793 Supreme Court ruling held the state of Georgia at fault in a suit brought by a South Carolina resident, Georgia denied the Court’s jurisdiction. After the adverse ruling ten other states joined Georgia to ratify a new (11th) Amendment specifying that individuals outside an applicable state could not sue that state without the state’s permission. The Amendment’s prompt ratification indicates a widespread belief that the Court was unexpectedly and quickly overstepping its authority.
Now you know why the Confederate government opted NOT to have a supreme court at least initially. Lesson learned.
Now it is our turn to learn from history and push for a government that is more commensurate to the people’s desire of liberty, freedom and self responsibility .. at least in certain geographical regions of this land we call America.
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!
Sanctions, embargoes and tariffs might not enough for the DC Elite to be convinced that Russia is not a threat to the US Empire’s future. It seems that China, which owns a substantial chunk of US debt, has been marginalized, either by design or by coincidence.
What is the source of this paranoia? Is it that the Russians embarrassed the US by really defeating ISIS? Maybe it was what the Russians found in Syria after ISIS retreated that had the US Empire’s fingerprints all over it. Maybe it is because Russia has done fairly well in spite of the embargoes by trading with other nations, getting off the USD petro-dollar and securing Crimea? Is it because Putin pulled levers to get Trump elected? (Don’t make me laugh)
The MIC / Deep State does need a war soon to keep the defense industry humming and keep those DC lobbyists busy with a majority of Congress in lining their pocketbooks. The Israel-First policy has been a great program for two intense decades (preceded by a couple of decades of US-centric support) ..
.. but that program might be plateauing a bit now that Iraq is pushing for independence from the US orbit, thanks to Trump’s assassination of Iran’s 2nd in command on Iraqi soil. Israel will keep crying that it needs the Golan Heights, more Palestinian soil to settle on and protection from Iraqi missiles.
So to move on and ratchet up some war or preparation for war somewhere on this globe, the US has to focus on Russia. I mean, look at the way Russia has encroached on NATO since 1990:
Oops, I guess NATO has been in expansion mode. Oh well, the narrative pays little attention to facts.
Paul Craig Robert’s article caught my eye this week as he sensed that Russia should be alert to what the US Empire is up to. It seems from this article, that the Russian people don’t see the US as an enemy:
“Only 3% of Russian respondents said they see the West as Russia’s enemy, Levada said. Another 16% said they view the West as a rival.
“Two-thirds of Levada’s respondents (67%) said Russia should treat the West as a “partner,” while 11% said Russia should treat the West as a “friend,” according to the Kommersant business daily’s breakdown of the data.”
Roberts is concerned that the reality of the US Empire’s hate on Russia is a struggle that should be more apparent and real.
Consider the expense (and debt) that the US has expended only to be shown up by Russia’s new hyper-sonic missiles and other emerging technologies.
Examples of the technological lag were made public almost two years ago:
– Mach 20 allows supersonic missile delivery system that can quote “deliver missiles to the needed point in just a matter of the seconds
– A cruise missile with a nuclear engine
– The 200 ton SARMAT ballistic missile that circles around the Earth and again come to the other continents from a surprisingly weird angles
There are a couple more, but I think you get the picture.
With a 1/10th of the US Empire budget (not including the black budgets and other military agencies that do not figure into the DoD official budget), Russia has been 10x more innovative in an attempt to defend itself. I contend that only these new systems that have come of age in the last 5 years helps to deter the US from attempting regime change on Russia itself .. again.
While Roberts thinks that Russia’s military understands the latest war-game that NATO is amassing near Russia’s borders, he contends that the government is failing their people in getting them to understand this reality. Maybe Russia understands that a distracted population is not an innovative or productive one, I guess that would be my own take. In either case, Roberts then says:
How can the Russian people, humiliated by American sanctions and endless denunciations of their elected president, who led them out of American captivity, and threatened by Washington’s nuclear missiles on their border, possiblly(sic) believe in friendship and partnership with Washington?
If the polls are correct, and the Russian people do not understand Washington’s hegemonic impulse, Russian sovereignty is not a sure thing.
I contend that psychologically, having the people surprised by an overt act of aggression on the part of the US Empire would kindle a defensive posture more than warning them day after day that the evil empire (US) is poised to strike at any minute. That is something only the US government would do to justify expensive military interventions around the globe as well as a massive debt.
I stand impressed to date of Russia’s attitude on the world stage, patient with countries like Turkey that vacillate between Russian and US circles while providing true relieve to the people of Syria that is still reeling from Obama’s and Hillary’s induced “civil war’ there using ISIS as their weapon of choice.
Things sure have changed in 40 years, from crazy Ivan to reasonable Putin while the US’s collateral damage was JFK on their way to having crazy Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama and now Trump manning the wheel.
