<![CDATA[The Confederate Society of America - The Condederate Society blog]]>Sun, 19 Nov 2017 07:29:11 -0800Weebly<![CDATA[Poor Robert Mugabe]]>Sun, 19 Nov 2017 15:21:17 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/poor-robert-mugabeby Hannes Wessels

After 37 years of murderous and destructive rule, it looks like the curtain is finally coming down on the Mugabe regime. Military coups are seldom welcome, but few of Zimbabwe’s beleaguered citizenry are unhappy with this dramatic turn of events. After decades of misery, the prospect of life under “Gucci Grace,” the ghastly First Lady, provided a frightening future scenario that propelled the military into a direct and decisive confrontation. Almost universally this man is now reviled, and few will lament his political demise. But it was not always like that, and be mindful; he did not get to where he did without international help, and he could not have ruled for 37 years without the enthusiastic assistance of a liberal-socialist political and media machine that revered him no matter what he did.

British foreign secretary Boris Johnson spoke emotionally about “this beautiful country” that has suffered a “brutal litany of events” under the despotic rule of a man who has rigged elections and stands responsible for the “murder and torture of his opponents.” He said that “all Britain has ever wanted for Zimbabwe…is for Zimbabweans to be able to decide their own future in free and fair elections.” Prime Minister Theresa May expressed sincere concern for the safety of “British nationals” in the benighted country. These pronouncements resonate with the mood but invite some scrutiny.

Interesting to note that Her Majesty’s leader of the government is now concerned about Britons in the wake of a coup, but through the course of almost fifteen years of civil war, when Rhodesia fought to stave off the odious challenge posed by Mugabe and his forces, and thousands of “British nationals” faced the gravest of threats, the British government of the day resolutely backed the other side. And Boris Johnson’s recollection of history and Britain’s long-term commitment to “free and fair elections” is also rubbish. The fact is, the Mugabe accession to power was carefully choreographed through the ’70s by the wily mandarins of the Foreign Office, culminating in the Lancaster House Conference.

“The fact is, this catastrophe was allowed to happen largely because the Western world not only allowed it to, but enthusiastically aided it.”Ironically, the only genuinely free election ever held in the country took place under European rule in April 1979 when a black majority government took power under the leadership of Bishop Abel Muzorewa, only for Mrs. Thatcher to renege on her promise to recognize it. “The lady who was not for turning” did a double somersault when confronted with the wrath of the African despots, who insisted on Mugabe as the leader of the new Zimbabwe and swiftly moved the goalposts to Lancaster House. Within those hallowed halls, her Machiavellian foreign secretary, Lord Peter Carrington, stitched up an agreement that (then former prime minister) Ian Smith rejected, but he was quickly drummed out of the negotiations so as not to blow the great con. John Giles, the Rhodesian legal expert at the conference, also warned against accepting the terms, and he was soon after found dead under highly suspicious circumstances. Ian Smith was unequivocal in insisting he was murdered. But Carrington and Thatcher got their way; Britain took back control of the country under the boozy governorship of Lord Christopher Soames and a farcical election was held during which Mugabe’s forces ran a violent intimidation campaign that decisively influenced the result in their favor. When then Rhodesian military supremo Gen. Peter Walls cried foul, called for a rerun, and demanded access to Mrs. Thatcher as previously promised, the door of No. 10 was slammed shut in his face.

A beaming Prince Charles, resplendent in his naval commander’s uniform, soon arrived to deliver Rhodesia on a silver platter to a richly undeserving Robert Mugabe, who thus came to power with the blood of thousands of his countrymen on his hands. Virtually the entire world, led by the liberal praise-singers of the mainstream media, with the BBC jubilant at the fore, cheered the dawn of “freedom” and the demise of “racist, settler rule.”

From then on Mugabe, hard as he tried, could do no wrong. He quickly set about destroying “the jewel of Africa” by dragging the country into an encounter with a command economy where he and his cronies would attempt to control all the levers in the public and private sectors while following a vaguely Marxist blueprint.

Tax levels were hiked to being some of the highest in the world, the best civil service in Africa was smashed, and his stated commitment to a nonracial meritocracy was a lie from the start. In all sectors, black political hacks, regardless of their experience or qualifications, were ushered into positions way beyond their ability. Antiwhite racism was institutionalized throughout the public sector. Detention without trial was the order of the day, and during his tenure there has never been anything remotely like a “free and fair election.”

When the threat of political opposition appeared early in the ’80s in Matabeleland, Mugabe reacted with a ferocity and brutality that would have cheered Stalin and Mao. A systematic state-sponsored genocide ensued, and scores of thousands were killed—more were maimed and tortured. The world looked the other way. Oxfam refused to speak out. Margaret Thatcher’s Conservatives defended the genocide, insisting that the Zimbabwean killers were merely addressing “legitimate security concerns.” As minister for overseas development, Baroness Chalker remained a loyal friend and was well-disposed to having her photograph taken holding hands with the man while romping up the steps of the State House.

British aid continued to flow freely, and Mugabe was frequently entertained by the Queen. The Conservatives under John Major paid him a parting tribute by rewarding his atrocious behavior with a knighthood. He returned from the investiture to Zimbabwe to explain that gays and lesbians should be evicted before referring to like-minded people as “worse than dogs and pigs…beasts…guilty of subhuman behavior,” and called for them to be removed from society. The Labour government of Tony Blair ensured that Zimbabwe’s police and intelligence services were well supplied with British-made equipment so the terror machine was kept in good order.

In the late ’90s the Americans, despite Mugabe’s policies, were still cheering him on. Bill Clinton’s ambassador to Zimbabwe, Tom McDonald, was gushing in his praise of him and rather astonishingly concluded that the country, thanks to the man’s tender ministrations, was an “African success story.”

The sad irony is it was the same whites who had powered the Rhodesian economy through fifteen years of war and sanctions before independence that were the dynamic that kept the new regime buoyant despite the official hostility. Vital players were the farmers. Through their efforts, exports of agricultural product in the postindependence era increased and the national coffers were kept reasonably full. The people Mugabe loathed most made the monster look good and played a significant role in feeding him until he decided to devour them. Four thousand white farmers (.03% of the total population), their families, and dependents were “ethnically cleansed” starting in 2000 and the economy collapsed, triggering the worst hyperinflation in history. This resulted in soft sanctions and a travel ban on the president and some of his cohorts. Zimbabwe joined a legion of ravaged African countries with populations reduced to a life of fear and famine.

The fact is, this catastrophe was allowed to happen largely because the Western world not only allowed it to, but enthusiastically aided it. Consumed by an obsession with political correctness that forbids criticism of tyrants when they are black, no one had the gumption to stand up and call the man to account; instead they helped him on his horrible way. If the liberals who ruled and their media associates had stood by the same principles that they screamed about when it was time to ride the anticolonial bandwagon and impress all with their contempt for all things white and allegedly racist, the history of Zimbabwe might have been a happier one.

Unsurprisingly Mugabe was relieved to find that no matter how badly he behaved, he could traverse the world and enjoy the unanimous, virtually unqualified acclaim of a misguided liberal establishment that believed he was doing a wonderful job. He took this as a signal to continue as before, so when the tanks arrived outside his house on Monday night and the generals told him and his wife the game was up, I empathized a little with poor Robert; he thought he was doing a hell of a good job.]]>
<![CDATA[Lincoln's myths dispelled once and for all]]>Wed, 15 Nov 2017 04:13:34 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/november-14th-2017
​​By: By: David Dieteman
CSA edited content. 

Lincoln becomes the American solar myth, the chief butt of American credulity and sentimentality...the varnishes and veneers have been busily converting Abe into a plaster saint...Worse, there is an obvious effort to pump all his human weaknesses out of him, and so leave him a mere moral apparition, a sort of amalgam of John Wesley and the Holy Ghost. What could be more absurd? Lincoln, in point of fact, was a practical politician of long experience and high talents, and by no means cursed with idealistic superstitions...his career in the State Legislature was indistinguishable from that of a Tammany Nietzsche.
~ H.L. Mencken, "Abraham Lincoln," The Smart Set, May 1920.

Reprinted in A Mencken Chrestomathy, pp 221-23.

Ken Masugi, director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Local Government, writes in Claremont Institute Precepts No. 267 that "Long-time fans of Rush Limbaugh's provocative radio show experienced a shock in a recent program that focused on Abraham Lincoln."

It turns out that Limbaugh was surprised to hear his callers criticize Abe Lincoln as responsible for the growth of federal power, a racist, and indifferent to the plight of the slaves.

The discussion, Masugi notes, grew out of advance qualms over Steven "fundraiser to the Clintons" Spielberg's forthcoming movie on Lincoln. As Masugi observes, the film will allegedly "portray [Lincoln] as a weakling, a racist, and a failure at the presidency."

Limbaugh and Spielberg aside, what's the truth about Abraham Lincoln? And what's the truth about the Confederate States of America and the South?
Allow me to suggest that the truth is quite far from the conventional wisdom. Allow me also to suggest, as indicated by Masugi's article, that the otherwise praiseworthy Claremont Institute goes too far in its adulation of Lincoln.

The Claremont Institute is "otherwise praiseworthy" because, for example, Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership and the Claremont's Center for the Study of the Natural Law appear to do good things. Also, Mark Helprin (a very good contemporary novelist, and therefore a rare breed; A Soldier of the Great War is well worth reading) and Hadley Arkes (a natural law theorist whose works I have found insightful) are at Claremont. This article should not be interpreted as anything other that what it is: a criticism of the Claremont Institute's treatment of Abraham Lincoln and the issue of secession.

The Claremont Institute's devotion to Lincoln appears deep and widespread. The Institute provides "Abraham Lincoln Fellowships in Constitutional Government" and the Institute's Salvatori Center for the American Constitution has published a plethora of essays praising Lincoln and attacking the right of secession.

As a preliminary matter, it is a general problem with the Claremont writers — including not only Masugi, but Harry Jaffa — that they assume as a given the conclusion which they purport to prove. If the question of the day is whether Abe Lincoln is justified or unjustified, praiseworthy or blameworthy, for his actions from 1860-1865, then Lincoln's own words are not sufficient evidence to acquit Lincoln.

If, in defense of Lincoln, one can call no witnesses but Lincoln, the case for the prosecution looks very strong indeed.
Additionally, in order to judge Lincoln, one needs a standard by which to judge the praiseworthy or blameworthy nature of his actions.

One possible standard by which to judge Lincoln's actions is provided by a great theorist of republican government well-known to Americans in 1861 and 2001: Montesquieu.

Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and their Decline, is noted by its translator, David Lowenthal, as perhaps the least well known of Montesquieu's three works. Despite this fact, Lowenthal adds, the book "may have been the first (and certainly was one of the first) of all efforts to comprehend the whole span of Roman history, and among such efforts it still has few if any peers." (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co., 1999; originally published by The Free Press, 1965. p 1). Lowenthal also writes that It was probably one of the works Gibbon had in mind in his Memoirs when he wrote: "but my delight was in the frequent perusal of Montesquieu, whose energy of style, and boldness of hypothesis, were powerful to awaken and stimulate the genius of his age...it is one of the few instances when a philosopher has undertaken an extended analysis of any particular society, let alone of its entire history. The only comparable thing on Rome is Machiavelli's Discourses, to which it bears a deep inner kinship." (p 1)

In other words, Montesquieu's Considerations is an important work by an important political thinker.

What standard may one find in Montesquieu in order to judge the actions of Abraham Lincoln? In particular, Montesquieu makes the following observation about the nature of free states:

What makes free states last a shorter time than others is that both the misfortunes and the successes they encounter almost always cause them to lose their freedom. In a state where the people are held in subjection, however, successes and misfortunes alike confirm their servitude. A wise republic should hazard nothing that exposes it to either good or bad fortune. The only good to which it should aspire is the perpetuation of its condition [i.e., its condition as a free state, i.e. its freedom]. (p 92)

The reason for the limited life spans of free republics is the fact that crises and governmental actions — most especially wars — tend to grow the state at the expense of society. Calls for government action are necessarily calls for government power, and governments are not known for their fondness for giving up acquired powers.
The standard by which to judge Lincoln's actions, then, if one is concerned with the nature of America as a free state, is not whether Lincoln abolished slavery or fulfilled the meaning of the Declaration of Independence, but whether he preserved the free condition of the United States.

Two claims made by Ken Masugi, in his various pieces on Lincoln, stand out as problematic:
"Confederate heritage groups and civil rights groups, who disagree so bitterly about which monument should stand or who was...a hero, actually share major premises about the Civil War...Both sides agree on the prevalent view of American history, debunking Lincoln."

"The freedom to secede from the Union was equivalent to either anarchy or tyranny, both denials of government by consent."

It is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination — that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. The Confederates went into battle free; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision of the rest of the country — and for nearly twenty years that veto was so efficient that they enjoyed scarcely more liberty, in the political sense, than so many convicts in the penitentiary.

Mencken's piece was originally published in The Smart Set, May 1920. This was a mere 55 years after the end of the War Between the States. Think of it like a book published today discussing the Korean War. The war was still that recent when Mencken wrote. Reconstruction was even more recent. It had ended only 40 years before Mencken wrote. Think of it like a writer today discussing the Cuban missile crisis.

Worse, as Charles Adams notes in When in the Course of Human Events, Lincoln improperly dated American history in the Gettysburg Address:
To be accurate, Lincoln should have said "four score and two years ago," or better still, "three score and fourteen years ago." Even the Northern newspapers winced. The New York World sharply criticized this historical folly. "This United States" was not created by the Declaration of Independence but "the result of the ratification of a compact known as the Constitution." (194)
Lincoln simply spoke as if the Articles of Confederation had never existed.
Masugi, like Harry Jaffa, contends that "the Civil War was fought over the American proposition first proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence — that all men are created equal." As a necessary corollary of this claim, Masugi contends that the Confederate view holds that the Declaration of Independence did not include slaves or their descendants and that it provides no guidance for how we Americans were supposed to govern ourselves. The phrase "all men are created equal" was not intended to affirm universal freedom and rights; the whole document was simply a good-bye to Great Britain. Therefore, the Civil War could not have been fundamentally about slavery.

Similarly, in "A Lincoln for all Time — and Our Time," Masugi writes that "the central idea of secession" involved a rejection of the eternal higher law of the Declaration of Independence, "the laws of nature and of nature's God" and the equality of rights that underlies the Constitution....The true heirs of the Confederacy no longer wear gray — unless in a suit — but they share the Confederates' rejection of a moral truth transcending historical evolution. These latter-day rebels now dominate our universities, foundation boards, and other unelected positions of power. For these post-modern elites the very idea of constitutional government is an unwanted encumbrance on their appetites.

Masgui and Jaffa, then, contend that one part of the Declaration of Independence — "all men are created equal" — absolutely trumps another part — "governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed." Masugi attempts to eliminate the turning of the Declaration against itself by arguing that the South really sought to destroy government by consent. As Mencken noted, however, this claim is false: it was the South which fought for self-determination.

It also must be noted that someone forgot to tell Ven. Pope Pius IX about the Southern rejection of "the eternal higher law," as the Pope thought enough of the post-war persecution of Jefferson Davis to send the imprisoned Davis a crown of thorns

— made by the Pope himself. As Gary Potter wonders,
Why did this pope who is a Venerable of the Church — the very one who promulgated the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, published to the world the famous Syllabus of Errors, and presided over the Vatican Council that solemnly defined the dogma of papal infallibility — seek to comfort Davis, who was not a Catholic?

Potter speculates that Pius IX may have taken an interest in Davis because of the many prominent Catholic families in the South, and because of the receptivity to Catholicism which characterized Southern culture. Perhaps more significantly, Pius IX himself had experienced the opposition of secessionist and nationalist movements as leader of the Papal States.
Pius IX, you see, was pope from 1846-78 (the longest pontificate in the history of the papacy), during which time Italy underwent the political transformation from disunited states to a centralized, national government. In 1848, because the Pope would not bring the Papal States to war with Catholic Austria, the Catholic Encyclopedia notes that the pope was denounced as a traitor to his country, his prime minister Rossi was stabbed to death while ascending the steps of the Cancelleria, whither he had gone to open the parliament, and on the following day the pope himself was besieged in the Quirinal. Palma, a papal prelate, who was standing at a window, was shot, and the pope was forced to promise a democratic ministry. With the assistance of the Bavarian ambassador, Count Spaur, and the French ambassador, Duc d'Harcourt, Pius IX escaped from the Quirinal in disguise, 24 November, and flet to Gaeta where he was joined by many of the cardinals. Meanwhile Rome was ruled by traitors and adventurers who abolished the temporal power of the pope, 9 February, 1849, and under the name of a democratic republic terrorized the people and committed untold outrages.

The Catholic Encyclopedia also notes that  the doom of [Pius IX's] temporal power was sealed, when [in 1858] Cavour and Napoleon III met at Plombieres, concerting plans for a combined war against Austria and the subsequent territorial extension of the Sardinian Kingdom. They sent their agents into various cities of the Papal States to propagate the idea of a politically united Italy. The defeat of Austria at Magenta on 4 July, 1859, and the subsequent withdrawal of the Austrian troops from the papal legations, inaugurated the dissolution of the Papal States. The insurrection in some of the cities of the Romagna was put forth as a plea for annexing the provinces to the Piedmont in September, 1859. On 6 February, 1860, Victor Emmanuel demanded the annexation of Umbria and the Marches and, when Pius IX resisted this unjust demand, made ready to annex them by force.

Sound familiar? Perhaps Pope Pius IX sympathized with Jefferson Davis as a fellow victim of nationalist fervor.
(In 1853, by the way, Pius IX established my diocese — the Roman Catholic Diocese of Erie, Pennsylvania. During his pontificate, he also established nearly 20 other American dioceses, including Albany, Buffalo, Cleveland, Savannah, Brooklyn, Newark, Green Bay, Rochester, Scranton, San Antonio, and Providence).

Returning to Masugi's contentions, someone also forgot to tell the great Roman Catholic scholar, Lord Acton, about the South's "rejection of the eternal higher law." Acton famously wrote to Robert E. Lee:

"I saw in States Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy.... I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo."

(As an aside, Acton did not agree with Pius IX on the issue of Papal infallibility. Acton, however, dutifully shut his mouth and did not defy the Pope after the dogma was promulgated. Yet Acton and Pius IX agreed on their support for the CSA).
Someone also forgot to tell Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson about the evil of his cause. As related by James I. Robertson, Jr., after the battle of First Manassas (Bull Run to the Yankees), Jackson sent a letter home:
A crowd eager for news of the battle thronged the town post office when the mail arrived. Dr. William S. White immediately recognized Jackson's scrawl on the letter handed him. The minister cried out, "Now we shall know all the facts!" A hush settled over the townspeople. White then read the letter. "My dear pastor, in my tent last night, after a fatiguing day's service, I remembered that I had failed to send you my contribution for our colored Sunday school. Enclosed you will find a check for that object, which please acknowledge at your earliest convenience, and oblige yours faithfully, T.J. Jackson." (Stonewall Jackson: The Man, The Soldier, The Legend, p 271)

Also, if Masugi is correct, how does one explain the presence of "Deo Vindice" (Latin for "God as our Defender" on the Great Seal of the Confederacy?

Additionally, Masugi assumes that "the equality of rights that underlies the Constitution" which exists in 2001 is the same "equality of rights" underlying the Constitution as seen in 1861. Not so. This is not to argue that the Constitution is a "living document;" such a view, as I have previously written, is indefensible. This is to argue, however, that Masugi's view of the Constitution is very much a product of the way things happened to turn out in the 140 years since the Civil War began; his view of the Constitution was not in play at the time of the war.

Further, Masugi is incorrect in characterizing those persons who "dominate our universities, foundation boards, and other unelected positions of power" as inheritors of the Confederate tradition. Rather, these Marxist and post-modernist types are precisely those types whom the Confederacy opposed. There is nothing post-modern about the League of the South, for example, while the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Public Welfare, and other such groups have long lobbied for the expansion of the central state.

The Ford Foundation (1952-53) and Rockefeller Foundation (1956-57), it must be noted, sponsored Harry Jaffa's research for Crisis of the House Divided; Jaffa thanks them for their funding in the book. One is forced to wonder what foundations Masugi has in mind, unless the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations have changed radically since the 1950s.

If these foundations have changed since that time, they're keeping it a secret. The Rockefeller Foundation, for example, bills its "Louder than Words" report as follows: "Racial justice work is a central component of the Rockefeller Foundation's efforts to broaden economic and social opportunity in the United States." The Ford Foundation report "Common Needs, Common Ground" also does not appear to be the work of people who deny any higher laws about equality.

Indeed, attributing the insight to his reading of Jaffa's new book (ably criticized by Joseph Sobran and Myles Kantor), Masugi goes so far as to explicitly label Bill Clinton as a "true heir of the Confederacy:"
It is plain from Jaffa's New Birth of Freedom that today's most prominent representative of the abiding message of the Confederacy is not some Civil War re-enactor and certainly not Attorney General John Ashcroft but rather the sort who dispute "what the meaning of is is."

Civil War re-enactors and the readers of Southern Partisan, which famously interviewed John Ashcroft, might be surprised to learn that Clinton is their true role model.

Ignored by Masugi is Ashcroft's praise for the Southern cause; the lecherous Clinton has no such respect for the South. Of course, if you are out to demonize the South, it is better to ignore Ashcroft than confront his actual views. It is also better to ignore the fact that, like Bill Clinton's top contributors, Lincoln was a trial lawyer, and that, like Clinton, Lincoln demonized opponents of his policies. As Clinton once blamed "right wing talk radio" for Timothy McVeigh's act of mass murder,
To doubt the president's wisdom — to question his decision for war — was treason. Lincoln's logic became holy writ on stone tablets for the faithful. There were only two classes of citizens — those who followed the president's line and traitors. (When in the Course of Human Events, p 211)

Thus, under Lincoln, the alleged defender of American liberty, military authorities soon began imprisoning prominent secessionists without trial. The writ of habeas corpus was a constitutional safeguard to prevent such imprisonments without sufficient legal cause, and one of the incarcerated Marylanders, John Merryman, attempted an appeal on that basis. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, sitting as a circuit judge, ordered Merryman released, but federal officials, acting under Lincoln's orders, refused. The aging Chief Justice, just three years from death's door, thereupon issued a blistering opinion holding that only Congress had the constitutional right to suspend habeas corpus. The President "certainly does not faithfully execute the laws, if he takes upon himself legislative power, by suspending the writ of habeas corpus, and the judicial power also, by arresting and imprisoning a person without due process of law," declared Taney. If Lincoln's action was allowed to stand, then "the people of the United States are no longer living under a Government of laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found."

Lincoln simply ignored Taney's opinion. He also wrote out standing orders for the Chief Justice's arrest, although these were never served. (Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men, p 142)

Shortly after Taney's opinion was issued, Lincoln arrested 31 Maryland legislators, the mayor of Baltimore (the nation's 3rd largest city at the time), a U.S. Congressman from Maryland, and anti-war publishers and editors. (Hummel 143).

It may be recalled that the Clinton administration exhibited a Lincolnian contempt for the law by instructing federal agencies to ignore rulings from the U.S. Courts of Appeals, as if only the United States Supreme Court were competent to declare the meaning of federal law.

It should be noted at this point that it is no defense for Lincoln that the CSA also violated civil liberties during the war. Mark Neely, who has documented Lincoln's abuse of civil liberties in The Fate of Liberty, treats this fact not only as a shocking revelation, but as a vindication of Lincoln's acts in his later book, Southern Rights: Political Prisoners and the Myth of Confederate Constitutionalism. If the CSA also violated civil liberties, the argument goes, then those who justify secession cannot hold similar violations against Lincoln, nor can they claim that the CSA stood for constitutional government.
This argument completely misses the point of bringing Lincoln's record to light: the South is already demonized, while Lincoln is lionized in part because his abuse of civil liberties is not widely known.
Tibor Machan, in "Rethinking the Civil War," describes how he changed his view of the civl war over time. As part of this account, Machan mentions his surprise at learning of Lincoln's disregard for civil liberties. The reason this surprised Machan, he states, is that this fact of Lincoln's reign did not fit with the established mythology he had been fed in the public schools.
More significantly, Hummel points out that the restrictions of civil liberties in the CSA contributed to the failure of the southern drive for independence. Contrary to Neely's provocative subtitle, it is precisely because Southerners were fighting to defend constitutional government that abuses of civil liberties by the CSA so demoralized the South.
The Southern military situation in 1865, Hummel contends, was far from being an unequivocal Union victory. In fact, it was closer to the situation facing George Washington's Continental Army at Valley Forge in 1778, when the British held the American capital of Philadelphia (p 282). Rather than persevere like George Washington, the "never surrender" South surrendered in part because the centralization of power in Richmond subverted the war aim of preserving constitutional order. Hummel adds another little discussed explanation for the surrender: the deeply religious South began to believe that their sufferings were the result of the sin of slavery. "By the war's second year, a significant movement within southern churches was agitating for such reforms as prohibiting the separation of slave children from their mothers, admitting slave testimony in courts, and permitting slave religious assemblies." (p 283)
Pace Ken Masugi and the Claremont Institute, Sheldon Vanauken — a noted Catholic scholar, and a friend and student of another noted denier of "higher laws," C.S. Lewis — points out the true cause of the war while laying the blame for the moral degeneracy of contemporary civilization at the feet of Honest Abe:
The states of the deep South dissolved their connection with the voluntary union of the United States with marked legality at the beginning of 1861. For a quarter of a year no one knew that there was to be a war. Then Lincoln (unauthorised by the Constitution) called for troops; and the upper South, led by Virginia, seceded. War was Lincoln's choice. The point is, Lincoln could have chosen to let the South go in peace on the grounds that just government depends on the consent of the governed, and the Southern states had withdrawn that consent. But, said the North, the majority do consent, since there are more people in the North. Even if most of the people in the South do not consent, we in the North are the majority of the whole nation...This is precisely what de Tocqueville warned against: the tyranny of the majority.
The America of today is the America that won that immense triumph in the war — the triumph of unlimited, equalitarian democracy. And its leaders have blurred the distinction between freedom and equality to the point where many people use those words as virtually interchangeable terms. ‘Freedom from want' implying every man's equal right to food may indeed be a right but it is not freedom; it is his freedom, though, to take action to improve his needy state. What most people are unaware of is that freedom and equality, though revolutionaries may shout of both, are uneasy bedfellows and, in fact, often opposed, each tending to limit the other. Nearly every law designed to bring about greater equality, as so many of the laws of the late-twentieth century do intend, limits freedom. The freedom of the bright student to learn swiftly is limited by equalitarian schools for the average.
The Southern nation, after a brief, intense, and heroic existence, was defeated, and then, as a conquered province, was subjected to the demeaning brutalities of ‘Reconstruction' and subsequently to economic discrimination. (The Glittering Illusion: English Sympathy for the Southern Confederacy, pp 142-43)
But there is no need to take Sheldon Vanauken's word for it: Lincoln's own Attorney General agrees:
The long war had contributed to a breakdown everywhere both in prevailing ehtical norms and in the distinction between public and private spheres. "The demoralising effect of this civil war," wrote Edward Bates, Lincoln's first Attorney General, "is plainly visible in every department of life. The abuse of official powers and the thirst for dishonest gain are now so common that they cease to shock." The same Congress that passed the Fourteenth Amendment also, without a second thought, voted itself a hefty pay raise, and the flagrancy of a subsequent salary grab in 1873 shamed Congress into repealing it. The Grant era became so notorious for its political bribery that it has gone down in history as the Great Barbecue. In the words of a Carpetbag governor of Louisiana: "I don't pretend to be honest. I only pretend to be as honest as anybody in politics....Why, damn it, everybody is demoralizing down here. Corruption is the fashion." (Hummel 314)
Lincoln, then, and not the Confederate States of America, has a greater guilt for the ensuing moral degeneracy of American culture, if guilt is to be apportioned between them (one must be careful not to venture into determinism).
Noted Civil War historian James McPherson also contends that Abe Lincoln is properly seen as having expanded the government: "This astonishing blitz of laws...did more to reshape the relation of the government to the economy than any comparable effort except perhaps the first hundred days of the New Deal." (Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution, p. 40, cited in James Ostrowski, "Was the Union Army's Invasion of the Confederate States A Lawful Act?," Chapter 8 of Secession, State and Liberty, ed. David Gordon, p. 156).
Finally, Masugi simply cannot come up with high enough praise for Harry Jaffa's most recent book, A New Birth of Freedom:
Amidst the changes following a bitter, disputed election, Americans must wonder whether there is any truth besides cynical truth in politics....Fortunately, this Lincoln's birthday we have a means of assessing all the partisan claims in light of our greatest political figure. Harry V. Jaffa's long-awaited A New Birth of Freedom enables us to separate superficialities from the substance and rediscover who we are as Americans.
First, there is no truth besides cynical truth in politics. The emperor has no clothes. You are better off not deceiving yourself. Second, even if Jaffa's book is the greatest book written since the Bible, Masugi's claim is untenable. The notion of "who we are as Americans" is not likely to be contained in any single book, let alone an extended reflection on the Gettysburg Address.
Worse, Jaffa and Masugi's view of "who we are as Americans" appears to be defined by reference to the victorious Northern view of the war and what it means to be an American. Such a view is necessarily skewed.
In Conversations with Shelby Foote, the esteemed novelist and historian makes the point that the Confederates were just as much Americans as the Northerners, a point which appears too frequently lost on Yankees. As Foote relates in an interview with William C. Carter,
[Carter:] Some of the French critics say that you are persuaded of the long-term failure of the American adventure. Would you elaborate on that interpretation, if you agree with it?
[Foote:] I do agree with it, and I think it's an advantage that the Southern artist has, whether it's in music or sculpture or painting or writing. I'm often amazed to hear the frequent quote, "We Americans have never lost a war." You hear it all the time: "Never lost a war" — at least you heard it before Vietnam. I know some Americans who certainly lost a war — lost it about as thoroughly as a war can be lost, and afterwards got ground into the dirt harder than most any losers I know — and they lived in the South. That gave us, by inheritance, a true sense of tragedy. We do not believe that all noble experiments are bound to succeed. We know at least one noble experiment that failed miserably. We don't have the bright outlook that everything is for the best in this best of all possible worlds, because our history taught us differently.
And while the war was not always in the forefront of our consciousness, it operated very strongly in our unconscious and on our manners and our morals. For instance, Vicksburg fell on the fourth day of July. The Fourth of July throughout my childhood and young manhood was never celebrated in Mississippi. One year a couple was there from Ohio — why they were there I do not know — and they drove their car up on the levee, spread out their blanket, and had a picnic on the levee to celebrate the Fourth. They forgot to set the brakes of the car properly and it rolled down the levee and into the river; everybody said it served them right for celebrating the Fourth.
But this true sense of tragedy on a large scale is a very Southern heritage, whereas for a Northerner it's a true sense of triumph. Northerners believe that all the virtues conquered because they are now the virtues, but Southerners don't believe that virtue necessarily conquers because we believe strongly in the virtues of our forbears. We don't believe that government of and by and for the people would have perished from the earth if the South had won the war, although we are required to memorize those very words in school. It's very strange what power there is in literary skill. We memorize Lincoln's Gettysburg Address because he phrased it so well; we don't even hear what it's saying. (261-62)
Realistically, what would the North have the South do? Forget the grandfathers, fathers, husbands, brothers, and sons who died, or the mothers, daughters, wives, and sisters who were raped by the invading forces of the United States?
Is that realistic, or is it just downright offensive? For the record, Adams contends that "The slaughter of Confederate men only matched, on a proportional basis, the losses incurred by the Russians and the Germans in World War II." (When in the Course of Human Events, p 195). Hummel notes that the losses of the CSA are close to those suffered by the French in World War I, but slightly less than suffered by the Germans in World War II (p 282). For the sake of perspective, it should be noted that half of the male babies born in France in 1900 died in World War I.
Ultimately, Foote may be correct about the failure of the American adventure. Forrest McDonald notes in States' Rights and the Union that
Patriots of all stripes accepted the primacy of the states as a fact of political life, but they were far from unanimously happy about it...Nationally oriented groups in the middle states and lower South tended to be aristocrats (Hudson Valley patroons in New York, rice plantation families in the lower South) or wealthy merchants in Philadelphia who regarded states' rights republicans as radical democrats posing a genuine threat to social and political stability...The two groups had hardened into factions in Congress before the end of 1776, and their enmity and mutual distrust continued after the war. (pp 11-12)
In fact, the "enmity and mutual distrust" continued into the Alien and Sedition Acts, then into the War of 1812, and ultimately into the War for Southern Independence; it continues to this day in the struggle between those who want "more freedom, less government" and those who thirst for unlimited government.
More importantly, it must be made explicit that within five months of the Declaration of Independence, those Americans, or, rather, those British subjects living in Britain's American colonies, who had joined together to gain independence from Britain (i.e., to secede), were drifting toward disunion because they did not share substantive notions of political philosophy. Although the colonists were able to unite in their desire to be free of English oppression, they were not able to unite in their desires for shaping the new American nation.
As other writers have argued, the philosophical divide between the North and South may be traced to the divide between Massachusetts Puritans and Virginia planters, and back to the divisions in England between Cavaliers and Roundheads (Cromwell's Puritans).
The history of American differences in political philosophy aside, the Northern view of the war glosses over or mishandles important questions about secession and the Northern conduct of the war.
First, the disenfranchisement of Southerners who had supported the Confederacy, and the attendant "loyalty oaths" which were imposed upon them, come very close to an inquisition. As the Northern abolitionist Lysander Spooner wrote of the oaths,
On general principles of law and reason, all the oaths which, since the war, have been given by Southern men, that they will obey the laws of Congress, support the Union, and the like, are of no validity. Such oaths are invalid, not only because they were extorted by military power, and threats of confiscation...they are in contravention of men's natural right to do as they please about supporting the government
Loyalty oaths have become anathema in the United States, in part because they were used against Communists. And yet it is apparently laudable that the North imposed such oaths.
Second, despite Abraham Lincoln's flaming lie that "the Union is older than the states" — which makes as much sense as the claim that "my marriage is older than my wife and I" — Article One of the Paris Peace Treaty of 1783, which ended the American War of Independence, states that
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.
In international law, a "state" is an entity that has 1) a defined territory and 2) a permanent population, 3) under control of its own government, 4) that engages in, or has capacity to engage in, formal relations with such other entities. The American colonies, then, were "states," just like France is a "state."
Statehood is also founded on the recognition of a state by other sovereign states. Pope Pius IX, head of the Papal States, consistently addressed Jefferson Davis as the President of the CSA.
These standards of international law have been adopted by the United States. They are not standards which the United States refuses to recognize. Thus, the American states, for purposes of international law, even if they did not meet the four criteria already, came to be sovereign nations when they were recognized by England. And, as a matter of international law, the CSA was a "state" as well. It had 1) territory, 2) population, 3) control by its government, and 4) it engaged in formal relations with other states, e.g. the Papal States.
The federal courts took contradictory approaches to secession. James Ostrowski points out that:
In Coleman v. Tennessee, the Supreme Court held military occupation lawful, not on constitutional grounds, but by resorting to international law principles...Thus, to justify the otherwise unconstitutional military occupation of a state, the Supreme Court treats that state as if it were an independent nation, implicitly recognizing the validity of its secession. (174).
And yet in Virginia v. West Virginia (1870), the syllabus preceding the case declares that
A convention professing to represent the State of Virginia, which assembled in Richmond in February, 1861, attempted by a so-called ‘ordinance of secession' to separate that State from the Union, and combined with certain other Southern States to accomplish that separation by arms. The people of the northwestern part of the State, who were separated from the eastern part by a succession of mountain ranges and had never received the heresy of secession, refused to acquiesce in what had been thus done, and organized themselves to defend and maintain the Federal Union. The idea of a separate State government soon developed itself; and an organic convention of the State of Virginia, which in June, 1861, organized the State on loyal principles-‘the Pierpont government'- and which new organization was acknowledged by the President and Congress of the United States as the true State government of Virginia-passed August 20th, 1861, an ordinance by which they ordained that a new State be formed and erected out of the territory included within certain boundaries...
On this view, the state of Virginia didn't really secede, and the state legislature wasn't really the state legislature — it was just a convention "professing to represent" Virginia. Those guys! And it was the South which started the war. And so, the loyal state of Virginia (which had never left the Union), decided to make West Virginia out of itself. On this view, secession, it must be noted, was not merely an incorrect legal theory but a "heresy."
Northern political philosophy dances back and forth in an incoherent daze. Had the Southern states actually left the union, such that they had to be readmitted, or had the Southern states only attempted to leave the union? As Hummel observes,
because most Northerners agreed that the seceding states had not legally left the Union, these states counted toward the total for ratifying the [13th] Amendment. Only their ratifications, coupled with those from the North, provided the necessary three-fourths...The reconstructed governments were...in the anomalous position of being recognized by the President but not by Congress, of being legitimate for the purpose of ratifying the Thirteenth Amendment but not for the purpose of having representation within the national government. (Hummel, 297, 299)
Both claims, however, cannot be true. Either the Southern states left, and were re-admitted to the Union they had left, or the Southern states did not leave, in which case they did not need to be re-admitted.
The consequences of the Northern inability to take a consistent view of the Southern secession are overwhelming. Justice George Comstock, a member of the New York Court of Appeals (the highest court in the state, despite the name) and a founder of Syracuse University, observed that
If Mr. Davis is right as to all the circumstances and results flowing from separation, then the seceded states are the rightful possession of a perfect sovereignty...[the Civil War then] was a war of invasion and conquest, for which there is no warrant in the Constitution, but which is condemned by the rules of Christianity, and the law of the civilized world. (When in the Course of Human Events, 182).
And yet the federal courts do not consistently decide whether the Southern states did or did not leave the union, nor do they adopt a consistent theory to explain either side of the question.
Third, although at least four Southern states make legal arguments in their Declarations of Secession (which were issued after the states had seceded, by way of explanation and legal justification) which mention slavery, they do not do so to incite popular support for secession. For one, secession was already desired by the populace. Second, if the intention were to engender popular support for secession by reference to slavery, this was a manifest failure; as Tom DiLorenzo notes in "Libertarians and the Confederate Battle Flag," the evidence of thousands upon thousands of letters written by Confederate soldiers fails to disclose mention of slavery as a reason for fighting. Instead, the soldiers professed to be fighting for liberty and independence.
Instead, the declarations mention slavery as proof of the fact that the federal government, as well as the northern states, already had destroyed the constitution, therefore relieving the southern states of any obligation to remain in the union; indeed, the declarations go so far as to declare it a duty to secede to escape such abuses. The South Carolina declaration, for example, argues that
The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments on the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.
The declarations of secession issued by South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia and Texas are explicitly legalistic, and read like complaints for breach of contract. The documents mention slavery in reference to the federal government's selective enforcement of the laws, as well as its unconstitutional support for Northern manufacturing interest by means of tariffs upon imports (which were paid by Southern planters).
These four states, then, can be said to have seceded over the failure of federal authorities to protect slavery and the federal tariffs, both of which were seen as failures to uphold the Constitution.
(By the way, as Thomas DiLorenzo notes in "Yankee Confederates: New England Secession Movements Prior to the War Between the States" (Chapter 7 of Secession, State and Liberty), these are exactly the same sort of arguments made by Northern Federalists such as John Quincy Adams (the 6th president) in 1803 over the Louisiana Purchase, in 1809 over the embargo, and at the Hartford Convention in 1814 over the War of 1812).
It must be noted, however, that the entire South did not secede at the same time. Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina seceded only after Lincoln's unconstitutional call for troops to invade the states who had already seceded. Thus, Jeffrey Rogers Hummel (p 8) argues that slavery and secession must be viewed as separate issues; even if some states seceded over slavery, this does not automatically justify a war to prevent such secession.
Fourth, the Union Army's treatment of the South was criminal. Sherman's march to the sea was the very definition of barbarism. As Charles Adams notes (Chapter 8), at the same time as the war was going on, the first Geneva Convention (1863) formalized the laws of war which nations had recognized for nearly 300 years. Included among war crimes under international law were: 1) attacking defenseless cities and towns, 2) plundering and destroying civilian property, and 3) confiscating non-necessities from civilians, or not paying for necessities which were taken. Sherman's march to the sea violated all three norms of international law.
The disregard for international law in the destruction of the South is instructive. Stalin famously wondered how many divisions the Pope had at his disposal. In this case, Lincoln had more troops than Jeff Davis. As is often remarked, the only thing proved by the war was that an industrial nation with a population of 20 million could militarily defeat an agricultural nation with a population of 9 million.
This brings to mind the trial and execution of Charles I. At his trial, Charles demanded to know "by whose authority" he was being tried, since it is "the authority of the King in Parliament" which was held to empower Parliament to act. Of course, the Parliament never answered his question, because the only answer was that Parliament had no authority over the king. And so Charles I was executed. (For two great accounts of the reign and death of Charles I, see Charles I: The Personal Monarch, 2nd Ed., by Charles Carlton, and Charles I, part of the British History in Perspective series, by Michael B. Young). It is a hard truth to accept, but sometimes human beings act as if might makes right, and the law be damned.
No wonder Robert E. Lee, in 1870, told the former Confederate governor of Texas, Fletcher Stockdale: "Governor, if I had foreseen the use those people [Yankees] designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in my right hand." (When in the Course of Human Events, 219-20).
The cases of the CSA and Charles I are not isolated events. Bonnie Prince Charlie, for example, is acknowledged to have had the legal right to the English throne — and yet he died trying to enforce his right. The USA systematically broke numerous treaties with the Indian tribes, who remain, to this day, the poster-nation for federal welfare "largesse," with third-world poverty and health statistics. The Baltic republics of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania — allegedly "liberated" by the Soviets — remained under Soviet rule for roughly 40 years. Poland has spent the majority of her history as the conquered province of various empires. The "enlightened" European nations which opposed American slavery spent the next 100 years carving out territorial empires in Africa.
All too often in human affairs, might makes right.
One key to the preservation of Western civilization is to acknowledge that such a state of affairs is unjust and immoral.
In that regard, the proper view of Abraham Lincoln is essential to the restoration of American liberty.
The historical difficulty in adjudicating cases of secession, and therefore in arguing over the fate of the South, is that there is no judge in a case of secession. Since international law holds statehood and recognition to be political questions, might tends to make right in the international arena. Where the colonial secession from England is concerned, there was no dispute because the two parties — the colonies and England — agreed among themselves to end their hostilities and go their separate ways.
When the American states later changed their system of government from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution of 1789, Britain and France did not complain because this was an internal arrangement of the colonies, similar in international significance to the question of whether to call one house of the legislature the Upper House or the Senate, or whether to paint the Senate chambers blue or red.
But secession tends to be a political question because if a state secedes, a new state comes into being that did not exist before, with territory and people that used to "belong" to another state. All the legal arguments merely attempt, as Ostrowski notes Abe Lincoln did in Congress, to persuade the politicians how to act in practice. Ultimately, might made right for Abraham Lincoln, flowery rhetoric notwithstanding.
In conclusion, consider Lincoln's actions by the standard found in Montesquieu: have Lincoln's actions served to preserve the free condition of the United States? In a word, no.
Overwhelmingly, the evidence demonstrates that Lincoln did not preserve the freedom of the United States, but expanded governmental power at the expense of individual liberty.
Lincoln's only claim to have acted for liberty is that he freed the slaves. Ignoring for the sake of argument the great problems with this claim, what sort of freedom is today enjoyed by the descendants of the freed slaves? The freedom to do what the government (whether federal, state, or local) allows them to do, and no more. This is of course not to endorse or defend the abomination which is slavery. Slavery is the ultimate denial of human liberty. Rather, this is to point out that Lincoln's war, and his handling of the end of slavery in America, was a long-term disaster for American liberty:
the Civil War [is] America's real turning point. In the years ahead, coercive authority would wax and wane with year-to-year circumstances, but the long-term trend would be unmistakable. Henceforth there would be no more major victories of Liberty over Power. In contrast to the whittling away of government that had preceded Fort Sumter, the United States had commenced its halting but inexorable march toward the welfare-warfare state of today. (Hummel 359)
Marshall DeRosa, in The Confederate Constitution of 1861: An Inquiry into American Constitutionalism, provides quotations from Richard Henry Lee and T.S. Eliot which parallel Montesquieu's concern:
Richard Henry Lee, 1787: The present moment discovers a new face in our affairs. Our object has been all along to reform our federal system and to strengthen our governments, to establish peace, order and justice in the community; but a new object now presents. The plan of government now proposed is evidently calculated totally to change, in time, our condition as a people. Instead of being thirteen republics under a federal head, it is clearly designed to make us one consolidated government...This consolidation of the states has been the object of several men in this country for some time past. Whether such a change can ever be effected in any manner, whehter it can be effected without convulsions and civil wars, whether such a change will not totally destroy the liberties of this country, time can only determine.
T.S. Eliot, 1949: The real revolution in that country was not what is called the Revolution, but is a consequence of the Civil War; after which arose a plutocratic elite; after which the expansion and material development of the country was accelerated; after which was swollen that stream of mixed immigration, bringing (or rather multiplying) the danger of development into a caste system which has not yet been quite dispelled. For the sociologist, the evidence from America is not yet ripe.
Lee wrote at the time of the ratification of the Constitution; T.S. Eliot wrote in the aftermath of World War II. Fifty-two years since Eliot wrote, the evidence of American public life demonstrates that government power has continued to expand, while the realm of American liberty has grown ever smaller. This is not a good thing. As Jose Ortega y Gasset observed in 1930, "The result of this tendency will be fatal. Spontaneous social action will be broken up over and over again by State intervention; no new seed will be able to fructify. Society will have to live for the State, man for the governmental machine." (The Revolt of the Masses).
Lincoln declared that he fought the war to preserve the Union, and indeed, he did so. The Union, however, was preserved in name only, while the formerly free condition of America was subjugated to the power of government. This is the reason for Hummel's title — Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men — which, ironically, comes from a cautionary speech given by Lincoln. In his address before the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois on January 27, 1838, "The young Lincoln was warning about the potential danger of a future Napoleon subverting the United States Constitution." As Lincoln stated, "Towering genius disdains a beaten path...It thirsts and burns for distinction; and, if possible, it will have it, whether at the expense of emancipating slaves, or enslaving freemen." (Hummel 366)
Returning to Montesquieu, consider his account of the nature of political unions:
What is called union in a body politic is a very equivocal thing. The true kind is a union of harmony, whereby all the parts, however opposed they may appear, cooperate for the general good of society — as dissonances in music cooperate in producing overall concord. In a state where we seem to see nothing but commotion there can be union — that is, a harmony resulting in happiness, which alone is true peace. It is as with the parts of the universe, eternally linked together by the action of some and the reaction of others. (93)
Following Montesquieu's account, the "true kind of union" must be seen to have died with secession, if not earlier. What sort of union, then, did Lincoln preserve by force of arms? As Montesquieu continues,
in the concord of Asiatic despotism — that is, of all government which is not moderate — there is always real dissension. The worker, the soldier, the lawyer, the magistrate, the noble are joined only inasmuch as some oppress the others without resistance. And, if we see any union there, it is not citizens who are united but dead bodies buried one next to the other." (94)
Recall that the quotation is taken from Montesquieu's Considerations on the fall of the Romans. In the works of the Roman historians, references to "Asiatic despots" are not uncommon. The reason for this is that, after the fall of the Republic, even the emperors were allegedly answerable to the people through the Senate, unlike the absolutist "Asian" monarchs whom the Romans encountered. In Rome, citizens possessed liberties which even the emperors were not supposed to violate.

Editors note: And so there you have it. why Confederates still battle against an overwhelming foe to this day. Honor and privilege are our current tasks. 

<![CDATA[Their America, and Ours.]]>Tue, 07 Nov 2017 17:02:47 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/their-america-and-oursBy Patrick J. Buchanan

“Meet you at Peace Cross.”
In northwest D.C. in the 1950s, that was an often-heard comment among high schoolers headed for Ocean City.

The Peace Cross, in Bladensburg, Maryland, was a 40-feet concrete memorial to the 49 sons of Prince George’s County lost in the Great War. Paid for by county families and the American Legion, it had stood since 1925.

Before the Beltway was built, Peace Cross, at the junction of U.S. Route 1 and Maryland Route 450, was a landmark to us all.

Last month, two federal judges from the 4th Circuit ruled that Peace Cross “excessively entangles the government and religion” and must come down. A suggested compromise was to saw the arms off, so the monument ceases to be an offensive cross.

One wonders: At what moment did Peace Cross begin to violate the Constitution?

Answer: Never. No alteration has been made to the cross in a century. The change has come in the minds of intolerant judges and alienated elites where the dirty creek of anti-Christian bigotry now flows into the polluted stream of anti-Americanism.

Both are manifest in the rampage to rip down memorials to the men who brought Western Civilization to the New World and made America the great and good country we were blessed to inherit.

Monday, on Laura Ingraham’s Fox News show, White House Chief of Staff Gen. John Kelly called Robert E. Lee “an honorable man,” who chose to defend the people among whom he had been raised.

“It was always loyalty to state first in those days,” said Kelly, when asked his view on Alexandria’s Episcopal Church taking down plaques to its greatest parishioners, Lee and George Washington.

An explosion of outrage greeted Kelly’s defense of Lee.

Yet, what has changed in half a century? As Ingraham noted, FDR, an icon of liberalism, referred to Lee as “one of our greatest American Christians and one of our greatest American gentlemen.”

Asked in 1960 how he could keep a portrait of a man who tried to “destroy our government” in his Oval Office, President Eisenhower wrote his critic back:

”General Robert E. Lee was one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was a poised and inspiring leader, true to the high trust reposed in him by millions of his fellow citizens; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his faith in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history…
“To the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the Nation’s wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.
“Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall.”

Have some terrible new truths been unearthed about Lee we did not know in 1960?
No. The change has taken place in the poisoned minds of modernity.

Some will never concede there was principle or honor in the cause of a South that declared independence in 1860-61, emulating the 13 colonies that declared their independence in 1776.

In his tribute to Lee in 1960, Ike addressed what was at issue in 1860 that brought on the war.

“We need to understand that at the time of the War Between the States the issue of secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.”

Ike refers not to a “Civil War,” but to the “War Between the States.” And correctly so. For the South did not seek to bring down the U.S. government, or overturn Lincoln’s election, or seize power in the capital — but to leave the Union, to secede, as Jefferson and John Adams voted to secede from Britain in 1776.

Asked on Fox News about what is happening today with the public insults to our national anthem and the desecration of our monuments, Justice Clarence Thomas raises questions being asked by many Americans:

“What binds us? What do we all have in common anymore? … We always talk about E pluribus unum. What’s our unum now? We have the pluribus. What’s the unum?”

The spirit that produced the war in the 1860s, and lasting division in the 1960s, is abroad again. A great secession of the heart is underway.
<![CDATA[What I Learned at “Racial Justice” Re-indoctrination Camp]]>Mon, 06 Nov 2017 15:46:11 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/what-i-learned-at-racial-justice-re-indoctrination-campBy Thomas DiLorenzo

Several months ago the president of Loyola University Maryland, Brian Linnane, announced to the faculty that he had been thinking a lot about the Baltimore riots that took place two years earlier.  (The riots, you may recall, were a response to the death of a local black drug gangster while in a police van after he had been arrested.  All of the police involved, most of whom were black, were eventually acquitted at trial.  The rioters looted the CVS pharmacies in town, emptying them of oxycodone and other painkillers, then burned them to the ground along with police cars, private homes, and public buildings. The former mayor of Baltimore publicly referred to the rioters as “our children” and instructed the police to stand down and “give them their space” to loot, vandalize, and burn down parts of her city).

In response to all of this the college president decided that what is needed to reduce the likelihood of such events in the future is to put the affluent, mostly white, Loyola University Maryland faculty through a round of cultural Marxist “racial justice” training.  Such language reminded me of Chinese and Vietnamese communist “re-indoctrination camps” where attendees were pressured/coerced into becoming good little obedient communists.  So, naturally, I had to attend to see what it was all about.

What I learned is that all the problems of the 65 percent black population in Baltimore city (one of the highest murder rates in the world, poverty, horrible government schools, criminal gangs randomly attacking tourists at the Inner Harbor, street crime run amok, “no-go zones” where even the police won’t go for fear of being shot at, etc.) are caused by “white privilege.”  The lowliest, indigent, white redneck who lives in a rusted-out old school bus down by the river in Tennessee is “privileged,” by definition, whereas the children of multimillionaire Barack Obama or multimillionaire Tiger Woods are not privileged.  In fact, since they are black they are, by definition, “oppressed” by the white redneck who lives in the rusted-out old school bus down by the river.

A close second in terms of the causes of Baltimore’s problems, I learned, was the bigotry of white men who died fifty years ago or longer.  We were shown parts of a video documentary about “the history of racism” up to the 1950s and were told that little or no progress has been made in Baltimore’s black community because of this permanently-debilitating history.  This is why “things never seem to change in the city,” I was told by one of the presenters.  No mention was made of the fact that, just a few miles down the road in Columbia, Maryland one will find some of the most affluent black professionals in the world who share this same history.  What they don’t share is being ruled by the extreme leftist Baltimore city government for the past half century with their corrupt police and courts that refuse to imprison violent criminals, their extortionate taxes, lavish welfare handouts, and a completely dysfunctional school system ruined by teachers’ unions.

I also learned that only white people can be racists or commit racist acts.  This is because the cultural Marxists have redefined racism to mean an act of discrimination plus “power,” and only white heterosexual males can wield this “power.”  Several of my faculty colleagues sheepishly questioned this obviously bogus idea, based on their life experiences, but got no response from the presenters.

I asked the presenters the following hypothetical:  If the Congressional Black Caucus got a law passed that funded “minority scholarships” for black students and advertised that white people need not apply (we do have such programs), would that be discriminatory?  I did not get a yes or no answer, but another mini lecture about white privilege.
Of course, only a moron would believe that only white people can be racists.  All the “racial justice” presenters would have to do to learn this would be to listen to some of the harsh racist language on several of the black-owned radio stations in Maryland.  That does not fit with the virtual reality they have invented for themselves, so there is no chance of that happening.

Although the supposed purpose of all of this was to address the root causes of the problems of crime, poverty, and lack of education that plague Baltimore, the work ethic-destroying and family-destroying effects of the welfare state were studiously ignored and not mentioned at all as possible problems.  Nor was the awful, corrupt, teachers’ union-controlled government school monopoly, the extortionate property taxes that have driven tens of thousands from the city, the squalor and crime in the government housing projects, all the crime caused by the government’s war on drugs, and myriad other government policies and interventions that have been shown by social scientists for decades to be the real causes of “urban decay”.
In fact, the seminar ended with a power point presentation that recommended that what “people of color” really need is “more resources,” which is the usual leftist code language for more welfare, more money down the rat hole of the government school monopoly, more taxes, and more bureaucracy.   This is always espoused as though it is a brand new idea that has never been tried before.  This of course is the point of white privilege seminars – to censor out all discussion of how “the legacy of liberalism and interventionism” is the real problem with cities like Baltimore, not the legacy of slavery and discrimination.

On the same day as the racial justice seminar the front page of the Baltimore Sun and the chatter on local talk radio included a discussion of how, on Halloween night, a gang of inner-city “youth” armed with baseball bats and wooden planks went around the city bludgeoning people and stealing their wallets and cellphones.  This was two weeks after a family of ten tourists from New Jersey was attacked at the Inner Harbor by a gang of “youths” who punched every one of them in the face, including the 80-year-old grandmother, knocked them to the ground, kicked them, robbed them, and then disappeared.  Now that I have been re-educated I understand that this was merely the latest manifestation of white privilege in Baltimore.]]>
<![CDATA[America’s Hamiltonian Empire of Lies]]>Thu, 02 Nov 2017 19:21:56 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/americas-hamiltonian-empire-of-lies
Thomas DiLorenzo

In his essay, “Anatomy of the State,” Murray Rothbard wrote of how states preserve their power with a number of tools, most notably an alliance with “intellectuals.”  In return for power, positions, and pelf, the “intellectuals” work diligently to persuade “the majority” that “their government is good, wise and, at least, inevitable.”  This is the “the vital stock task of the intellectuals.”  The “molding of opinion” is what “the State most desperately needs” if it is to maintain is powers, wrote Rothbard.  The citizens themselves do not invent theories of the benevolent state; that is the job of the “intellectuals.”

In his outstanding new book, How Alexander Hamilton Screwed Up America (foreword by Ron Paul), historian Brion McClanahan explains with sterling scholarship how one “intellectual” in particular, Alexander Hamilton, invented out of whole cloth a mythical founding of the American state that bears no resemblance at all to the actual, historical founding.  His intellectual successors, most notably Supreme Court justices John Marshall, Joseph Story, and Hugo Black, cemented this myth of the benevolent, consolidated, monopolistic state through decades of legal opinions based on a mountain of lies.

This of course is exactly what John C. Calhoun observed during his time when he wrote in his 1850 Disquisition on Government that a written constitution would inevitably be “rewritten” by “the party of government” in a way that would neuter it as a source of limitations on governmental powers.

Hamilton has become “the new hero of the Left,” writes McClanahan, for the Left has finally realized that he was “the architect of modern big government in America,” something that many conservatives have long failed to realize.  Hamilton’s voluminous writings formed the bedrock for generations of legalistic arguments that perverted the Constitution and created the “insane modern leftist legal world.”  It was Hamilton and his ideological heirs who invented the “loose construction” and “implied powers” theories of the constitution, which has so “screwed up” America.

McClanahan shows what a duplicitous liar Hamilton was, speaking out of both sides of his mouth, saying one thing in his Federalist Papers essays, and then spending the rest of his life doing exactly the opposite.  He defended states’ rights and federalism in these essays but when pressed by Jefferson and Madison, he “would often backtrack and advance positions he favored during the Philadelphia Convention, namely for a supreme central authority with virtually unlimited power, particularly for the executive branch.”  This was “the real Hamilton,” who “made a habit of lying when the need arose.”

It was Hamilton who first spread the outrageous, ahistorical lie that the states were never sovereign and that the Constitution was somehow ratified by “the whole people” and not by state conventions, as required by Article 7 of the Constitution itself.  It was Hamilton who Calhoun must have been thinking about when he warned of “intellectuals” reinterpreting the constitution in a way that would essentially destroy it.  Hamilton’s lifelong goal, as McClanahan demonstrates, was to subjugate the citizens of the states to the central government and render the states irrelevant and powerless.  The most Hamiltonian of all presidents, Abraham Lincoln, finally achieved this goal.

The Machiavellian Hamilton as Treasury Secretary assumed the state war debts as a means of creating a giant system of political patronage.  He put unemployed war veterans on the dole, thereby initiating the American welfare state.  He led an invasion of Pennsylvania with 15,000 conscripts to attempt to put down the Whiskey Rebellion.  Nothing came of his invasion since all the whiskey tax “rebels” were pardoned by George Washington.  Nevertheless, the invasion served Hamilton’s purpose of allowing him to denounce all resisters of state power as somehow being clones of the violent French Jacobins.
The subject of a national bank run by politicians out of the national capital was discussed at the constitutional convention and decisively rejected.  Hamilton rewrote that history, too, to make the case for the constitutionality of central banking. His worshipful disciple, Chief Justice John Marshall, would cement this idea into place in his McCullock v. Maryland decision.

Hamilton’s bogus arguments in favor of a central bank were “a turning point in American constitutional history” because that is where he invented the fantasy of “implied powers” of the Constitution.  Once this path was taken, the constitution had the potential of becoming nothing more than a rubber stamp of approval of anything the state ever wished to do, limited only by the imaginations of Hamiltonian members of the judiciary.

John Marshall was a virtual intellectual clone of Hamilton who spoke favorably of federalism, but codified federal supremacy and “implied powers” in his Supreme Court decisions, described in clear-as-a-bell writing by McClanahan.

Even more destructive of constitutional liberty were the writings of that great Bostonian blowhard, Justice Joseph Story (“Marshall’s right-hand man”), whose Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, written while he was both a Supreme Court justice and a Harvard law professor, have exerted enormous influence on the American legal and political systems. Like Marshall and Hamilton, Story “suffered from historical amnesia” and “manufactured an image of the American founding and American government that did not match the historical record.”  He lied through his teeth, in other words, to advance the idea that the founding fathers created a consolidated, monopolistic, centralized state even more powerful and monopolistic than the British empire against which they had fought a war of secession.  His lies that the states were never sovereign, that the central government is “sovereign” in all matters, implied powers, and all the rest, were repeated by Abraham Lincoln, beginning with his first inaugural address, as he “justified” committing treason by levying war upon the Southern states (the exact definition of treason in Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution).  Hence, it is the Hamiltonian, nationalist myth, not Jeffersonian states’ rights and federalism, that made the “Civil War” inevitable.  All of this, McClanahan points out, was always thought to be necessary by generations of Hamiltonians if they were to ever implement their economic policy program that Hamilton himself labeled “the American System.”  This “system” of protectionist tariffs, central banking, corporate welfare, and a large public debt was anything but “American.”  It was the rotten, corrupt, British system known as “mercantilism” brought to America.

Then there is the twentieth-century Hamiltonian Justice Hugo Black, FDR’s favorite Ku Kluk Klansmen.  Nominated to the Supreme Court in 1937, Black had been a member of the KKK ever since the early 1920s.  He used his association with the KKK, and its “nationalist agenda” of ridding America of “immigrants, blacks, and Jews,” and its “anti-Catholic agenda,” to become prominent in Alabama politics.  His rabid support for FDR’s presidential bids won him a seat on the Supreme Court.
Hugo Black’s main demolition of constitutional liberty came in the form of his opinions regarding the “incorporation” of the Bill of Rights to include the states.  This was never intended by the founders, who said nothing in opposition to the state-sanctioned “official” religions that existed at the time, among other things.

Thanks to Hamiltonian Hugo, virtually every issue facing Americans today is a federal issue.  His “incorporation doctrine” was the final nail in the coffin of American federalism, as McClanahan explains.  This is why the federal judiciary claims “sovereignty” over almost everything, from same-sex marriage to “transgendger bathrooms,” all aspects of the welfare state – everything and anything.  This is Hamilton’s America – a leftist lawyereaucracy hell bent on imposing totalitarian rule on the rest of us.

Don’t waste your money on that stupid New York City play about “Hamilton.”  Spend a tiny fraction of that theater ticket money on How Alexander Hamilton Screwed Up America instead, and educate yourself and all of those around you about their real American history.]]>
<![CDATA[Historic Christ Church Falls To Political Correctness]]>Thu, 02 Nov 2017 19:18:04 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/historic-christ-church-falls-to-political-correctnessBy Paul Craig Roberts

Christ Church in Alexandria, Virginia, was constructed during the years 1765 and 1773. It was designed by James Wren, a relative of Sir Christopher Wren, the most famous English architect. The colonial era, pre-Revolutionary War church, is a national historic landmark.

It was my church when I lived in Old Town Alexandria, a colonial settlement along the Potomac River. It was also the church of my neighbor, Henry “Joe” Fowler, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury for President John F. Kennedy and Secretary of the Treasury for President Johnson. Another neighbor was US Air Force General Benton Partin, whose study proved conclusively that the Murrah Federal Office building in Oklahoma City blew up from the inside out and not from the outside in from McVeigh’s truck bomb.

Joe Fowler and I used to talk about how facts were no longer part of any aspect of Washington’s policy or media reporting. And this was long ago in the 80s and 90s. Imagine today when it is the obligation of the US media to lie for the CIA and the DNC.

Christ Church was the church for George Washington and for Robert E. Lee and for other notables of our early history. Robert E. Lee was married to George Washington’s great-granddaughter.

The congregation was proud of the church, its history, and simple beauty. In addition to the spiritual dimension, there was the historical one. The Episcopal service was beautiful, and the rector’s sermon was always short. My young son could sit through the service, and the choir and organ were wonderful.

With such fond memories, I was astonished to hear from the Senior Warden that Christ Church has decided to remove the “marble memorial plaques to George Washington and Robert Edward Lee in our worship space.” Apparently, our first president’s sin is that he owned Slaves in the 18th century, a common practice at the time when white, Indian, and black slaves were common across the world. Robert E. Lee’s sin is that he “fought for slavery,” a lie that I and Thomas DiLorenzo recently refuted on this website.

I am puzzled by the reference to “marble memorial plaques.” What I remember is small silver plaques, measuring a few inches by a few inches, that designated the pews in which the Washington family and the Lee family sat. I often wondered years ago that no one had yet pried off the silver plaques for souvenirs. Perhaps they have and were replaced by marble plaques. On the other hand, perhaps I never noticed the marble plaques, which leaves me wondering if the marble plaques are to be removed, what about the silver ones on the pews. Who gets those?

One doesn’t quite know what to make of history being erased like this. Washington and Lee (and there is a university of that name) are probably the two most decent and honorable people the United States has ever produced. But their association with an ancient, by US standards, church, which Washington helped to found, is to be erased.

From the standpoint of its traditional parishioners, the Episcopal Church has departed the Christian religion. The Episcopal Church has gone against the scriptures by ordaining women and LGBT people, and by sanctioning same-sex “marriage,” although the Book of Common Prayer still describes marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

But, I mean, really, what is consistency when you have to be trendy?

Being trendy for Christ Church means deep-sixing its own history. The congregation today must be different from the one Joe Fowler, with whom I had breakfast most Sunday mornings, and I knew.

America is disappearing. The country I live in today bears no resemblance to the one into which I was born. Perhaps I should write about what it was like to be an American when America was still present in the world.

Military men are best, perhaps, at appraising other military men. White House Chief of Staff General John Kellysays that Confederate General Robert E. Lee was ‘an honorable man.”

Lee was without any doubt far more honorable than Grant, Sherman, Sheridan and Lincoln, the four first war criminals of the modern era. The US military understands Robert E. Lee’s virtues and has named in Lee’s honor the barracks at West Point. As Lee’s statues are pulled down by the idiot American leftwing and its violent Antifa fascist thugs, a collection of inhuman Nazi scum, without doubt, the West Point barracks will have to be renamed the Obama Barracks, The Hillary Barracks, the Wolfowitz barracks, the Cheney barracks, the Netanyahu barracks.

For a soulless government that continues to bomb innocent people around the globe, calling the barracks of the US military academy after the most honorable Robert E. Lee is a total affront to Lee’s memory.]]>
<![CDATA[Bestselling Author and Former ESPN Host Releases Confederate Generals Civil War Portrait Book to Protest the Removal of Statues and Monuments]]>Mon, 23 Oct 2017 16:56:52 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/bestselling-author-and-former-espn-host-releases-confederate-generals-civil-war-portrait-book-to-protest-the-removal-of-statues-and-monumentsPicture

Mike Rothmiller 

PHOENIXSept. 26, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- Bestselling author and historian Mike Rothmiller released a new photographic portrait book featuring over 400 Confederate Generals of America's Civil War to protest the removal of confederate monuments.

Witnessing the senseless plague of monument destruction and erasure of American history, he initiated his protest by calling for the perseveration of Confederate history and statues by publishing the book, "The Confederate Generals of America's Civil War. A Photographic Portrait Book."  

Author Mike RothmillerRothmiller's books range from the first 50 years of America's founding to the psychological profile of Adolf Hitler.  As a result, he understands the significance of history and why it is necessary for current and future generations to learn and understand past events.

Rothmiller's quotes:

"The destruction and removal of historical monuments is a hallmark of all oppressive regimes."

"Sadly, today in America, some individuals and politicians have an irrational desire to join the ranks of the backward idealism of the Nazis, Taliban, and ISIS by destroying any item, statue, thought, utterance or book, they claim to be offensive in the slightest degree." 

"Without question, politicians agreeing and fostering this untenable position are in fact, embracing the lowest form of pandering to the loudest voices."

"Slavery remains a dark stain on American history, but it's a stain we and future generations cannot and must not forget.  Slavery was, and is, a cruel practice which must be abolished from the earth."

"Frankly, I suspect most of these protesters are ignorant of the basic facts, events, and motivations surrounding the Civil War."

"Removal of a monument should be voted on by the community. Not dictated by politicians."

"Sadly, for future generations of African Americans,  these people are selfishly attempting to steal their knowledge of the abhorrent treatment of their ancestors. That is disgraceful."

"This is a free speech issue for both sides of the debate.  But, remember, anytime a politician calls for the removal of history, it diminishes your freedom of speech and knowledge.  These politicians are in fact imposing government censorship on us all. History has proven when that occurs tyranny follows."

"All hate groups are vile.  However, destroying statues will not end their hate. It incites them."

"Throughout history the vilest and most hateful people also destroyed monuments. We see that today."

About the Author

Mike Rothmiller has authored over 20 non-fiction books which have received worldwide acclaim.  His non-fiction expose' LA Secret Police was a New York Times Bestseller.  He served in the Army National Guard and the LAPD.  As a detective in the Organized Crime Intelligence Division, he served as a representative to the United States Department of Justice Organized Crime Strike Force in Los Angeles. 

He's been a corporate president and served on many non-profit boards.
He hosted "The Gamesman" and "Sports Stop" on ESPN.
This book is available at Amazon.

To schedule an interview, email the author at 177490@email4pr.com

<![CDATA[A Legion of Devils]]>Sat, 14 Oct 2017 14:24:01 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/a-legion-of-devilsPicture

​By Al Benson

​A review of Karen Stokes, A Legion of Devils: Sherman in South Carolina (Shotwell Press, 2017).

Many of us have read about the horrendous things William Tecumseh Sherman did as he and his “bummers” marched through Georgia, things a lot of us would rather not have read about. However, if we are to properly understand our history we are often compelled to read material that is not necessarily “fun” reading, but is rather necessary reading so that we will have a fuller understanding of what really happened and why.

Such a book is Karen Stokes’ A Legion of Devils–Sherman in South Carolina, published by Shotwell Publishing in Columbia, South Carolina. Shotwell has published some very informative books on Southern history that more people need to be aware of and to read, so that we can begin to learn the history most of us were denied in government schools when we attended them.

Karen Stokes has written several books, but this may be one of the most important. It is a narrative, with many contemporary quotes, from people who were on the scene when Sherman invaded South Carolina toward the end of the War of Northern Aggression. If you think what he did in Georgia was bad, as the man says, “You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.” Yet we hardly ever read anything about what he did in (and to) South Carolina. Somehow his incendiary activities there and the base behavior of this troops there never seem to make it into the history books. South Carolina suffered every bit as much as Georgia did under Sherman’s benevolent hand.

Many instances of brutal treatment of civilians in South Carolina when Sherman passed through are recorded in Stokes’ book, including one where Yankee soldiers attempted to set fire to a bed with an old lady still in it. Such instances are too numerous for me to mention them all here, but I will list a few so you can get a general feeling for Sherman’s accomplishments in the Palmetto State.

The naive among us actually still believe that generals like Sherman, Sheridan, and Grant fought the war to free slaves from Southern bondage. Those on the ground there knew better. In the introduction to the book, on page viii, it is noted: “…the federal soldiers frequently mistreated them (the slaves)). A newspaper correspondent for the New York Tribune reported in its issue of December 7, 1861, that ‘one enterprising and unscrupulous (Federal) officer was caught in the act of assembling a cargo of Negroes for transportation and sale in Cuba…a Northern female physician who worked for the Freedmen’s Aid Society noted in her diary how disgracefully the black people of the Beaufort area were treated by the federal soldiers. She observed that “no colored woman was safe from the brutal lusts of the soldiers’, and that they were not punished for their offenses.”

When the city of Columbia was occupied by Sherman, the mayor and other municipal officers went to Sherman’s headquarters and officially surrendered the city and they received from Sherman the assurance that the city would be as safe as it would have been under the mayor’s administration. Suffice it to say, that was a bald-faced lie. The city was burned and Stokes goes into quite a bit of detail about how that was accomplished, again, quoting from people who were there and saw what happened. The sources for what she wrote were all primary sources.

She noted the comments of a Mrs. S. A. Crittenden of Greenville, South Carolina,  who said: “Oh! The utter desolation of a city in ashes and its people wanderers!  Even the very landmarks were lost, and you stood a stranger on your own threshold. Nothing was left but the smokeless chimneys, keeping ward over the widespread ruin. Hundreds of Yankees with ramrods and bayonets, were prodding the still smoking soil in quest of buried treasure.” And let us not kid ourselves–the Yankee soldiers, from officers on down, stole everything that was not nailed down–and what was nailed down they destroyed if they couldn’t pry it up! This was as much a grand looting expedition was it was an invasion!

And then they tried to blame the fires that destroyed the city of Wade Hampton’s retreating Confederate cavalry. On pages 40-44, Stokes provides General Hampton’s own statements about what really happened. On pages 54-56 are the comments of one Yankee soldier who disagreed with what his comrades were doing, and he pretty well laid out what they were doing. He noted: “…drunken soldiers rushing from house to house,emptying them of valuables and then firing them..Officers and men reveling on wines and liquors until the burning houses buried them in their drunken orgies.” So much for “preserving the Union and freeing the slaves!”

Stokes gave us the commentary of an August Conrad, a native of Germany, who had come to South Carolina in 1859 and had taken over his brother’s position as the Hanoverian Counsel.  He had thought it would be safer in Columbia that in Charleston, so he went to Columbia. Big mistake! He published a memoir later, when he was back (safely) in Germany, about his time in South Carolina that dealt with the burning of Columbia. It was translated into English y William H. Pleasants and published as The Destruction of Columbia, S.C. in 1879. In it he observed: “In the houses, on the streets, the infamous rabble plundered, destroyed, and raged as the Wild Hunt, just as if hell had broken loose.” Hell had broken loose–Sherman was in South Carolina with his Legion of Devils, and doing the devil’s work!

One of those Stokes quoted said: “The fall of Columbia stands quite unique in the history of the American war, but it was sufficient to sully the principle, the conduct, and the results of it, and must for many generations entail the hate of the South Carolinians toward their Northern brethren, who brought upon their forefathers such atrocious treatment.”

Starting on page 111, Stokes gives a timeline covering Sherman’s gentle ministrations in South Carolina, from the time he landed in Beaufort until the time he crossed the North Carolina border. Suffice it to say that it was much more of the same treatment that Columbia got, and his men were particularly vicious when it came to churches.

I have often wondered if Sherman had a touch of pyromania in his makeup, as his men burned everything they came across, no matter what or where it was. I can see destroying military objectives, that’s a part of war, but Sherman destroyed it all. He made war on civilians with more gusto than he made war on Confederate troops. Of course the civilians couldn’t fight back and so that made it easier.

When you look at the makeup of Sherman’s army, you have to wonder just how many ‘Forty-Eighter” socialists he had with him that reveled in the destruction of private property.
If you are going to have some idea of what the War of Northern Aggression was really all about, you need to read Stokes’ book, and Shotwell has done yeoman duty in putting it out there for you, because I don’t think you will get this kind of documentation much of anyplace else today given our politically correct environment.

<![CDATA[The Palmyra Massacre: Union Total War Policy in Missouri 1862]]>Fri, 06 Oct 2017 14:23:31 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/the-palmyra-massacre-union-total-war-policy-in-missouri-1862
​By Mike Scruggs – “This war differs from other wars, in this particular. We are not fighting armies but a hostile people and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war.”—Union General William T. Sherman.

Some of the first indications of Union leanings toward a Total War philosophy occurred in Missouri, which had since 1854 already experienced armed cross-border conflicts between Missouri partisans and Kansas “Jayhawkers.” A majority of Missouri’s population was of Southern origin and sympathy. By June 1861, Union forces had preemptively occupied St. Louis, the capitol in Jefferson City, and other strategic centers. However, most Missouri State Legislators were able to escape to Neosho, Missouri, and voted for Secession on October 31. One of the thirteen stars in the Southern Cross honors Missouri. Pro-secessionist Governor Claiborne Jackson and former Governor Sterling Price left to form the Missouri State Guard and join with Confederate forces in Arkansas. Other Southern sympathizers engaged in partisan warfare in Missouri. These Confederate partisans were generally treated as outlaws by Union officials. This outlaw status and mistreatment of their families and other Missouri civilians by Federal troops spawned the bloody vengeance raids of William Quantrill and William Anderson. More than one thousand military engagements took place in Missouri during the war. Missouri was the scene of the most drastic and repressive military actions ever directed against civilians in U.S. history. The Palmyra Massacre of October 1862 was only one of several incidents.

In September of 1862, Col. Joseph Porter, commanding a Missouri Confederate cavalry unit, moved into Northeastern Missouri to recruit volunteers and to achieve some limited military objectives. On September 12, Porter raided Palmyra, rescuing 45 Confederate prisoners and capturing among others, Col. Andrew Allsman. A recently retired Union cavalry leader in his sixties, Allsman had been assisting the Union Provost Marshall in Palmyra in identifying Southern sympathizers. Porter apparently released Allsman within a few days, but Allsman disappeared on the road back to Palmyra. On October 8, suspecting foul play against a valuable Unionist informant, the Union commander in the area, Col. John McNeil, acting through Provost Marshall William Strachan, posted a notice to Col. Porter that if Allsman was not returned safely by October 18, ten of the several dozen Southern sympathizers then held in the Palmyra and Hannibal jails would be selected for execution on that day. McNeil’s action was probably influenced by his instructions from Brigadier General J. W. Schofield on June 12 not to rest “until you have exterminated the rascals” [Southern partisans].

No one knew if Col. Porter was still in Missouri, and by October 17, no one had come forth with any news of the missing Unionist informant. Though many doubted that such an order would be carried out, ten men were selected that evening to die by firing squad at 1:00 PM the next day. One of these, Willis Baker, was suspected of murdering a Union neighbor. Another, Captain Thomas Sidener, who was soon to be married to a local girl, was a captured Confederate cavalry officer. According to the local Palmyra newspaper, the Missouri Courier, except for their Southern sympathies, the crimes of the other eight were unknown. Later that night at the Palmyra jail, Rev. James Green prepared them to meet their maker on the next day.

On the next morning, according to Judge Henry Clay Dean and Cole Younger, the young wife of William Humphrey, the mother of his several small children, went to Col. McNeil to plead for her husband’s life. When he cursed her, she fled in fear to Provost Marshall Strachan to persuade him to intercede. Strachan said it could be done for $300, and so through the kindness of two gentlemen she quickly raised the money. But when she returned, Strachan also demanded that she submit to his lustful desires. Mrs. Humphrey collapsed before him and was found later in a state of physical exhaustion and mental incoherence. Strachan then went to the jail and demanded that a substitute replace Humphrey. At first Humphrey adamantly refused to be replaced, but reminded that he was the sole provider to his young family by nineteen-year-old orphan, Hiram Smith, at last agreed to the change. And so it was that courageous young Hiram Smith took Humphrey’s place among the condemned men.

Three wagons carrying the ten condemned men and their coffins left the jail shortly before 11:00 AM and proceeded to the fairgrounds about a half mile east of town. Captain Sidener was wearing the suit he had purchased for his wedding. At the fairgrounds, a small military band played. Then the prisoners knelt in prayer and were briefly attended by Rev. R. M. Rhoades. Provost Marshall Strachan shook their hands, and they were seated on their coffins. They were offered blindfolds, but only a few took them. Facing them were 30 riflemen from the 2nd Missouri Militia. To each side were reserves. Only a few of the condemned men seemed to show any sign of fear. At the command to fire, the volleys did not occur simultaneously. Three of the prisoners including Captain Sidener were killed more or less instantly. Six wounded lay writhing and moaning on the ground, and one was not hit at all. The reserves dispatched the six wounded men and finally the seventh with pistol shots to the head. This ghastly series of executions took fifteen minutes.

The pro-Union Missouri Courier justified the execution of the ten Southern sympathizers, who had not received the benefit of formal charges, hearing, or trial, with these words:

“It seems hard that ten men should die for one. Under ordinary circumstances you would hardly be justified. But severe diseases demand severe remedies. The safety of the people is the supreme law. It overrules all other considerations. The madness of rebellion has been so deep seated that ordinary methods of cure are inadequate. To take life for life would be little intimidation to men seeking the hearts blood of an obnoxious enemy. They would well afford to make even exchanges under many circumstances. It is only by striking the deepest terror in them, causing them to respect the lives of loyal men that they can be taught to observe the obligation of humanity and of law.”

The Missouri Courier’s appalling and arrogant self-righteous philosophy was typical of the Radical Republicans and radical abolitionists of that era. It does not stem from any legitimate form of Christian morality, but from the abstract morality and expedient pragmatism of secular humanism. This was shameless self-justifying brutality masquerading as patriotism. But it was not patriotism. It was totalitarian statism.

To their credit, many other Northern newspapers including the then conservative New York Times were outraged. The bad publicity from the Palmyra executions was discussed in at least two of Lincoln’s Cabinet meetings. Less than six weeks later, after attempting to suppress further news and outcry, President Lincoln promoted Colonel McNeil to the rank of Brigadier General. A fellow Union officer brought charges against Provost Marshall William Strachan, finally resulting in his conviction in 1864. However, Union General William Rosecrans overturned the conviction.

Palmyra was not the only demonstration of Total War philosophy in Missouri. Two similar mass executions involving a total of 26 Confederate POWs and civilians occurred in the northeastern Missouri towns of Kirksville in August and Macon in September. Under Union Generals Ewing and Schofield, more than four-fifths of the families of three western Missouri counties were forced from their homes and lands and made to flee the state because of their sympathy and aid to Confederate partisans. Burning and pillaging of the homes and farms of Southern families elsewhere in Missouri were commonplace. Torture by strangulation became a standard method for forcing civilians to reveal the location of money and valuables or for deriving information on Confederate partisans. The stepfather of Jesse and Frank James was strangled to the point of brain damage.

Many courageous Union officers, including General George B. McClellan, opposed the Lincoln Administration’s Total War policies, but they did not prevail. Many Northern politicians also opposed these policies, but were unable to prevail in Congress. In 1907, the people of Palmyra, Missouri, erected a monument honoring their ten Southern patriots.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR   –  Mike Scruggs, Author and Columnist

a.k.a. Leonard M. Scruggs

 Mike Scruggs is the author of two books: The Un-Civil War: Shattering the Historical Myths; and Lessons from the Vietnam War: Truths the Media Never Told You, and over 600 articles on military history, national security, intelligent design, genealogical genetics, immigration, current political affairs, Islam, and the Middle East.

He holds a BS degree from the University of Georgia and an MBA from Stanford University. A former USAF intelligence officer and Air Commando, he is a decorated combat veteran of the Vietnam War, and holds the Distinguished Flying Cross, Purple Heart, and Air Medal. He is a retired First Vice President for a major national financial services firm and former Chairman of the Board of a classical Christian school.]]>
<![CDATA[Rewriting Your History By Destroying Your National Anthem–what they didn’t tell you]]>Fri, 29 Sep 2017 17:41:57 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/rewriting-your-history-by-destroying-your-national-anthem-what-they-didnt-tell-you
by Al Benson Jr.
Member, Board of Directors, Confederate Society of America

In my most recent article about the destruction of Southern history (and eventually all real US history) I noted that part of that destruction was the promotion of the “reality show” mentality and the promotion of continual sports extravaganzas. People can now watch continuous wall-to-wall sports programs literally every weekend as well as about three nights per week–giving them no time to think about anything of any greater depth than the batting averages of their favorite baseball players or the running yardage of their favorite football players. And then we have basketball, track, hockey, tiddly-winks and a host of others also.

And while there is nothing wrong with a little recreational viewing of various sports events  (I like to watch a good rodeo once in awhile myself) it has gotten to the point in this country now where the sports events are almost a form of idolatry.

Hopefully, some of that may be starting to change as some people begin to be rudely awakened to where some of our “sports” figures may really be at. They make millions of dollars a year and are able to live in the lifestyle of the rich and famous, yet when it comes to the National Anthem of the country where they have been so blessed, they can’t be bothered to stand up. In fact, they take the trouble to kneel in protest to that National Anthem. You have to wonder where some of these guys are politically–if they are even able to define a political thought. Patriotic they ain’t–somewhat Leftwing many of them may well be. And what about those that encourage them to participate in this inane stuff? You have to wonder how many of these encouragers have any leverage with the ball clubs these guys play for. Might be a good question for debate sometime.

So now we have many of these athletic “rocket scientists” kneeling in opposition to standing while the National Anthem is being played. They seem to feel that this country “oppresses” people of color and they buy into this “white privilege” claptrap. All I can say is, that with the millions many of them make every year, I’ve often had the thought that I wouldn’t mind being as financially “Oppressed” as they are. I suppose I shouldn’t say it, but I will anyway–people who make millions each year and still gripe about being “oppressed” are a batch of ingrates!

Why are they protesting the National Anthem? From the cultural Marxist viewpoint, there are several reasons, all of them part of the cultural Marxist agenda.

In the first place, the Anthem’s author, Francis Scott Key, was from the area around Frederick, Maryland. Back when Key was alive Maryland was considered a Southern state. Francis Scott Key was a Southerner. Reason One.

Key was born on a plantation in what was, at that point in history, Frederick County, Maryland. And Key’s family were (gasp! horror of horrors–slave owners!) That says most of it right there. Anyone who was a slave owner in the 1800s is, today, automatically beyond the pale–not even fit to be talked about except in a highly critical manner. Reason Two.

Francis Scott Key was a devout Episcopalian. As a youngster he had actually considered becoming an Episcopal priest, but ended up becoming a lawyer instead. I wonder if he ever reflected on his choice. He was active in his church. He helped found two Episcopal seminaries and was associated with the American Bible Society. So Francis Scott Key was a Christian. There’s Reason Three right there!

If you understand the mentality and the workings of the Shadow Government types in our day, you begin to see that there is a lot more to this protest against the National Anthem than you have been told about.

Key was a Southerner, a Christian, and was opposed to the radical abolitionism of the William Lloyd Garrison types. Therefore, he must be completely denigrated in front of what the Establishment feels are us stupid “deplorables” so we won’t gripe too much as they try to rewrite yet one more part of our history and try to replace our National Anthem with I want the world to sing (Obama’s first choice) or Kumbiya, or the Communist Internationale  or some other worthy Marxist ditty. Because changing our history and our perspective on our history is what all of this is really all about–and they are not above using some of the “useful idiots” in the NFL to accomplish that.

So, as you can begin to perceive, there is lots more involved here than a batch of spoiled brat athletes getting their panties in a twist. This is part of the planned assault on our culture, heritage, Christian faith, and history. We had better start to wake up to that fact. That might even involve starting to go to church on the Lord’s Day instead of just climbing out of bed and flipping on ESPN, which you might just be better off if you didn’t bother with!

<![CDATA[An Open Letter to Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe]]>Fri, 29 Sep 2017 17:39:24 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/an-open-letter-to-virginia-governor-terry-mcauliffe​I was born in Los Angeles, California and raised in Ohio. I have taught Political Science at the collegiate level in Cincinnati, been published in The Wall Street Journal and am in my 12th year of research for a forthcoming book on Columbine.

For the past seven years I have made Rockbridge County, Virginia, my home.
The one and only reason I live in Lexington, Virginia is, because it is the final resting place of Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. Jackson. Their lives, character, faith, integrity, honor and testimony shone so brightly a century and a half after their decease, that there is no other place on the Earth I want to be, but where they lived and served.

There is something deeply and morally wrong with anyone, who objects to these two great Virginians---great Americans being honored by the native State, for which they gave their lives, limbs and blood in selfless patriotic service.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower kept Lee’s portrait in his executive office, while president. Churchill extolled him as the greatest American. Ulysses S. Grant threatened to resign from the U.S. Army, if Lee were tried for treason.

The statue that marks the grave of “Stonewall” Jackson was paid for not only by the veterans, who served under him, but by financial contributions from former slaves, whom he had taught to read in violation of Virginia law.

When a Lexington local assailed Jackson for breaking the law to “teach those people”, Jackson uncharacteristically lost his temper and shouted, “If you were a Christian you would not say so!”

After the war, it was Lee who broke social convention at St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, by kneeling beside a former slave, who had mortified the White congregation by kneeling at the altar.

Asked afterward by a bigot why a man like himself would kneel beside a former slave, Lee simply chastised him, “The ground is always level at the foot of the cross.”

The anniversary of the deaths of Lee and of Jackson were long commemorated in this Commonwealth by veterans of the North, who were often the honored keynote speakers invited to praise the virtues of their once-foes.

Every monument to a Confederate Virginian is a war memorial to an American veteran.
It has been the mark of manhood and civility and longstanding American tradition to leave politics out of the way we honor our veterans. They fought the battles; we did not. They shed the blood; we did not. They reconciled with their enemies; we did not.
End of subject. It is not for children born a hundred and fifty years later to re-adjudicate the past and expose to double jeopardy men their own contemporaries exonerated.
It is the height of arrogance to suppose that you know more about these men and their times than their even contemporaries. The command of God remains, “Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.”

It is to God you will assuredly answer for its violation.

If you find it impossible to respect your elders, attempt at least to revere your betters.
The destruction of Virginia’s monuments to her war dead is sacrilege and those, who urge and execute it, are nothing more than cemetery vandals. There is no honor in this course of wanton destruction and, morally, you equate yourself with ISIS, which shares your contempt for actual culture, something you both so manifestly lack. It is more than history, more than art.

No matter. No one will remember you in any 150 years. Nothing you do can make anything like the mark these great Virginians made on history’s ledger. Just being you another day is your own punishment and yet you still face God for what you propose to do as well. Something is deeply, horribly wrong with your soul, Sir. And you know it. So does all Virginia.

I have strived to be civil, but you do not make it easy. Smearing reputations, slandering saints and tearing down what better men raised has zero to do with love, unity, tolerance, acceptance, diversity and coexistence. It’s just the usual political spoils game, playing one race/class/group against another to score a win at any cost. The mean, petty loathing of Virginia’s first string heroes outs you as a raging hypocrite just as you were trying to pass for intelligent. What a piece of work.

Just leave the statues, graves, monuments and memorials right where the grown-ups put them, Terry. Just fool around doing nothing, you know, like back at Georgetown. Easy.
That’s all I ask. And about the most anybody expects of you. Aren’t you tired yet of just being the same old failure and lurching from bungled debacle to bungled debacle?

Why not shock the world: open a book, educate yourself and do something less horrible than usual. Resign, even, and leave Virginians to govern Virginia. What a concept.
Shouldn’t you be ruining Syracuse instead of Richmond?

With all due respect,

Sherwin W. Dillard

<![CDATA[Why The War Was Not About Slavery]]>Wed, 20 Sep 2017 20:34:00 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/why-the-war-was-not-about-slaveryPicture

By: Clyde Wilson

​​Conventional wisdom of the moment tells us that the great war of 1861—1865 was “about” slavery or was “caused by” slavery. I submit that this is not a historical judgment but a political slogan. What a war is about has many answers according to the varied perspectives of different participants and of those who come after. To limit so vast an event as that war to one cause is to show contempt for the complexities of history as a quest for the understanding of human action.

Two generations ago, the most perceptive historians, much more learned than the current crop, said that the war was “about” economics and was “caused by” economic rivalry. The war has not changed one bit since then. The perspective has changed. It can change again as long as people have the freedom to think about the past. History is not a mathematical calculation or scientific experiment but a vast drama of which there is always more to be learned.

I was much struck by Barbara Marthal’s insistence in her Stone Mountain talk on the importance of stories in understanding history. I entirely concur. History is the experience of human beings. History is a story and a story is somebody’s story. It tells us about who people are. History is not a political ideological slogan like “about slavery.” Ideological slogans are accusations and instruments of conflict and domination. Stories are instruments of understanding and peace.

Let’s consider the war and slavery. Again and again I encounter people who say that the South Carolina secession ordinance mentions the defense of slavery and that one fact proves beyond argument that the war was caused by slavery. The first States to secede did mention a threat to slavery as a motive for secession. They also mentioned decades of economic exploitation and the seizure of the common government for the first time ever by a sectional party declaredly hostile to the Southern States. Were they to be a permanently exploited minority, they asked? This was significant to people who knew that their fathers and grandfathers had founded the Union for the protection and benefit of ALL the States.

It is no surprise that they mentioned potential interference with slavery as a threat to their everyday life and their social structure. Only a few months before, John Brown and his followers had attempted just that. They murdered a number of people including a free black man who was a respected member of the Harpers Ferry community and a grand-nephew of George Washington because Brown wanted Washington’s sword as a talisman. In Brown’s baggage was a constitution making him dictator of a new black nation and a supply of pikes to be used to stab to death the slave-owner and his wife and children.

It is significant that not one single slave joined Brown’s attempted blow against slavery. It was entirely an affair of outsiders. Significant also is that six Northern rich men financed Brown and that some elements of the North celebrated him as a saint, an agent of God, ringing the church bells at his execution. Even more significantly, Brown was merely acting out the venomous hatred of Southerners that had characterized some parts of Northern society for many years previously.

Could this relentless barrage of hatred directed by Northerners against their Southern fellow citizens have perhaps had something to do with the secession impulse? That was the opinion of Horatio Seymour, Democratic governor of New York. In a public address he pointed to the enormity of making war on Southern fellow citizens who had always been exceptionally loyal Americans, but who had been driven to secession by New England fanaticism.

Secessionists were well aware that slavery was under no immediate threat within the Union. Indeed, some anti-secessionists, especially those with the largest investment in slave property, argued that slavery was safer under the Union than in a new experiment in government.

Advocates of the “slavery and nothing but slavery” interpretation also like to mention a speech in which Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens is supposed to have said that white supremacy was the “cornerstone” of the Confederacy. The speech was ad hoc and badly reported, but so what? White supremacy was also the cornerstone of the United States. A law of the first Congress established that only white people could be naturalized as citizens. Abraham Lincoln’s Illinois forbade black people to enter the State and deprived those who were there of citizenship rights.

Instead of quoting two cherry-picked quotations, serious historians will look into more of the vast documentation of the time. For instance, in determining what the war was “about,” why not consider Jefferson Davis’s inaugural address, the resolutions of the Confederate Congress, numerous speeches by Southern spokesmen of the time as they explained their departure from the U.S. Congress and spoke to their constituents about the necessity of secession. Or for that matter look at the entire texts of the secession documents.

Our advocates of slavery causation practice the same superficial and deceitful tactics in viewing their side of the fight. They rely mostly on a few pretty phrases from a few of Lincoln’s prettier speeches to account for the winning side in the Great Civil War. But what were Northerners really saying?

I am going to do something radical. I am going to review what Northerners had to say about the war. Not a single Southern source, Southern opinion, or Southern accusation will I present. Just the words of Northerners (and a few foreign observers) on what the war was “about.”

Abraham Lincoln was at pains to assure the South that he intended no threat to slavery. He said he understood Southerners and that Northerners would be exactly like them living in the same circumstances. He said that while slavery was not a good thing (which most Southerners agreed with) he had no power to interfere with slavery and would not know what to do if he had the power. He acquiesced in a proposed 13th Amendment that would have guaranteed slavery into the 20th century. Later, he famously told Horace Greeley that his purpose was to save the Union, for which he would free all the slaves, some of the slaves, or none of the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation itself promised a continuance of slavery to States that would lay down their arms.

All Lincoln wanted was to prevent slavery in any territories, future States, which then might become Southern and vote against Northern control of the Treasury and federal legislation. From the anti-slavery perspective this is a highly immoral position. At the time of the Missouri Compromise, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison said that restricting the spread of slavery was a false, politically motivated position. The best thing for the welfare of African Americans and their eventual emancipation was to allow them to spread as thinly as possible.

Delegation after delegation came to Lincoln in early days to beg him to do something to avoid war. Remember that 61% of the American people had voted against this great hero of democracy, which ought to have led him to a conciliatory frame of mind. He invariably replied that he could not do without “his revenue.” He said nary a word about slavery. Most of “his revenue” was collected at the Southern ports because of the tariff to protect Northern industry and most of it was spent in the North. Lincoln could not do without that revenue and vowed his determination to collect it without interruption by secession. He knew that his political backing rested largely on New England/New York money men and the rising power of the new industrialists of Cleveland, Detroit, and Chicago who were aggressively demanding that the federal government sponsor and support them. The revenue also provided the patronage of offices and contracts for his hungry supporters, without which his party would dwindle away.

Discussing the reaction to secession, the New York Times editorialized: “The commercial bearing of the question has acted upon the North. We were divided and confused until our pockets were touched.” A Manchester, N.H., paper was one of hundreds of others that agreed, saying: “It is very clear that the South gains by this process and we lose. No, we must not let the South go.”
Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress officially declared that the war WAS NOT AGAINST SLAVERY but to preserve the Union. (By preserving the Union, of course, they actually meant not preserving the real Union but ensuring their control of the federal machinery.)
At the Hampton Roads peace conference a few months before Appomattox, Lincoln suggested to the Confederate representatives that if they ceased fighting then the Emancipation Proclamation could be left to the courts to survive or fall. Alexander Stephens, unlike Lincoln, really cared about the fate of the black people and asked Lincoln what was to become of them if freed in their present unlettered and propertyless condition. Lincoln’s reply: “Root, hog, or die.” A line from a minstrel song suggesting that they should survive as best they could. Lincoln routinely used the N-word all his life, as did most Northerners.

A statement in which Lincoln is said to favour voting rights for black men who were educated or had been soldiers has been shown to be fraudulent. Within a few days of his death he was still speaking of colonization outside the U.S.
The South, supposedly fighting for slavery, did not respond to any of these offers for the continuance of slavery. In fact, wise Southerners like Jefferson Davis realized that if war came it would likely disrupt slavery as it had during the first war of independence. That did not in the least alter his desire for the independence and self-government that was the birthright of Americans. Late in the war he sent a special emissary to offer emancipation if European powers would break the illegal blockade.

Saying that the South was fighting only to defend the evils of slavery is a deceitful back-handed way to suggest that, therefore the North was fighting to rid America of the evils of slavery. Nothing could be further from the truth. First of all, secession did not necessarily require war against the South. That was a choice. Slavery had existed for over two hundred years and there was no Northern majority in favour of emancipation. Emancipation was not the result of a moral crusade against evil but a byproduct of a ruthless war of invasion and conquest. Not one single act of Lincoln and the North in the war was motivated by moral considerations in regard to slavery.

Even if slavery was a reason for secession, it does not explain why the North made a war of invasion and conquest on a people who only wanted to be let alone to live as they had always lived. The question of why the North made war is not even asked by our current historians. They assume without examination that the North is always right and the South is always evil. They do not look at the abundant Northern evidence that might shed light on the matter.

When we speak about the causes of war should we not pay some attention to the motives of the attacker and not blame everything on the people who were attacked and conquered? To say that the war was “caused” by the South’s defense of slavery is logically comparable to the assertion that World War II was caused by Poland resisting attack by Germany. People who think this way harbor an unacknowledged assumption: Southerners are not fellow citizens deserving of tolerance but bad people and deserve to be conquered. The South and its people are the property of the North to do with as they wish. Therefore no other justification is needed. That Leninist attitude is very much still alive judging by the abuse I receive in print and by e-mail. The abuse never discusses evidence, only denounces what is called “Neo-Confederate” and “Lost Cause” mythology. These are both political terms of abuse that have no real meaning and are designed to silence your enemy unheard.

Let us look at the U.S. Senate in February 1863. Senator John Sherman of Ohio, one of the most prominent of the Republican supporters of war against the South, has the floor. He is arguing in favour of a bill to establish a system of national banks and national bank currency. He declared that this bill was the most important business pending before the country. It was so important, he said, that he would see all the slaves remain slaves if it could be passed. Let me repeat this. He would rather leave all the slaves in bondage rather than lose the national bank bill. This was a few weeks after the issuing of the Emancipation Proclamation.

What about this bill? Don’t be deceived by the terminology. So-called National Banks were to be the property of favoured groups of private capitalists. They were to have as capital interest-bearing government bonds at a 50% discount. The bank notes that they were to issue were to be the national currency. The banks, not the government, had control of this currency. That is, these favoured capitalists had the immense power and profit of controlling the money and credit of the country. Crony capitalism that has been the main feature of the American regime up to this very moment.

Senator Sherman’s brother, General Sherman, had recently been working his way across Mississippi, not fighting armed enemies but destroying the infrastructure and the food and housing of white women and children and black people. When the houses are burned, the livestock taken away or killed, the barns with tools and seed crops destroyed, fences torn down, stored food and standing crops destroyed, the black people will starve as well as the whites. General Sherman was heard to say: “Damn the niggers! I wish they were anywhere but here and could be kept at work.”

General Sherman was not fighting for the emancipation of black people. He was a proto-fascist who wanted to crush citizens who had the gall to disobey the government.

The gracious Mrs. General Sherman agreed. She wrote her husband thus:
“I hope this may not be a war of emancipation but of extermination, & that all under the influence of the foul fiend may be driven like swine into the sea. May we carry fire and sword into their states till not one habitation is left standing.”
Not a word about the slaves.

As the war began, the famous abolitionist Theodore Weld declared that the South had to be wiped out because it is “the foe to Northern industry—to our mines, our manufactures, our commerce.” Nothing said about benefit to the slaves. The famous abolitionist Henry Ward Beecher enjoyed a European tour while the rivers of blood were flowing in America. Asked by a British audience why the North did not simply let the South go, Beecher replied, “Why not let the South go? O that the South would go! But then they must leave us their lands.”

Then there is the Massachusetts Colonel who wrote his governor from the South in January 1862:
“The thing we seek is permanent dominion. . . . They think we mean to take their slaves? Bah! We must take their ports, their mines, their water power, the very soil they plow . . . .”

Seizing Southern resources was a common theme among advocates of the Union. Southerners were not fellow citizens of a nation. They were obstacles to be disposed of so Yankees could use their resources to suit themselves. The imperialist impulse was nakedly and unashamedly expressed before, during, and after the war.

Charles Dickens, who had spent much time in the U.S. a few years before the war, told readers of his monthly magazine in 1862: “The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states.”

Another British observer, John Stuart Mill, hoped the war would be against slavery and was disappointed. “The North, it seems,” Mill wrote, “have no more objections to slavery than the South have.”

Another European thinker to comment was Karl Marx. Like many later Lincoln worshippers, Marx believed that the French Revolution was a continuation of the American Revolution and Lincoln’s revolution in America a continuation of the French.

He thought, wrongly, that Lincoln was defending the “labour of the emigrant against the aggressions of the slave driver.” The war, then, is in behalf of the German immigrants who had flooded the Midwest after the 1848 revolutions. Not a word about the slaves themselves. Indeed, it was the numbers and ardent support of these German immigrants that turned the Midwest from Democrat to Republican and elected Lincoln. It would seem that Marx, like Lincoln, wanted the land for WHITE workers.
Governor Joel Parker of New Jersey, a reluctant Democratic supporter of the war, knew what it was all about: “Slavery is no more the cause of this war than gold is the cause of robbery,” he said. Like all Northern opponents and reluctant supporters of Lincoln, he knew the war was about economic domination. As one “Copperhead” editor put it: the war was simply “a murderous crusade for plunder and party power.” “Dealing in confiscated cotton seems to be the prime activity of the army,” he added.

Wall Street agreed and approved. Here is a private circular passed among bankers and brokers in late 1861:
“Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war power and this I and my friends are all in favor of, for slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care of the laborers, while the European plan, led on by England, is that capital shall control labor by controlling wages. The great debt that capitalists will see to it is made out of the war must be used as a means to control the volume of money.”

It is not clear whether this is authentic or a satire, but it tells the truth whichever.

The libertarian Lysander Spooner, an abolitionist, called the Lincoln rule “usurpation and tyranny” that had nothing to do with a moral opposition to slavery. “It has cost this country a million of lives, and the loss of everything that resembles political liberty.”

Here is Frederick Douglass, the most prominent African American of the 19th century:
“It must be admitted, truth compels me to admit . . . Abraham Lincoln was not, in the fullest sense of the word, either our man or our model. In his interests, in his associations, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man. He was preeminently the white man’s president, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. He was ready and willing at any time . . . to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people to promote the welfare of the white people of his country.”

What better testimony is needed that emancipation was a by-product, not a goal, of a war of conquest. Let me repeat: emancipation was a by-product of the war, never a goal.

How about these curiosities from the greatest of Northern intellectuals, Emerson. He records in his journals: “But the secret, the esoteric of abolition—a secret, too, from the abolitionist—is, that the negro and the negro-holder are really of one party.” And again, “The abolitionist wishes to abolish slavery, but because he wishes to abolish the black man.” Emerson had previously predicted that African Americans were like the Dodo, incapable of surviving without care and doomed to disappear. Another abolitionist, James G. Birney, says: “The negroes are part of the enemy.”

Indeed a staple of Northern discourse was that black people would and should disappear, leaving the field to righteous New England Anglo-Saxons. My friend Howard White remarks: “Whatever his faults regarding slavery, the Southerner never found the existence of Africans in his world per se a scandal. That particular foolishness had its roots in the regions further North.”
In 1866, Boston had a meeting of abolitionists and strong Unionists. The speaker, a clergymen, compared the South to a sewer. It was to be drained of its present inhabitants and “to be filled up with Yankee immigration . . . and upon that foundation would be constructed a new order of things. To be reconstructed, the South must be Northernized, and until that was done, the work of reconstruction could not be accomplished.” Not a word about a role for African Americans in this program.

One of the most important aspects of the elimination of slavery is seldom mentioned. The absence of any care or planning for the future of black Americans. The Russian Czar pointed this out to an American visitor as a flaw that invalidated the fruits of emancipation. We could fill ten books with evidence of Northern mistreatment of black people during and after the war. Emancipation as it occurred was not a happy experience. To borrow Kirkpatrick Sale’s term, it was a Hell. I recommend Kirk’s book Emancipation Hell and Paul Graham’s work When the Yankees Come, which are available here.

I suspect many Americans imagine emancipation as soldiers in blue and freed people rushing into one another’s arms to celebrate the day of Jubilee. As may be proved from thousands of Northern sources, the Union solders’ encounter with the black people of the South was overwhelmingly hate-filled, abusive, and exploitive. This subject is just beginning to be explored seriously. Wrote one Northerner of Sherman’s men, they “are impatient of darkies, and annoyed to see them pampered, petted and spoiled.” Ambrose Bierce, a hard-fighting Union soldier for the entire war, said that the black people he saw were virtual slaves as the concubines and servants of Union officers.

Many black people took to the roads not because of an intangible emancipation but because their homes and living had been destroyed. They collected in camps which had catastrophic rates or mortality. The army asked some Northern governors to take some of these people, at least temporarily. The governors of Massachusetts and Illinois, Lincoln’s most fervid supporters, went ballistic. This was unacceptable. The black people would be uncomfortable in the North and much happier in the South, said the longtime abolitionist Governor Andrew of Massachusetts. Happier in the South than in Massachusetts?
What about those black soldiers in the Northern army, used mainly for labour and forlorn hopes like the Crater? A historian quotes a Northern observer of U.S. Army activities in occupied coastal Carolina in 1864. Generals declared their intention to recruit “every able-bodied male in the department.” Writes the Northern observer: “The atrocious impressments of boys of fourteen and responsible men with large dependent families, and the shooting down of negroes who resisted, were common occurrences.”

The greater number of Southern black people remained at home. They received official notice of freedom not from the U.S. Army but from the master who, when he got home from the Confederate army, gathered the people, told them they were free, and that they must work out a new way of surviving together.

Advocates of the war was “caused by slavery” say that the question has been settled and that any disagreement is from evil and misguided Neo-Confederates deceived by a “Lost Cause” myth.

In fact, no great historical question can ever be closed off by a slogan as long as we are free to think. Howard White and I recently put out a book about the war. Careful, well-supported essays, by 16 serious people. Immediately it appeared on amazon, someone wrote in: “I’m so tired of the Lost Cause writing. Don’t believe the bullshit in this useless pamphlet.” He could not have had time to actually read the book. It can be dismissed unread because he has the righteous cause and we do not. This is not historical debate. It is the propaganda trick of labeling something you do not like in order to control and suppress it. Such are those who want the war to be all about slavery—hateful, disdainful, ignorant, and unwilling to engage in honest discussion.

But if you insist on a short answer solution as to what caused the war I will venture one. The cause of the greatest bloodletting in American history was Yankee greed and hatred. This is infinitely documented before, during, and after the war.
Glory, Glory, Halleluhah

About Clyde WilsonClyde Wilson is a distinguished Professor Emeritus of History at the University of South Carolina where he was the editor of the multivolume The Papers of John C. Calhoun. He is the M.E. Bradford Distinguished Chair at the Abbeville Institute. He is the author or editor of over thirty books and published over 600 articles, essays and reviews and is co-publisher of www.shotwellpublishing.com, a source  for unreconstructed Southern books.

<![CDATA[Adding a Label to Houston’s Confederate Monuments?]]>Mon, 18 Sep 2017 14:17:44 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/adding-a-label-to-houstons-confederate-monumentsBy: Joan Hough

In a recent meeting concerning Confederate monuments (statues) in Houston, the council and mayor asked Texans appearing before them two questions: about the monuments 1) “would you be OK with us removing them and putting them a museum? and 2) “would you be OK if there was a second placard added in front of the statue to tell about the ‘slavery aspect.” 
It has been reported that “Our folks answered with a resounding “NO” on question #1 but an “OK” for question #2.”   
So now Southerners have declared that it will be ok for the enemies of truth to add a label to our Confederate statues
 People agreeing to that have no idea as to the mud they are throwing over truth in history and truth in art. Any addition to our statues concerning the  Yankee’s ‘slavery aspect”— will be a horror of political correctness— the content of those “labels” will  make our cause look like the cause of demons from Hell.— will result in precisely the same thing that has occurred on all of our national Battle grounds now wrapped in US parks—Each national park now teaches to millions of visitors—that the noble purpose of the noble Yankees who fought  the evil Southerners was to free the poor, raped and boiled regularly in oil,  black slaves of horrible white planters. The War was the only way these blacks could be freed. Southern women and their babies had to be murdered for justice to prevail—for the downtrodden to become equal and vote in America!  --so, hurrah! Hurrah! Hurrah!
 Folks who think the labeling or our Confederate monuments will be with any form of truth are childishly naive—are totally lacking in the understanding of the power and goals of Yankee propaganda. They are unaware that Marxist created propaganda ( poured forth from the fine brains of  journalists Carl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Horace Greeley, Charles Dana, and those of Edwin Stanton, Secretary of War)  was a major reason the South lost the war of Northern Aggression -- that Marxist-propaganda,  splattered the north over by Republican Party, inflamed hatred and rage in northerners to a level of such intensity that even the north’s  preachers from their pulpits, bellowed curses against Southern ministers and demanded that after the war all Southern preachers and priests be hung by their necks until dead. Marxist propaganda kept aid from flowing to our South from England and France. Marxist propaganda kept an innocent man, Jefferson Davis, imprisoned incommunicado, sans habeas corpus—tortured for two long, hungry years. Marxist propaganda caused a trial of Davis to be refused by a US-- in fear that the truth would out that any state had the right to secede and the United States would lose in court what it had won by marching through Georgia.  
  No treason was committed—at least not by Southerners—but WAS BY NORTHERNERS!  Propaganda concealed this truth from northerners.
  Don’t take my word about propaganda, read Frank Conner’s text, The South Under Siege.
Any Southerner agreeing to having the Enemies of Truth label our statues is either unknowingly, or knowingly, a contributor to the death of truth.
I would call everyone’s attention to the “Ugly Rock,” THE LABEL PLACED RIGHT IN FRONT OF the monument honoring our tortured to death heroes at CAMP DOUGLAS in Chicago. That monument is the only proof that once a mighty Hell hole of a prison existed in Chicago wherein were tortured to death thousands upon thousands of Southern boys. This torture was “legally administered” under the command of the US Congress, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton and His Majesty, Abe Lincoln. The roster was not even kept for months at Douglas. My own cousin died there, yet has no name on the monument- or on the rosters.
 In front of that lonely memorial monument, the South’s lying haters placed a nice, lie-filled, propagandizing Yankee LABEL in the form of AN ENORMOUS STONE on which is engraved:
"Cenotaph - To those unknown heroic men, once resident in the Southern states, martyrs for human freedom, who at the breaking out of the civil war refused to be traitors to the Union; who, without moral or material support, stood alone among ruthless enemies, and, after unspeakable suffering, either died at their post of duty, or, abandoning home and possessions, sought refuge, and scant bread for their families, among strangers at the North; to those pure patriots who, without bounty, without pay, without pension, without honor, went to their graves without recognition even by their country, this stone is raised and inscribed, after thirty years waiting, by one of themselves, an exiled abolitionist.”
STEVE SCROGGINS tells us the truth about the ugly rock.  Read all about it in his article
As a member of a family of the so-called “ruthless enemies” who committed not one speck of treason, but only defended, the dirt under their houses, the food in their smoke houses, the vegetables in their gardens, the roofs over their families’ heads and THEIR GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM A TYRANNICAL, SECTIONAL GOVERNMENT RULED BY NORTHERN MARXIST-RADICAL REPUBLICANS, I demand my right of free speech—I demand that my Confederate truths be acknowledged and my South’s cause honored. I demand that the truth be acknowledged that Slavery was not the cause of the war! Slavery was nothing more than a Yankee afterthought presented in the middle of the war when the north was losing—presented as white wash for the horrific multitude of war crimes committed by men in the Republican army, the Republican Controlled Congress and the Republican Controlled Oval Office. The fact that a couple of Southern states mentioned slavery as their reason for secession does not mean it was their reason for fighting a war.
I am sick of brainwashed Americans’ prattling on and on— of their babbling of never-ending lies! I am sick of Southerners who ought to know better supporting in any fashion the content of those lies!  
Yankee labels “IN FRONT OF” our statues insult every Confederate. —Labels placed “BEHIND THEM” — would still be an insult to truth. 
 In the spirit of free speech, I would consider, however, allowing the groups of Hate the White folks—Hate the Southerners—Hate the South’s Christian flag—Hate the Monuments-- to create, using their own money—and not one cent of taxes-- any statues they wish to create—and to place them one mile away from one of our South’s heroes.  And they should feel eternally grateful that I will allow the air of liberty to be polluted with such a revolting lie of a creation. –They can even put their statues in their museums!  
Hail the continuation of brave men and women in our world!  Long may they live!  Long may they breathe the air of freedom and of truth!  Long may their enemies know disappointments! And here’s hoping someday to see ALL the anti-South lies SMASHED TO SMITHEREENS and all HATE THE SOUTH LIARS get their just deserts.  
To those wishing to call me “bigot,” I say: “If loving truth, if refusing to toady to the New World Order Leaders and sycophants financing all the current Hate the South Pogroms justifies that term, call me “BIGOT, call me PROUD BIGOT.”  If identifying the group spearheading the renewal of hate the South pogroms earns me the label, “Racist.”  So be it. My black friends all know otherwise. Not surprising is the truth –they are pleased their ancestors were not forced to remain in Africa or sent back there by Lincoln, as he desired. They recognize the hands stirring the racial hate kettle and associate them with the correct white faces—and those faces are not Southern ones.   ]]>
<![CDATA[A Eulogy for a Confederate sister]]>Wed, 13 Sep 2017 17:24:52 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/a-eulogy-for-a-confederate-sisterPicture

  The Confederate Society of America has lost one of its valued Directors, Ms. Carolyn Saunders Walters.
  Carolyn embodied and represented the grace and beauty associated with a land called Dixie that is quickly fading into oblivion thanks to the ascetic efforts resulting from a diseased government which, like much of the world today, is as clueless as is the body of autocrats and demagogues who control it.
  She was a Lady of the Confederacy.
  She did NOT represent ANY of those characteristics or names that the Far-Left Mutants would have anyone believe is what folks like she and we are about.
  Her warmth was like a breath of fresh air in a country consumed by THEIR HATE resulting from the political contamination of THEIR making that is DESTROYING EVERYTHING!
  She was ELOQUENCE in every sense of the word and reflected and represented what was once the Old South that is being shredded and falsely portrayed by every free-loading malcontent using the guise of ‘Civil Rights’ to achieve and further their dais of hate!
  ‘Civil Rights’ today is an EXCUSE!
  It is an adjutant for bad behavior whose accompanying double standard allows the racial hordes of deceit to attack anything and everything ever associated with History, Origin and Character with an impunity bourne from rank ignorance whose theatrics is but the by-product of a Barbarism created from life on Washington’s Federal Plantation.
Carolyn was a Lady who understood all this only too well and is why she fought alongside her Brothers and Sisters in the Confederate Society with a temerity that is sadly missing with many so-called ‘Men of the South’.
  She stood by those Values and Virtues of old that were once common place in America.
  Today those Values and Virtues are nearly gone thanks to a Political Pestilence that has rendered this once Proud Republic all but a mere reflection of its former self.
  It has become a gaunt vestige of its former self thanks to the degenerative emasculation rendered unto to it by a slime who hide behind their colour to effect changes that would address their and only theirs ‘progressive’ agenda at the expense of ALL OTHERS!
  Their ‘virtue’ is that of a disease ridden Ideology who would make subordinate any and all who resist THEM thanks to an AMORAL station risen from the ashes of a concocted War that has redesigned the American landscape to THEIR satisfaction….. resulting in a dais whose EVIL knows NO ends and has NO boundaries.
  Only through and with a Precognitive Spirit CAN WE EVER AGAIN HOPE TO Restore ALL that has been taken from us!
  Finding people such as Carolyn who could see the ‘Forest from the Trees’, thanks to her religious beliefs, is NOT easy.
  To dispel WRONG today and to challenge it openly has become nearly impossible because of what a conglomeration of what “Those People”, et al, have combined to do over the last 15 decades and the last 5 in particular.
  Carolyn was of a breed that is sadly disappearing while being replaced by an intangible group of malcontents who are as clueless as a bag of rocks.

  They all demand much but give nothing in return resulting in an Altered American Landscape whose History they prostitute daily History with an abhorrence for the TRUTH while receiving the sanctioning & ‘blessings’ of those purveyors of deceit who reside in Washington whose mandates and Marshalls provide the cover for their carnage!

  The Eternal said to keep things simple because, in Simplicity, one can more easily see the Truth that otherwise would be difficult to see!

  Today the American people are becoming almost as feckless as the worthless body of goons in Washington whose Oligarchy runs this Corporation.

  They will capitulate with ANYONE and cede to ANYONE anything that insures the dogma of their Ideology whose Perpetuation is critical.

  We were likewise warned of their Evil by our Founding Fathers but today, the Founding Fathers have been likewise TARGETED just as we.
 Carolyn was a loving and CARING person.

  However,  those so-called Black ‘Reverends’ would depict her Confederate person as being tantamount to a Nazi.
  This is what Washington has turned a blind eye to and as a result, these Evil Clerics spew their venomous verbiage of false description peddling their Hateful Race Card as a ruse to shield their true identity and agenda while describing people like her and ANY such as she as an evil and worthless lot.
 DAMN them and DAMN the Spawn who created them.

The  TRUTH is what shall set us free as the Eternal has told us numerous times over…. just as he has told us how HE will personally handle the False Clerics who use HIM falsely as a bridgework to advance their own agenda & selves.
  She has crossed the River and now resides in a far better place resplendent with those who REPRESENTED the Flags of Our Fathers that ‘others’ wish to destroy thanks to THEIR own self-created VERSION & INTERPRETATION of a History that has been so corrupted THAT HAS ALLOWED FOR THEIR HEINOUS IDEOLOGY to endure bourne from Satan himself.
  Rest in Peace my Confederate Sister.

  You are in the company of MANY who others have hence described as Irredeemable who would rather Run for Their Bibles and Guns & who Fell Where They Stood rather than to submit and become Reconstructed!
THANK YOU for standing with us over many a long and difficult year in which our Confederate Society WARNED of this coming day and for watching my back when we engaged the Enemy many times over for a Cause that has NEVER died!
  You will NOT be forgotten and with God’s Blessing, may we ALL one day Break Bread across that River where upon…. Beauty and Tranquility reside and can be seen once more!
God Bless Sis,
Brer Craig… your Confederate Brother.

<![CDATA[The So-Called Civil War Was Not Over Slavery]]>Sat, 09 Sep 2017 16:04:48 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/the-so-called-civil-war-was-not-over-slaveryPicture
By Paul Craig Roberts

When I read Professor Thomas DiLorenzo’s article the question that lept to mind was, “How come the South is said to have fought for slavery when the North wasn’t fighting against slavery?”

Two days before Lincoln’s inauguration as the 16th President, Congress, consisting only of the Northern states, passed overwhelmingly on March 2, 1861, the Corwin Amendment that gave constitutional protection to slavery. Lincoln endorsed the amendment in his inaugural address, saying “I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

Quite clearly, the North was not prepared to go to war in order to end slavery when on the very eve of war the US Congress and incoming president were in the process of making it unconstitutional to abolish slavery.

Here we have absolute total proof that the North wanted the South kept in the Union far more than the North wanted to abolish slavery.

If the South’s real concern was maintaining slavery, the South would not have turned down the constitutional protection of slavery offered them on a silver platter by Congress and the President. Clearly, for the South also the issue was not slavery.

The real issue between North and South could not be reconciled on the basis of accommodating slavery. The real issue was economic as DiLorenzo, Charles Beard and other historians have documented. The North offered to preserve slavery irrevocably, but the North did not offer to give up the high tariffs and economic policies that the South saw as inimical to its interests.

Blaming the war on slavery was the way the northern court historians used morality to cover up Lincoln’s naked aggression and the war crimes of his generals. Demonizing the enemy with moral language works for the victor. And it is still ongoing. We see in the destruction of statues the determination to shove remaining symbols of the Confederacy down the Memory Hole.

Today the ignorant morons, thoroughly brainwashed by Identity Politics, are demanding removal of memorials to Robert E. Lee, an alleged racist toward whom they express violent hatred. This presents a massive paradox. Robert E. Lee was the first person offered command of the Union armies. How can it be that a “Southern racist” was offered command of the Union Army if the Union was going to war to free black slaves?

Virginia did not secede until April 17, 1861, two days after Lincoln called up troops for the invasion of the South.

Surely there must be some hook somewhere that the dishonest court historians can use on which to hang an explanation that the war was about slavery. It is not an easy task. Only a small minority of southerners owned slaves. Slaves were brought to the New World by Europeans as a labor force long prior to the existence of the US and the Southern states in order that the abundant land could be exploited. For the South slavery was an inherited institution that pre-dated the South. Diaries and letters of soldiers fighting for the Confederacy and those fighting for the Union provide no evidence that the soldiers were fighting for or against slavery. Princeton historian, Pulitzer Prize winner, Lincoln Prize winner, president of the American Historical Association, and member of the editorial board of Encyclopedia Britannica, James M. McPherson, in his book based on the correspondence of one thousand soldiers from both sides, What They Fought For, 1861-1865, reports that they fought for two different understandings of the Constitution.

As for the Emancipation Proclamation, on the Union side, military officers were concerned that the Union troops would desert if the Emancipation Proclamation gave them the impression that they were being killed and maimed for the sake of blacks. That is why Lincoln stressed that the proclamation was a “war measure” to provoke an internal slave rebellion that would draw Southern troops off the front lines.

If we look carefully we can find a phony hook in the South Carolina Declaration of Causes of Secession (December 20, 1860) as long as we ignore the reasoning of the document. Lincoln’s election caused South Carolina to secede. During his campaign for president Lincoln used rhetoric aimed at the abolitionist vote. (Abolitionists did want slavery abolished for moral reasons, though it is sometimes hard to see their morality through their hate, but they never controlled the government.)

South Carolina saw in Lincoln’s election rhetoric intent to violate the US Constitution, which was a voluntary agreement, and which recognized each state as a free and independent state. After providing a history that supported South Carolina’s position, the document says that to remove all doubt about the sovereignty of states “an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.”

South Carolina saw slavery as the issue being used by the North to violate the sovereignty of states and to further centralize power in Washington. The secession document makes the case that the North, which controlled the US government, had broken the compact on which the Union rested and, therefore, had made the Union null and void. For example, South Carolina pointed to Article 4 of the US Constitution, which 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.” Northern states had passed laws that nullified federal laws that upheld this article of the compact. Thus, the northern states had deliberately broken the compact on which the union was formed.

The obvious implication was that every aspect of states’ rights protected by the 10th Amendment could now be violated. And as time passed they were, so South Carolina’s reading of the situation was correct.

The secession document reads as a defense of the powers of states and not as a defense of slavery. Here is the document.
Read it and see what you decide.

A court historian, who is determined to focus attention away from the North’s destruction of the US Constitution and the war crimes that accompanied the Constitution’s destruction, will seize on South Carolina’s use of slavery as the example of the issue the North used to subvert the Constitution. The court historian’s reasoning is that as South Carolina makes a to-do about slavery, slavery must have been the cause of the war.

As South Carolina was the first to secede, its secession document probably was the model for other states. If so, this is the avenue by which court historians, that is, those who replace real history with fake history, turn the war into a war over slavery.
Once people become brainwashed, especially if it is by propaganda that serves power, they are more or less lost forever. It is extremely difficult to bring them to truth. Just look at the pain and suffering inflicted on historian David Irving for documenting the truth about the war crimes committed by the allies against the Germans. There is no doubt that he is correct, but the truth is unacceptable.

The same is the case with the War of Northern Aggression. Lies masquerading as history have been institutionalized for 150 years. An institutionalized lie is highly resistant to truth.

Education has so deteriorated in the US that many people can no longer tell the difference between an explanation and an excuse or justification. In the US denunciation of an orchestrated hate object is a safer path for a writer than explanation. Truth is the casualty.

That truth is so rare everywhere in the Western World is why the West is doomed. The United States, for example, has an entire population that is completely ignorant of its own history.

As George Orwell said, the best way to destroy a people is to destroy their history.

Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, has been reporting shocking cases of prosecutorial abuse for two decades. A new edition of his book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions, co-authored with Lawrence Stratton, a documented account of how americans lost the protection of law, has been released by Random House. Visit his website.

reprinted from Lew Rockwell.com