<![CDATA[The Confederate Society of America - The Condederate Society blog]]>Sat, 20 Jan 2018 10:47:15 -0800Weebly<![CDATA[Hate the South Week]]>Thu, 18 Jan 2018 01:59:22 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/hate-the-south-week
​By: Joseph R. Stromberg​

General Uncivil Background

Blessed as we are — so the economists say (they never lie) -– with relentless, inescapable digital bother and cyber-mania, any one of us might occasionally visit news sites and blogs. The ever hopeful soul, seeking its bliss, foolishly expects to find wisdom of some kind on the Internet. Well, there’s not much of it there and finding it is a lot of work.

One thing you do learn on worldwide web is that there are certain forbidden areas into which no one should tread:
1) You must never doubt Mr. Darwin in the slightest. If you do, you will learn that we are all extremely close kin with the anthropoid apes — which is a good thing, except when it’s you, who obviously are descended much too recently from them. A thousand other vituperative posts later, the whole thing is cleared up, and rightly so.

2) Say something suggesting agreement with the “God hypothesis,” and you shall be handed your head, bloody and broken. This may take 2,000 posts, but “anti-science” has no rights (Feyerabend notwithstanding) and must take its just punishment.

3) There may be a dozen or so such flammable topics, but here we are interested in #3: the South. Let anyone say anything kind about anyone or anything in the South (unless it be some federal facility), and vituperation will come a-pouring down, yea, unto the thousandth post or beyond. Then again, let anyone say something bad about the South (and doubtless it is only right to do so), and we see the same result. You could see this as a form of over-determination. Only Freud and Marx together could sort it out.

So South-bashing is right up there with Darwin-defending and God-bashing, as far as many of our internet fellow countrymen are concerned. They seem both angry and a bit dim. Far be it from me to take up Internet criticism, but this syndrome hits close to home and may (worse luck) illustrate some permanent fractures in the Yankee (New England) mind.

Life Sketch of a Typical Outburst of South Hating

The typical case begins when some poor fool says something nice, hateful, or even neutral about the South. You might think that important, busy folk could just leave it alone. No.

Instead, the first comments following up on a favorable or neutral reference to the South will counter the original statement with minimal insult. Around the twentieth comment, we hear from some fellow who wishes he had shelled Charleston, burned Atlanta, and burned and looted Columbia. Soon enough we hear about dysentery, boll weevils, screw worms, soil erosion, pellagra, the Scottsboro Boys, racism, hatred, Nathan Bedford Forrest, Alexander H. Stephens’ Cornerstone Speech, slavery (sole cause of whatever it caused), “treason,” Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings, inbreeding, stupidity, genetic inferiority, and many other evils. These horrific evils have no parallel in any Northern state, and indeed have seldom occurred in all of human history anywhere outside the South.

You begin to think they don’t much like us.

Normally, comments following upon an originally hostile statement hit critical mass a bit sooner.

Somewhere down the thread, maybe at the twenty-fifth item or so, someone will make a polite response in defense of the South, or at least of something having to do with the South. These brave souls will soldier on a while longer, politely. They will quit somewhere after the hundred and seventeenth insult or so, and good for them. Life is short. Any apparent Southerners remaining in the fray will take on the tone of the other side and will do little good.

Finally, having the field largely to themselves, our fellow citizens of the North, East, and West will carry on for many more hundreds of posts. They do not tire early. There are so many insults they can fling from their Treasury of Virtue – so many wrath-borne grapes, rotten though they may be. No science known to man, or at least to Southerners, can predict when they will finally tire out. (The phases of the moon may be involved, but Critical Lycanthropic Studies are neglected down here. We are so backward.)

They are without sin and will cast the first stone, and the second, and the third, and indeed the thousandth, if they have come prepared.

Blogger-Driven Hate-Ins

I have seen numerous such exercises, since I first encountered this art form perhaps twelve or more years ago. (The Internet seemed new then.) But those cases seemed to flare up rather randomly – at all sorts of websites — perhaps under the moral supervision of the laws of physics. In another form, arising more recently, the management and writers of a particular website set the tone and stir up the rabble. These are generally left-of-center venues, although the center isn’t much good, and at times some neo-conservatives and libertarians feel a need to bash the South for their own purposes.

In this newer pattern, a bout of South-bashing encouraged at a particular website often turns into a full-scale Hate-the-South Week. Additional sponsored articles may follow over the week, along with extended hate-bursts in the comment sections as already described. Other blogs will join in and a good time is had by all.

Sometimes political events set these outbursts off. There may be one or more repetitions of Hate-the-South Week in a given year.

Hate-the-South Month

The phenomenon reached Peak Hate in mid-2015. This outbreak began on June 17, 2015, when a murderous no-hoper went into the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C. and shot nine of our fellow citizens dead. Quickly breaking free of reasonable shock and horror, the Internet response called forth Hate-South-Carolina Week and that in turn (and rather inevitably) morphed into Hate-the-South Month. In that form, it was perhaps the longest-running meltdown so far. The usual suspects stepped up their campaign against Confederate flags and statues.

Even without General Sherman, we knew the fire would spread. The arsonists were both many and busy.

A Note on Charlottesville

The march in Charlottesville, Va., in mid-August, ostensibly in defense of a statue of Robert E. Lee, simply did not seem organically Southern. It looked more like a gathering of Internet ideologues descended from Free Soilers and other Northern nationalists and dressed (for some reason) in foreign gear or Klan regalia. Despite its potential for setting off another Hate-the-South Week or Month, this event bore other offspring, when leftists on the scene, seconded by almost the entire press corps, subordinated it to the needs of Trump Derangement Syndrome, Clintonite Election Revanchism, and “anti-fascism.” The South as such was off the hook, but white people as such fell under universal denunciation and the neo-Puritan iconoclasts’ crusade against offensive statues even crossed the Mason Dixon Line.
Some grim theological undertones were becoming clear.

The Prospects for Sanity

It is hard to predict the coming of any particular Hate-the-South Week. The thing is protean and shape-shifting. What is astounding when first encountering one of these celebrations of anti-Southern malice, is the sheer level of vituperation, stupidity, raw hatred, and lack of charity displayed – nearly all of it found on the side of the Good and the Just.
This suggests that we are not living in “Weimar America.” What faces us now is much more like a rerun of the 1850s – with yet another Great Awakening of the kind traceable to New England. This helps us to establish just who – Northerners or Southerners – are actually suffering from misdirected “nostalgia.”

It is even easier to see who is ahead on “hate” – just read the comment sections in question. If there is ever an official War on Hate, one hopes that the Northern blogging classes are not unjustly neglected by the authorities.

For those who value their sanity, less time on the Internet is indicated.]]>
<![CDATA[The Whitewashed Tyranny of Abraham Lincoln]]>Fri, 05 Jan 2018 20:56:04 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/the-tyrant-abeBy Tara Dodrill 
The Health Wyze Report

​Abraham Lincoln was the best U.S. President, motivated by a patriotic and Christian desire to preserve the union of states and free the slaves. At least that is what modern textbooks suggest. There is a bigger story to the 16th President of the United States than the Gettysburg Address and the Emancipation Proclamation. A whitewashed version of the man is all that we learned about him in school. It is what our children and grandchildren are still being taught. Public school districts and universities have been dutifully parroting that the Southern states of Lincoln’s era had a perverse culture, while Northern society was superior. This became the politically-correct mantra when ‘teaching’ about Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War for generations after the Civil Rights Movement. The identity politics is only getting worse, and more blatant.

The narrative is not only infused heavily with a liberal bias, but moreover, it is entirely wrong. Far too many Americans, both current students and adults, believe that the Civil War was a war about slavery. This liberalized version of history does not chronicle the political shenanigans that were undertaken by groups to harden their centralized (federal) grasp on power, as is still the case today. Most Americans do not believe that this issue was at play during Lincoln’s era, but they are so very wrong. The current political atmosphere in America is a testament to how ignorance of history forces a people to repeat it.
President Abraham Lincoln should not be revered as a hallowed figure. “Honest Abe” was a mere man; one who made mistakes and decisions based on his own self-interest. Some of his choices did benefit America, but the benefits were often a positive byproduct of his political self-interest, not benevolence.

Abraham Lincoln’s Flopping Stance on Slavery

The liberal Republicans of the time, who eventually touted Lincoln as a champion of freedom, steadfastly demanded the media and citizens not “paint him with an Abolitionist brush,” during his first inaugural address. Abraham Lincoln did not wish to be known as anti-slavery after putting his hand on the Bible and taking the oath of office. Also, during his first inaugural address, President Lincoln declared that he had absolutely no legal authority to interfere with the practice of slavery in states where it already existed. He then went on to boldly say that he would be enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act. The federal law mandated the return of runaway slaves who had fled slave states to seek safety and freedom in the North.

Although the history textbooks tend to gloss over such facts, slavery did once exist in the North. The practice of owning human beings had ended throughout the Northern states by 1804. Even after slavery was abolished in the North, racial discrimination still heavily existed in workplaces, schools, and communities. The idea of a little white girl sitting next to a little black girl, or a black man and a white woman courting was still not accepted by the ‘tolerant’ North or ‘freedom-loving’ elites, who were hurling hateful rhetoric toward the South. Meanwhile, indentured servitude in the North, which was a big step but not a leap up from slavery, remained legal. Equally legal was the use of children as the North’s virtual slave labor inside its factories. Many of whom were worked to death, and usually had a poorer quality of life than the average Southern slave.

Politics, money, and power were just as intrinsically woven during the 1860’s as they are today. Some of the most fervent and vocal anti-slavery Northerners, who pushed for an end to slavery, were not doing it entirely from a human rights sentiment. Many wealthy businessmen in the North were pressuring politicians to force the South into submission over slavery, because they felt that it created unfair competition in the marketplace. With slavery existing in the Southern states, Northern businessmen were being forced to compete against free labor. Even child laborers had to be paid something, after all.

Congress was fiercely divided over the issue of slavery during the months prior to the election of Abraham Lincoln. Heated arguments over the Thirteenth Amendment occurred on a daily basis in the House of Representatives and the Senate. The furious debates continued during the early stages of Lincoln’s presidency.

The Thirteenth Amendment that most Americans associate with Abraham Lincoln was passed at the end of the Civil War, in 1865. However, there was a previous version of the Thirteenth Amendment that had a polar-opposite intent. Lincoln publicly supported the former version during his swearing-in ceremony. This original version of the Thirteenth Amendment was meant to enshrine the practice of slavery as immutable. It would have amended the Constitution to pro-actively prevent any future legislature from ever attempting to outlaw the ownership of human beings. This version of what would have become the Thirteenth Amendment, if it had passed, is now often referred to as the Corwin Amendment. Thomas Corwin, an Ohio Republican Representative and a Lincoln supporter, sponsored the bill.

“I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable,” Lincoln said when referencing Corwin’s proposal, according to a report by Constitution Daily.

The Political Landscape Before Lincoln’s Election

To truly understand what actually caused the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln’s massive flip-flop on slavery, we must understand what happened during the 10 years that led up to his election, and the split in the Democrat Party, which occurred at its convention to select a presidential candidate to oppose the Republicans.

In 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed. This law permitted each new state coming into the United States to decide for itself whether or not slavery would be legal inside its borders. It was sponsored by the wing of Republicans to which Lincoln belonged. The legislation overturned the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had banned slavery north of Maryland’s southern border. This delineation is commonly known as the Mason-Dixon line.

For decades before Lincoln’s election, the Southern states had been responsible for most of the federal government’s revenue. The South had stringent tariffs forced upon it by Northern lawmakers, who in-turn gave about 80 percent of the funds to enhance public works in their states and bolster the struggling economy of the North. There was no income tax in the United States at that time, nor had there ever been an income tax, as it is forbidden by the U.S. Constitution. About 85 percent of the revenue that the federal government had at its disposal came in the form of tariffs that were levied on goods and services from the South. The high taxes that Southerners paid helped to build railroads, roads, manufacturing complexes, and canals in the North.

Before 1812, the tariffs levied were between 15 and 20 percent. The funds garnered by these tariffs were enough to keep the federal government fully functional, without placing an excessive burden on any specific region of the country. When the War of 1812 broke out, the tariffs upon Southern businesses were increased up to 26 percent by Congress, with the net profits being funneled to aid manufacturers in the North.

With a new tariff in 1828, the economy of South Carolina took the biggest hit and lost 25 percent of its export business in just 24 months. In the Southern newspapers, the tariff was nicknamed “Tariff of Abominations”. The U.S. Congress was dominated by Whig Party members from the North, who had passed the tariff, increasing the amount that the South had to pay on exported goods up to 50 percent.

In 1832, South Carolina officials called for a state convention to nullify both the tariff of 1828 and another tariff that had been enacted earlier that same year, by arguing that the tariffs were unconstitutional. Unfair taxation was one of the premises that had sparked America’s War of Independence against England, and it seemed as if the same issue was going to prompt a Civil War in the still-young nation.

In early 1860, the Morrill Tariff was passed. Even though the tariffs being collected from the South now totaled about 87 percent of the federal government’s revenue. The bill was named after Northern steel manufacturer and Republican Congressman, Justin Morrill. The legislation levied up to a 47 percent tariff increase on exported goods over the course of three years. The burden of this new tariff fell squarely on the shoulders of the South. The industrial businesses of the North were largely domestic sellers. The Morrill Tariff decreased the trade value of agricultural exports overseas, causing a gigantic blow to the Southern economy. Abraham Lincoln campaigned as a supporter of the tariff.

Thaddeus Stevens, a Lincoln supporter and Republican Congressman, co-authored the Morrill Tariff. During the campaign season, the iron manufacturer from Pennsylvania said that the two most important issues of the 1860 election were increasing tariffs and putting an end to slavery. Stevens also told a New York crowd that the new tariff would financially cripple the South and the West, but it would enrich the North. He claimed that it would increase the wages of Northern industrial workers and help America achieve greatness.

Henry Clay, who was the leader of the Whig Party, which held the majority in Congress, was able to implement an export tariff of 36 percent, in 1861. The economy of the North began to boom, because the bulk of its industrial goods were sold domestically. The Southern economy began a downward spiral, as the vast majority of its revenue was based upon the exportation of cotton and tobacco to Europe.

Former President and South Carolina Senator, John C. Calhoun, was able to negotiate a compromise that would roll back the tariffs to their former 15 percent range over the course of several years. Henry Clay (a man whom Lincoln greatly admired) and his Whig party were infuriated at being forced into a compromise with the South. It meant the loss of money that was to be ultimately funneled, at least in part, to their campaign supporters.

If Southern officials had tried to resist the tariffs, they would have been herded up and hanged as enemies of the state. Thaddeus Stevens was a powerful leader within the Republican party, and by some accounts, he ran the nation after Abraham Lincoln’s assassination. His open hostility toward the South and vindictiveness explains the North’s punitive tone during the Reconstruction Era.

The 1860 Presidential Election

Abraham Lincoln won the 1860 election, but the why and how have been left out of most history books, and this is causing the mis-education of millions of Americans.

The Democrat Party split along geographical lines during its presidential convention. A northern faction and a southern faction emerged. The convention ended without the nomination of a candidate to run on the ticket. When the Democrats met in Charleston, South Carolina to hold their convention in April, tensions swirled and boiled over rather quickly. Northern party leaders felt that Stephen Douglas was their best chance to defeat the “Black Republicans” seeking to end or limit slavery. Southern Democrats largely deemed Douglas to be unfit, because he believed that the federal government had no right to determine the legality of slavery. Douglas maintained that the issue should remain a state decision. Six weeks after the Southern Democrats walked out of the convention without a vote being held, Stephen Douglas was nominated during a second convention that was held in the North. Southern Democrats also held a second convention and nominated the sitting Vice President, John Breckenridge, to lead the ticket.

With the Democrat Party split in half and in chaos, Republicans felt that they would have an edge in the presidential race during their convention, which they held in Chicago the following month. Republicans needed a candidate who would garner the Electoral College votes of the North. Such a scenario would require carrying Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Illinois, and Indiana.

After intense debate over a slew of possible candidates, Abraham Lincoln, after three votes were taken, received the nomination. During his one term in the Senate, the press had cast Lincoln as a strong all-American man, with an inspiring pull-yourself-up by the bootstraps story. He had become the darling of the Northern press during his bitter debates with Stephen Douglas earlier the same year. News coverage of the debates was spread nationwide at a time when the telegraph was still in its infancy.

When a 3-way race for the presidency turned into a 4-man contest, Abraham Lincoln’s party felt that their candidate would be a shoe-in, if given the right press coverage. John Bell, a wealthy Tennessee plantation owner, was nominated as the candidate for the newly-created Constitutional Union Party. The political group was largely composed of community pillars and former politicians. They described themselves as moderates. They believed that the best way to calm the nation and win the election was to avoid the issue of slavery altogether.

As a presidential candidate, Lincoln supported the deportation of all Negroes to an unpopulated zone outside of America. This was euphemistically described as a policy of “colonization”. As late as December of 1862, Lincoln was continuing to promote his idea of ridding the U.S. mainland of all Negroes, even as the Civil War raged on. This stance, which was one that was taken by some of the most conservative members of his political party, did not endear him to either abolitionists or Southern voters.

When Lincoln ran for the highest office in the land in 1860, it was the first time that “sectional” (regional) parties were involved in a presidential race. It was also the first time that the South was not represented on either the top or the bottom of a winning presidential ticket. Abraham Lincoln did not win a single Electoral College vote from either a Southern or a border state. In fact, he won the election with only 39 percent of the popular vote. The message was clear to Southerners: the North, and only the North, would determine the president.

“I will say then, that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of making voters of the Negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, of having them to marry with white people. I will say in addition, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I suppose, will forever forbid the two races living together upon terms of social and political equality, and inasmuch, as they cannot so live, that while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, that I as much as any other man am in favor of the superior position being assigned to the white man.”
— Abraham Lincoln, 1858, Lincoln-Douglas Debate

Abraham Lincoln’s Early Months in the Presidency

Southerners perceived the election of Abraham Lincoln as the solidification of Northern dominance over nearly every aspect of their lives. It took only a day for Americans in South Carolina and multiple Gulf Coast states to call for secession.

Despite the mounting tensions between the North and South, Lincoln did not have a single man who lived below the Mason-Dixon line on his cabinet as an adviser, nor did he take a meeting with any Southern lawmakers from the time that he was elected up through the beginning of the Civil War.

If the preservation of the Union was a top priority for Lincoln, he should have attempted to prevent the mounting hostilities, addressed the concerns that the South had been battling against for more than a decade, and tried to prevent the fever pitch from growing louder. But he did not. Lincoln ignored the South’s economic and states’ rights worries repeatedly, so their distrust of the new president increased dramatically.

Instead of attempting to meet with Southerners to calm their fears over continued tariff increases, or working toward eventually ending slavery peaceably, Lincoln signed the Morrill Tariff into law. Taking his power a step further, the new president vowed that he would ensure enforcement of the high tariff on Southern states that seceded from the United States. It signaled to the Southern states that they were trapped in a position of perpetual servitude to produce federal revenue.

President Lincoln was essentially calling the South out, but Southerners were not bluffing. They had lost patience in having taxation without representation for the sole benefit of the North, and so they seceded, with South Carolina being the first state to exit the Union. Northern members of Congress began preparing for a military campaign, as their Southern peers were packing up their Washington, D.C. offices for train rides home.

James Buchanan alongside other current and former politicians of the time reached out to the South, as well as the incoming administration to engage in a constitutional convention that was to be followed by a direct-vote national vote on the divisive issues threatening to tear apart the country. It was a Kansas Senator, John Crittenden, not Abraham Lincoln, who took bold steps to preserve the Union and prevent a Civil War that would ultimately take more than 650,000 American lives. Modern history books ignore the Kansas Senator’s noble efforts, as well as the decision by Lincoln and his party to embrace bloodshed.

The Crittenden Compromise called for immediate legislation to create a far more permanent solution, by way of constitutional amendments, for the issues dividing the nation. The compromise called for extending the slavery boundaries established by the 1820 Missouri Compromise, which had been terminated by the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act. This was the North’s proverbial fig leaf, which was being offered to appease Southerners, in the hope that friendly relations could be renewed. The act, which did get some support from powerful Senators in the North, was sent to a special committee. However, it died when some of Lincoln’s most staunch supporters quickly rejected the Crittenden Compromise. “History is to record us,” the Kansas Senator cautioned Congress when presenting his bill. “Is it to record that when the destruction of the Union was imminent, we stood quarreling?”

When elected officials from Texas, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Florida received no communication from President Lincoln to assure them that the fiscal attacks on the South would come to an end, they also voted to secede. North Carolina was the last to leave, and it ultimately lost the most men to the war.

President Lincoln’s War

Every newspaper in the country ran headlines about the South’s secession. Neither the press nor the Northeastern public disputed the right of the states to legally and peaceably withdraw from the United States, at least not initially. When a member of Abraham Lincoln’s cabinet suggested that they just let the South leave peaceably, the president has been quoted as replying, “Let the South go? Where, then, would we get our revenue!” Respect for the South’s right to secede soon vanished, not because of a more in-depth look at our Constitution, but because wealthy Northern business leaders suddenly realized that they would soon be competing in a truly free market (sans high tariffs) against the South. This fact, on top of worries about the massive loss of annual revenues resulting from lost tariffs, soon caused saber rattling of epic proportions.

President Lincoln finally took a meeting, a covert one, with a Southerner. He met with Virginia Secession Convention delegate Colonel John Baldwin. The colonel, like many of his peers, preferred for his state to remain a part of the United States if a compromise could be reached. During the April 4th, 1861 meeting, Colonel Baldwin learned that the president was already plotting a military assault against the South at Fort Sumter. The Virginia delegate tried to convince Lincoln that any such action would force the Southern states into an all-out war with the North. The colonel also told the president that if the South were permitted to leave the Union peaceably, economic and historical ties would ultimately bring the two geographical factions back together again.

Another point of fact that modern history textbooks omit is why Fort Sumter was the place that Lincoln chose to make a stand. It was not merely a military fort. Fort Sumter was a tariff collection facility. The president’s attempt to terrorize the South into submission by assaulting Fort Sumter was an epic and very bloody failure.

Colonel Baldwin responded to a letter that was sent by a Northern politician asking what would become of Union men in Virginia after the battle of Fort Sumter. “There are now no Union men in Virginia. But those who were Union men will stand to their arms, and make a fight which shall go down in history as an illustration of what a brave people can do in defense of their liberties, after having exhausted every means of pacification.”
After losing the early battles of the Civil War, Lincoln and his supporters, both in industry and the Senate, began to anguish over the possibility that England and European nations would send military support to the South, since his administration was viewed throughout the world as a despotic regime. There was concern that the Republican leadership would be tried like war criminals. Threats and a naval blockade ensued to preemptively thwart interventions by other nations. Lincoln even threatened war against any nation that sought to provide humanitarian aid.

Author Charles Dickens penned a now obscure but relevant opinion piece about the Civil War in a London newspaper during the final weeks of 1861. “The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States.”

Infamous socialist Karl Marx also saw the Civil War for exactly what it was. He wrote, “The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war, is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for power.”

During his first four months as President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln trampled the U.S. Constitution to create the military dictatorship that was necessary to wage and win a war against his own people.

Abraham Lincoln’s Unconstitutional Acts and High Crimes
  1. Lincoln circumvented Congress when calling up the United States Army — 75,000 men initially.
  2. He refused to call Congress back into session after ordering military action at Fort Sumter.
  3. Ordered the Navy to blockade Southern ports, a direct act of war. Such an act could only be undertaken by an order of Congress. It was a diabolical tactic to prevent food imports, in order to starve the Southern states.
  4. In an escalation of Lincoln’s starvation strategy, he ordered General Sherman to begin a military campaign against civilians, cities, and hospitals. Women and children were not spared. General Sherman was nicknamed “Burning Sherman”, because he randomly burned entire cities, even in the middle of winter. Lincoln ordered Sherman to terrorize the South by pillaging and plundering at a level that surpassed even the ancient Roman armies. As America’s first war criminal, General Sherman is one of the main reasons why disease and starvation killed significantly more people in the Civil War than combat.
  5. Suspended the writ of habeas corpus, yet another act that is a function of Congress. The suspension of habeas corpus gave Lincoln the power to arrest Americans without filing a criminal charge and permitted him to have them held indefinitely without either a charge or a trial.
  6. Lincoln violated the Constitution once again when he refused to comply with a Supreme Court order to immediately restore the right of habeas corpus. Our Founding Fathers added the habeas corpus protection into the Constitution specifically so tyranny would never again reign in America, as it had in Europe and when the “New World” was under British control.
  7. Lincoln had the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court arrested after receiving a court order to restore habeas corpus protections. Upon receiving the ruling by the high court, the president sent a federal marshal to arrest the Chief Justice.
  8. There has never been a more substantial threat to a free press in the history of our country than the 16th President of the United States. Lincoln sent soldiers to destroy printing presses and related newspaper publishing tools at outlets which did not support his handling of the Southern secession. In response to negative editorials about the military invasion of the South and his overall war policy, Lincoln also commandeered, and then closed 300 Northern newspapers.
  9. President Lincoln did not stop at just destroying private property and commandeering newspapers, he also arrested and imprisoned many of the editors and publishers of those same press outlets.
  10. Before the end of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln had ordered the arrest of approximately 20,000 Americans without charging them with a crime or permitting them to have their day in court. The citizens who were unconstitutionally detained had spoken out against Lincoln personally, the Civil War, or were merely suspected of harboring anti-war sentiments.
  11. The 16th President illegally took it upon himself to create a new state. West Virginia quickly came into existence after Lincoln declared war on the South, as a North-friendly region within the South.
  12. Lincoln arrested and imprisoned the entire Maryland state legislature to prevent them from holding a debate and taking a vote on secession. The elected officials were never charged with a crime, or granted a trial.

Concluding the War of Northern Aggression.
​ What occurred in 1861 still festers to this day, and almost all of it has been cloaked in politically-expedient lies. A tyrannical, centralized government that was hell-bent on dominating the Southern states was coalesced by the election of Abraham Lincoln. What was known as the War of Northern Aggression throughout the world gave birth to an overbearing federal government that is answerable to no one, a false supremacy of the federal government over the states, a government that cannot control its own growth or spending, the principle that agents of the federal government are above the law, a government that does not obey its own Constitution, and it spawned a perpetual cycle of servitude for all Americans in the form of income tax. That national tax system requires the tracking of everything that every American does. They did it for the money and it was only the money.

The Northern troops were enraged and their army began experiencing increased desertions when, in the middle of the war, the Northern politicians reinvented the war as a crusade against slavery, for political capital, and as a means to further punish the South. Northern soldiers were deeply disturbed by this new narrative, which stated that they were expected to continue killing their own countrymen for the sole benefit of the Negroes. It was not what they had enlisted for. Meanwhile, many (if not most) of the freed slaves had to be driven from their plantations by Northern soldiers, for they were afraid to leave the only places that they knew to be their homes. Most of the slaves had come to consider their owners as family and this feeling was often mutual. Allowing the slaves to voluntarily remain looked terrible politically and the press would have had a heyday if the overwhelming majority had remained. So, slaves were driven into the wilderness with very few options for their survival, other than crime. In response to the rampant crime by former slaves (who sadly had no other way to survive) the Ku Klux Klan was formed as a vigilante organization, but it quickly spiraled out of control with the growing racial tensions. At no point in this catastrophe was genuinely helping the “colored” a goal of the North’s war machine.

America’s Founding Fathers labored over what might be the most important document that will ever be written by man, only to be gutted less than 100 years later, by a president who is falsely revered. Lincoln may have taken actions that ultimately brought the broken Union back together, but the aftermath of his role as a despot and military dictator marks him as the worst enemy that the United States has ever known. Lincoln came closer to completely destroying the United States than anyone else. The institution of slavery would have ended soon, with or without a war. If Lincoln had chosen the without option, or if the South had been allowed to participate in the presidential election, then America would not have had its cultural and economic base obliterated. The U.S. would have advanced centuries beyond where it is now, and race relations would be good. Instead, most of America was sent back to the Stone Age, and the flames of racial hatred were fanned in a way that may never be truly quenched. Lincoln never expressed remorse for any of it. He was, by every definition, a sociopath. He would be at home in today’s liberal politics.

Lessons to Be Learned
The history of the American Civil War ought to provide us with some important lessons, and it is easy to understand why the lessons are avoided by today’s leftist educators. The American Civil War was a dire warning about the destiny of any welfare state. In the early stages of the disease, the U.S. political system was brought to its knees by class warfare. Eventually, as the class system ever polarized, one group became entirely responsible for financially supporting another. America became the first welfare state, with the South providing the welfare benefits to the North. The North was the South’s ungrateful and jealous welfare child. Eventually, the North shifted from simple ingratitude to full-fledged resentment against the hand that fed it. This irrational resentment is the eventual consequence of all welfare systems, whenever they are continued for long enough. The solution to the North’s jealousy and resentment was violence, which it justified through rationalizations of injustices by the very people whom it had developed a parasitic relationship with. Everything collapsed once the North ran out of other peoples’ money. It had behaved as if there had been no need for thriftiness, since more money could always be taken, but there isn’t always more. Compare this to the politics of today. Very little has actually changed. Between all the political correctness, socialist movement, race baiting, and identity politics of liberalism today, we still find that we destroy the character and spirit of a people whenever we are too generous. Through our excessive generosity, we encourage the beneficiaries of our philanthropy to develop a sense of entitlement and a belief in the righteousness of theft.]]>
<![CDATA[Nathan Bedford Forrest and the Battle of Fort Pillow, 1864]]>Fri, 22 Dec 2017 15:24:37 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/nathan-bedford-forrest-and-the-battle-of-fort-pillow-1864Picture
By Ed Kennedy 

Although just a minor tactical action in the greater scheme of the Civil War, the April 12, 1864 battle at Fort Pillow became a strategic issue. The effects of the battle unintentionally rose to the very highest levels of both the Union and Confederate governments. There were a number of issues that caused this seemingly minor battle to rise to national prominence.

Fort Pillow was built in 1861 on the eastern bank of the Mississippi River about forty miles north of Memphis, Tennessee. Abandoned by the Confederates and occupied twice by Union forces, Fort Pillow became a target for Confederate forces commanded by Major General Nathan Bedford Forrest in April 1864. In March 1864 two Union artillery units and a cavalry unit (a total of 557 soldiers) occupied the fort under the command of Major Lionel F. Booth. Second-in-command was Major William F. Bradford, Forrest’s fellow Tennessean from the same home county but fighting on the Union side. Bradford commanded the 13th Tennessee Cavalry (U.S.), a unit that was already notorious for its war crimes against West Tennessee citizens. Compounding the issue of the unit’s abuses were the Confederate deserters that had been incorporated into the ranks of this Union-raised unit serving in a Southern state. Also in Fort Pillow before the battle began were approximately one hundred civilian family members and workers.

Although the Union Army officially opened its ranks to African-American soldiers in 1863, they were only allowed to serve in segregated units under the command of white officers – at half the pay of white Union soldiers. The two artillery units in Fort Pillow were two such African-American units manned by, in the official term used during the Civil War, "U.S. Colored Troops." Roughly half of the Fort Pillow garrison’s strength was African-American Union soldiers.

After making a raid to Paducah, Kentucky in order to gain materiel and recruits, Forrest turned south towards Memphis. Fort Pillow immediately garnered Forrest’s attention due to the fact that it had been recently re-occupied by the Union. Confederate soldiers in Forrest’s ranks had family members in the area surrounding the fort and had complained of their abuse by the Union forces. Bradford’s "home grown Yankees" of the 13th Tennessee Cavalry were the named culprits. Local West Tennessee citizens requested that a unit from Forrest’s command be detailed to guard their homes and families from Bradford’s depredations. Forrest decided to do more. He ordered a demonstration towards Memphis and then launched the bulk of his forces against Fort Pillow.

On the early morning of April 12, 1864, almost 1,500 Confederate troops converged on Fort Pillow. The Confederates quickly drove in the outlying Union pickets and then occupied hillocks that allowed Confederate sharpshooters to begin engaging the fort’s defenders. Major Booth attempted to burn cabins and outbuildings near the perimeter of the fort to prevent the Confederates from using them as cover and concealment. It was here that some Union soldiers may have been shot down, then inadvertently burned in the very buildings they were torching to prevent Confederate use. However, this subsequently became a contentious issue when, after the battle, the Union claimed that the Confederates had burned wounded U.S. soldiers.

With Confederate Brigadier General James R. Chalmers commanding the initial assaults, the Confederates hemmed the Union defenders inside the fort and then began a concerted effort to close on the Union works. At about 9 a.m., Major Booth was killed by one of the 300 assaulting Confederate sharpshooters. At 10 a.m. Forrest arrived on the scene to take command. He immediately made troop dispositions to conduct a double envelopment as well as a frontal assault. About this time the Union naval gunboat, USS New Era, commanded by Captain James Marshall, began firing at the nearby Coal Creek ravine to prevent Confederate forces from enveloping Fort Pillow from the north. Forrest was injured when two horses were shot out from under him, but he remained to command the upcoming assault. At about 1 p.m. the New Era pulled away farther along the Mississippi River to allow its guns to cool. Almost 300 gunboat shells had been fired at the Confederates with virtually no effect.

At about 3 p.m. Confederate ammunition resupplies arrived and Forrest sent a demand for surrender to Major Booth not knowing Booth already had been killed. Forrest’s surrender demand read: "I now demand unconditional surrender of your forces, at the same time assuring you that you will be treated as prisoners of war. … I have received a new supply of ammunition and can take your works by assault, and if compelled to do so you must take the consequences."

Union naval gunboats, now including USS Olive Branch, began moving as if to reinforce the fort despite the truce. The Confederates reacted by moving troops towards the Mississippi River beach area to repulse any Union landings. This subsequently became another point of contention as the Union claimed a violation of the rules of war by citing the movement of the Confederates – but never acknowledging the potential reinforcement by the gunboats.

Major Bradford in the meantime, with Booth’s death now in command of Fort Pillow, stalled for time by returning a note to Forrest requesting time to consult with his officers. Aware of his personal reputation with Forrest, Bradford signed the note as the now-deceased “Major Booth.” Union soldiers along the ramparts were feeling confident enough to heckle the attacking Confederates after holding them off for the better part of a day. This intentional heckling only served to inflame the passions on the Confederate side. Major Bradford was cognizant of Forrest’s command’s previous use of ruses to gain the surrender of Union defenders. Most recently, at Union City, Tennessee, the Union garrison there had surrendered to one of Forrest’s subordinates who had a numerically inferior force. Bradford sealed his own force’s fate by declaring that he would never surrender. He placed barrels of alcoholic beverages with dippers for the defenders to drink from, perhaps hoping to steel the resolve of his soldiers.

At about 5 p.m., Forrest ordered the bugler to sound the "Charge." Outnumbering the Union defenders by at least two-to-one, the Confederates surged over the fort’s parapets in a rush. Not only did the Confederates outnumber the defenders, they had the additional benefit of overwhelming close-range firepower provided by the six-shot pistols all of the Confederate cavalryman habitually carried – but only half of Fort Pillow’s Union defenders were armed with revolvers. Assuming that the direct assaulting force consisted of about 800 Confederate soldiers armed largely with revolvers, the Confederates might have faced only about 260 Union troops with pistols, the remaining Union defenders being armed with either single-shot muskets or carbines. This alone would give the assaulting force the necessary 3:1 firepower ratio considered necessary for success by military doctrine for attackers since the muskets, once fired, were no good at such close-quarters combat except with bayonets or as clubs. The end result of this disparity in firepower meant that combat was necessarily close due to the short range of the pistols and the fact that the Confederates physically closed to within just a few yards of the defenders as they vaulted the walls of the fort. This produced hand-to-hand combat and point-blank shooting at extremely close range, creating another point of contention: based on powder burns found on some Union casualties, the Union accused Forrest’s Confederates of executing some of the fort’s defenders. However, such powder burns were to be expected at close-range engagements using black powder firing weapons.

At this point confusion reigned as the Confederates literally surged over the Union lines. Major Bradford shouted for the defenders to save themselves. The Union soldiers broke and ran to escape down the cliff to the beach area and the possible safety of the Union gunboats. No thought had been given to an organized surrender and Bradford’s hasty declaration to “Save yourselves!” panicked the Union defenders into a disorganized rout. Moreover, as the Union defenders fled to the beach, the U.S. flag still flew from Fort Pillow’s flagpole – this is significant since in 19th century warfare “Striking (lowering) the Colors” was the universally accepted signal that a garrison had surrendered and an unmistakable signal to the victorious attackers to stop firing. Had Bradford sensibly lowered the U.S. flag, this would have been a clear indication to all attacking Confederates that the garrison had surrendered.

Forrest’s Confederate cavalrymen pursued the fleeing enemy to prevent any further Union organized defense from being reconstituted. Captain Marshall of New Era, who had previously struck an agreement with the fort’s commander to support-by-fire any attempt of the Confederates to pursue the Union troops to the beach area, planned to engage the Confederates with cannister (anti-personnel) cannon rounds. But Marshall’s fire support plans were thwarted because the Union and Confederate forces were intermingled and therefore he risked hitting his own side’s soldiers.

In the race for the beach and possible safety, units intermingled, leaders were shot down and the inevitable confusion of fierce combat caused a loss of control on both sides. Major Booth actually had planned for such a contingency (of his garrison being pushed back to the beach) by pre-positioning ammunition boxes for his defenders to use if forced back to the beach. However, Booth’s planning assumption was predicated on an orderlydisplacement, not a panic-stricken rout. Later, some of the pre-positioned ammunition boxes were found opened, showing that at least some of the Union defenders knew their purpose and used the ammunition.

In one of the most controversial actions during the short assault, the Confederates shot down a number of Union soldiers in the beach area while many defending survivors drowned while trying to escape by swimming the Mississippi River. The Union subsequently tried to claim it was a planned massacre. In reality, it was most likely the result of a number of unintentional consequences combined to cause a tragedy for the Union soldiers. First, no organized surrender was ever declared. Soldiers surrendering did so as individuals. Because some of the Union defenders subsequently rearmed themselves after surrendering, it is likely that the Confederates became enraged and indiscriminately shot other defenders who were "surrendering." There is no doubt that latent racism was likely a contributing factor. Although Forrest had African-American Confederate soldiers in his ranks, the Confederate attackers were incensed that the defending African-American Union soldiers had taunted them during the truce and were therefore “guilty by association” with Bradford’s troops who had previously abused the attackers’ families. Revenge and heated passions from a long day of fighting made a deadly combination.

Experienced combat arms soldiers know how confusion occurs when converging forces assault an objective from three directions. This is what happened at Fort Pillow. Malice aforethought cannot be assumed simply because the losing side incurred a large number of casualties. A one-sided rout and vigorous pursuit would naturally produce a large number of casualties suffered by the defeated unit since the routed unit’s soldiers would not be organized to defend themselves and could more easily be shot down as they ran away. The attribution of a deliberate racist intent by the attacking Confederates to intentionally execute defenders defies knowledge of the culture and customs of Forrest’s command throughout the war. To ascribe ex post facto what happened to a premeditated conspiracy to "massacre" is logically and ethically wrong. Post-war lithographs of the battle and Union propaganda and disinformation managed to inflame passions. The prints used distortions and “tried” Forrest and his Confederate soldiers in the public forum, then found them guilty, despite the results of official Union inquiries into the conduct of the battle. Interestingly, all the prints and lithographs showing women and children present at the battle are part of the disinformation as all but ten civilian men had been evacuated by the Union Navy shortly before the battle. The women and children depicted being killed and brutalized by “blood-thirsty Confederates” in the notorious lithographs were not even present when the fort was assaulted and overrun.

Casualty figures vary slightly, but approximately 230 Union soldiers (of the approximately 560 in the fort’s garrison during the battle) were killed. About 60 African-American Union soldiers were taken prisoner (168 white Union troops were captured), the remainder either killed or reported as “missing in action.” In the wake of the battle, Forrest released 14 of the most seriously wounded Union African-American captives to the U.S. Navy steamer, Silver Cloud. About 14 Confederate soldiers were killed and more than 80 were wounded.

Only two weeks after the battle, a U.S. Congressional inquiry could not conclusively determine exactly what happened. Both sides failed to control the action, and only Forrest’s direct, personal intervention to stop the shooting saved many of the Union defenders left standing on the beach. Not satisfied with the Congressional inquiry, Union General William T. Sherman convened a not-so-impartial inquiry. He openly stated that he would try and convict General Forrest. However, Sherman’s inquiry also ended without substantive evidence to find Forrest culpable.

The stain that his lopsided Fort Pillow victory was a premeditated “massacre” remained with Forrest for the rest of his life. Northern newspapers publishing obituaries after his October 29, 1877 death, while acknowledging Forrest’s genius as a cavalry commander, nonetheless resurrected the “Fort Pillow Massacre” charges. The New York Times’ obituary even claimed that, during Forrest’s post-Civil War life, “his principal occupation seems to have been to try to explain away the Fort Pillow affair.” Northern newspapers criticizing Forrest’s effort “to explain away the Fort Pillow affair,” however, seem especially disingenuous since the sensationalist accounts by the partisan Northern press bears a large share of the burden for creating and perpetuating the “massacre” claim in the first place. Forrest always disputed claims that his Fort Pillow victory was a “massacre.” Any fair-minded judgment as to whether it was truly the racism-inspired, premeditated massacre claimed by the Northern press and Union leaders at the time must also take into consideration the inevitable confusion of desperate, hand-to-hand combat and the many contributing factors that created and exacerbated the disastrous Union rout.

Lieutenant Colonel (U. S. Army, ret.) Edwin L. Kennedy, Jr. was formerly Assistant Professor of History in the Combat Studies Institute and tactics instructor in the Center for Army Tactics, U. S. Army Command & General Staff College, Ft. Leavenworth, KS. He is currently Assistant Professor, Department of Command and Leadership, Redstone Arsenal, AL.

<![CDATA[Deo Vindice via the telling of a Confederate truth]]>Wed, 20 Dec 2017 20:57:39 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/deo-vindice-via-the-telling-of-a-confederate-truthPicture
​By: Joan Hough 
​Board member of the Confederate Society

I must begin our time together by defining a couple of Latin words for you “Deo” means “God,”Vindice” means avenge, revenge, and defend.  “Deo Vindice,” then means God will revenge; He will avenge, He will defend.
There is scarcely a thing you will hear from me today that did not come from the printed word of some truly great, politically incorrect, new historians who dare to write the truth—men such as Al Benson and Walter Kennedy without whose words this speech of mine could never be delivered. . And there are others.  References are available for anyone interested.  Please take a quick look later at the photos exhibited of some of the books containing my references and pick up a hand-out if you promise to read it. If you failed to view all of the table exhibits, do that also.
And now it is necessary that I tell you why the sharing of our Confederate truth is of such vital importance to me that I dare stand before you and quake as I speak.
A few verses from a wee poem published by the Georgia Heritage Council explain my reasons perfectly:
Let Vindice Be Aided by Me
By Joan Hough
Heavy, heavy is my heart, Tears course down-down this Southern face, Yes, I weep because I know, Oh, God, do I know!
On anguish!  I know the truth, It strikes me with its too sharp point—strikes deep in the heart of me.  It tears my soul, it clouds my reason: Lying enemies accused my kin of treason.
That enemy of my kin is mine –always and forever, as the Cross is my sign.
How long must what was remain an is?
How can what was and still is 
hurt so much?
I hear a long dead whisper;
Feel a long dead touch—“
“Is this too much?  
Seek justice, seek it for me.  At last make liars forsake the lie and with truth, testify.” [1]
I, Betty Joyce Hough, am a descendant of noble, long dead Confederates, still being attacked by enemies.  Horrific wrongs were done to all of our Confederates and are still being done today.  I’ve worried over this, prayed over it, and concluded that I know how to correct at least some of these great wrongs.
 “How can this be done? By me telling you and all who will listen, the real truth about our South and the War of Northern Aggression.  I know the real truth and I am compelled to tell it, then, if you tell it too, Deo Vindice!
Even Confederate descendants have been brainwashed [2] to accept the Lincoln cult myths as truth.  Slavery, we have been taught, was the cause of the war.  We have been conditioned with a giant, horrific lie to believe a humongous fairy tale.  
Time does not allow the presentation of the entire proof why slavery was neither the reason our South seceded nor the motive for Mr. Lincoln’s invasion of our sovereign nation. For now I’ll simply say “a war was not necessary to free the slaves, but it was necessary to destroy the most significant check on the powers of the central government: the right of secession.”[3]  War was necessary in order for Lincoln to abolish constitutionally guaranteed states rights. Why was the destruction of States Rights so important?  Without States Rights, Americans have no real protection from an all powerful central government.
Proof that slavery was not the reason for Lincoln’s Constitutional treason, lies in the very words Lincoln uttered in his first Inaugural speech; he said he ”had no intention to interfere with Southern slavery, and that even if he did, it would be unconstitutional to do so.”[4]   Proof also lies in the Corwin Amendment, which was supported by Lincoln and passed in 1861 by both houses of Congress. It promised forever slavery—that is slavery in perpetuity.[5]  Proof is, also, found in the details and timing of the Emancipation Proclamation—not at the beginning of the war, but in its middle when the north was losing.  It freed slaves neither in 12 Louisiana parishes, nor anywhere in the north—and actually nowhere in the Confederate States.[6]
Southerners must learn that part of the real truth is that the War against Southern liberty started when the north insisted that the South become its milk cow, and instead of saying “moo,” the South said “no.”   Our South was already paying up to 90 percent of the tariffs, paying nearly the entire support of the central government and getting nothing out of it.[7]  But finances were not the real reason the South was attacked.
Vindice will be ours when we plant the real truth in the minds of all Southerners and other Americans.  Vengeance is ours when the legality of secession is understood and we have elected leaders with more honesty than greed and they tell our truth.  Deo Vindice will be achieved when enough Americans learn that the right of secession was taught [8] at West Point [9] and that the Constitution never held any state in bondage to the Central government— that the Union was not constitutionally created to be “indivisible”[10] —that Lincoln and his Republicans lied when they claimed it was.[11]
There was a dark and sinister motive for that invasion of our South—a motive recognized but not associated with a title by our Confederate leaders. That motive has finally been identified[12]—and is being unveiled.
Vindice will be ours when enough of us realize the truth—that a long hidden cause of the war was that there existed a hideously malignant influence on Lincoln and his northerners.[13]
 Ah, truth!  It is so easy to convince people ignorant of the true developmental history of the USA that secession was and still is illegal.  Most Americans believe every word chanted in the Pledge of Allegiance—the words of one of Lincoln’s greatest admirers, Francis Bellamy, the kicked out of the pulpit for Socialism, Baptist preacher.[14]  [15]
The word “indivisible” in Bellamy’s Pledge of Allegiance is a direct insult to you and me and to every one of our Confederate ancestors.[16]  Indivisible, as you know, means “cannot be divided.” This one word supports the lie that the Confederate States of America was created by traitors who denied the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence-based indivisibility of the Union. The truth the liars do not want us to know is that indivisibility (perpetual union)  was never mentioned in either document—that States Rights, protected by the Constitution, was guaranteed only by the right of secession.[17]
Too many Americans believe that our ancestors were evil, that war on civilians, and its horrors if any really existed, and  the woes of Reconstruction were well-deserved.  Our own Southerners are unaware that holocausts did not originate in a World War Two Europe, but in America [18] with the Republicans’ treatment of Southern civilians and imprisoned Confederate soldiers.  The politically correct historians contend General Sherman was right when he declared that even Southern women and their children should be killed and when he and Generals Sheridan and Grant deliberately murdered thousands of civilians with fire, bullets, bombs, exposure and starvation. 
 Americans are ignorant of the truth—that our people experienced not only a holocaust,[19] but also genocide and cultural genocide.[20]   Too many people think that whatever the Yankees did was all for the good of America, because as everyone should know—“the end justifies the means.” (Do you recognize that little Communist slogan? It should be as familiar to you as another Commie one—“From each according to his ability to each according to his need.) 
Ignorance always holds hands with the enemies of truth.  We Southerners have suffered long because of excruciating ignorance of our own history and that of our U.S. Government.   We are the victims of politicians, judges, writers, preachers and teachers seduced into believing the lies of ignorant, or lying historians, Political Party controllers, and sycophants.
Those of our blood have been falsely accused, smeared and vilified—originally by Lincoln, by his Republican Party members and by addled Democrats. The enemies’ lies, occasionally altered, have continued as brainwash[21] splashed on Americans for nearly two centuries.  From cradle to grave from kindergarten enrollment through doctoral degree acquisition, Americans have been deluged with lies told over and over--ad infinitum, ad nauseam
And so I tell you now why my family’s horror and yours really began in our South; I share with you a proved truth—one our Republican Party itself has kept from all of us so many long years, it has been almost forgotten.  
 In the 1800s there existed in Europe and then in America, a force so evil that it destroyed an entire Southern culture, inflicted absolute real and cultural genocide[22]on Southern people and almost prevented the very presence on this planet of you and me.
This force altered the meaning of the U.S.  Constitution and even years after the war added a couple of illegally passed amendments to it.  It turned the Constitution into either a “dead document”[23] which is completely ignored or a “living document” [24] to be interpreted according to the whims of Republican and Democrat politicians including Presidents and Supreme Court justices—who tell us how smart we are when we are putting them into office, but once there declare us too dumb to interpret the real meaning of our Constitution or to know what is best for ourselves, our families and our land.
  This force turned our entire U.S.  Government from one of law, from a Republic, into something loathed by the founding fathers— a Democracy.[25]  &[26]  
We have all been taught that a Democracy is the ideal type of government—the very one our forefathers gave us!  What an enormous lie! The word “Democracy” appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation or the U.S. Constitution.  Oddly, we have been informed that Communists fighting in the Socialist Revolution in Europe in 1848—fought “for Democracy.” [27]
Even as I speak, this force of evil is still here in our United States, as malevolent now as it was in the 1800s.  It controls Southerners by keeping us ignorant of its existence.  It keeps us guilt-ridden and constantly attacks the remaining remnants of pride we hold in our ancestors and our Confederacy. 
To negate any influence we may have on other Americans this force labels us uneducated, ignorant, racist “red necks,” white supremacists, and anti-Semitics.  (Never is it admitted that Lincoln and most northerners were violently opposed to black people.  A year after their war started, it was citizens of Illinois who amended their constitution to prohibit blacks or mulattos from immigrating to or dwelling in their state.)[28]  
This force strives to kill the Constitution perhaps in a ”Con Con,” a Constitutional Convention, to be taken over by those who will rewrite the entire U.S. Constitution and turn us into the North American Union  as another step on the way to the New World Order.[29]
  This force is using our political parties to remove Christianity from our nation. It is replacing  morality with hedonism and is giving us a new god to worship—the god of all powerful government –a U.S. government without States Rights, on its way to becoming part of a World government , [30]a  New World Order.[31]
This evil has infiltrated the fields of medicine and psychiatry and every American institution— the courts, schools, churches, labor unions, the military, and every portion of our government.   It has slyly altered the true history of the U.S.  It has caused Americans to turn from religion to hedonism and from heterosexual normality to “learned” sodomy. It has moved Americans from self-reliance to dependence on cradle-to-grave government care. It has caused Americans to value security above freedom.  
What is this force?  My dear fellow Confederate descendants, this force so evil is COMMUNISM.  
 Some call it Socialism, some, call it “Progressivism,” some call it the New World Order,[32] some call it State Capitalism, some call it “Communitarianism,” [33]  and some call it Democracy.  Whatever the name applied, it remains that old enemy from the 1800’s, Communism.[34]  Its proponents, exceedingly clever and out to rake in the money and power given its elites, have created an atmosphere making folks, who recognize its existence, unwilling to identify it publically or name its leaders. 
Karl Marx declared it important to Communism for Democracy to be established. He understood Democracy paved the way to revolution—when private property could be abolished as well as other goals accomplished, as detailed in the Manifesto.[35] Democracy of our time is expected to mutate into Socialism and then into New World Order Communism using the army of the United Nations to control the world.[36]
  Another champion of Democracy was Communist Mao Tse-tung who declared it a stage of Communism. Communist Mikhail Gorbachev said “according to Lenin, socialism and democracy are indivisible.” [37]
The real, unrecognized motive for the United States’ attack on our South was one that a multitude of Marxists brought with them in 1848 and 1849 direct from Europe to the United States.  It was, quite simply, the continuation in America of the SOCIALIST REVOLUTION[38] that Communists began and lost in Europe.[39]  Their goal back then was to rule the world.  They failed to win their Revolutionary War in Europe, but they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams in their continuation of it in America— and they gained their first foothold on world control.
According to a present day German author, Professor Wolfgang Hochbruck, his hero-Germans in the Union Army had declared their European War in 1848, a war for “union, freedom” and “republican revolutionism.” [40]
Hochbruck wrote that the Germans viewed the American Civil War as a mere continuation of their Socialist European revolution. 
 Hochbruck reported that out of the 180,000 Germans who fought for the Union, an estimated five thousand fought earlier in Europe in the [Socialist] Revolution.  Hochbruck declared “The failure of their revolutionary hopes in Europe did not prevent them from taking arms again in 1861 [in America] to defend the very principles they had fought for in 1848 and 1849: Union, freedom, andDEMOCRACY.” [41]
Redistribution of wealth, of property, was one of the Communist Germans’ war goals in Europe [42]so, in America when they invaded our South; they seized all Rebel property and all Southern wealth.  General Sherman’s acceptance of Communist goals is obvious in his redistribution of the home and land of President Davis to the Davis slaves[43] and by Sherman, Sheridan, Grant and other Yankees’ theft of Southerners’ property.
  Sherman acted on his belief that all Southerners should be replaced with Republicans. The Marxist Republicans’ taxation policy carried that out—allowing carpetbaggers and Union soldiers to buy Southerners’ property for pennies.[44]           Northerners came South by train loads to buy and haul off almost six million acres of virgin southern forests—for a price as low as 25 cents an acre.[45]Yankees soon occupied all the land “moneyless” Southerners lost to the victors because of stolen dollars and slapped-on taxes.[46]  
A progressive Income tax was another Communist goal. [47] Lincoln liked it so much, he gave it to Americans[48] as the first United States Income tax. [49] That very tax was brought back in 1913 and is now the law of our land. Some Constitutionalists contend its ratification was unconstitutional; at least one federal Judge declares income tax should be abolished.[50]
How sad it is that none of us knew long ago of the 2000 Communists called the 1848ers who, in the 1860s took over the United States.  We did not know of the presence of Communists in high places in Lincoln’s government and his military [51]. We knew nothing of their influence on the laws of our land.  We knew not of their role in the U.S. military, in Congress, and in Reconstruction
If you think “Marxist” and “Communist” just words in the 21st century, irresponsibly used to describe Obama and his Tsars, you have not learned of one of America’s leading Communists — one of our Confederacy’s most formidable foes--- a man who fought with the pen, rather than with the sword — Mr. Charles Anderson Dana.[52] Lincoln called Dana, “the eyes of the Administration.” [53] It seems obvious—Dana was, also, “the Pen of the Marxists. “
  An unrelenting enemy of the U.S. Constitution, Dana was a man who is still one of the Republican Party’s biggest and best-kept secrets. His support of Communist goals during the “Uncivil” war and its Commie-planned Reconstruction facilitated the destruction of our family members, and our Southern world. He did this by spearheading the writing of the most revolting COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA ever created.  His anti-South propaganda, much of which came out of Secretary of War Stanton’s office, made reluctant U.S. soldiers wild to kill all white Southerners.
He set in motion a type of brainwashing including even anti-Confederate cartoons designed to turn fellow Americans and imported hired guns—men straight from European jails, into mass murderers.  Propaganda made them, their Generals and their power- greedy President, perpetrators of a monstrous Southern holocaust. 
As the major propagandist before the war, during the war and during Reconstruction, Dana was a man who set the stage so today’s historians refer to Lincoln’s sadistic, Socialistic-Marxist U.S. Senators as merely “Radical Republicans.”
CHARLES ANDERSON DANA was a man largely responsible for horror’s arrival in America.  His influence covered all of the Union—the Abolition nuts, the Republican Party, Lincoln’s office, the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress, and every U.S. Prisoner of War Camp. He was even involved with Secretary of War Stanton in efforts to prove President Davis guilty of Lincoln’s death.[54]
Dana was a high powered, New York journalist, a co-owner and managing editor of the great New York Tribune and one of the first Communists ever to be placed into a high position in the United States government; Lincoln made Dana the United States Assistant Secretary of War.[55]
As a young man Dana, an American born, second generation Socialist, left the New England based Communist Brook Farm commune [56]  and went to work for the New York Tribune.  He became its foreign correspondent to Europe and covered the Socialist Revolution of 1848.  It was in Europe that he developed some ‘forever friendships” with two dedicated fanatics by name of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.[57]
 Dana had vast persuasive powers.  He and all who harkened to him caused more battle front related deaths of Americans than occurred in BOTH World Wars and all police actions since- including Korea and Viet Nam. Battlefield related deaths during the “Uncivil” War reached 620,000—equivalent to about five million deaths today [58] a number not including hundreds of thousands of murdered civilians.
When Dana became intimates of Marx and Engels, they were employed by an elitist group of Europeans called the Illuminati to write a treatise explaining the principles and plans of that group.  After the book was written and entitled   THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, the Illuminati adopted the title “Communists” and their creed became “Communism.” [59]
Upon Dana’s return to America, he became a co-owner of the New York Tribune and its Managing Editor and hired his good buddy Karl Marx as the Tribune’s European Foreign Correspondent.[60]He gave Karl the paid opportunity to spread the Communist philosophy and venom throughout Europe and our northern states.
Dana served Communism not only with his own writing expertise, but as a skillful procurer of jobs for incoming 48ers. His was a virtual employment office for Communists.    He gave propaganda opportunities to an immense number of Communist newcomers to America who arrived here in late 1848 and in 1849— men whose thoughts mirrored his own. They infiltrated magazines, newspapers, labor unions, and abolition groups and were in on the birth of the Republican Party.[61] Dana and his bunch put Lincoln into office. This surely was one of the reasons so many of them were given some of the highest of high places [62] in Mr. Lincoln’s Army.
  When 2000 of them[63] arrived on the shores of New York, many of them may have been wagging along copies of the Manifesto. No matter its method of arrival, the thing published in 1848 in Europe, was published in American shortly thereafter.  Lincoln, himself, must have read it and liked it because once they elected him; he not only named many Communists to top ranks in his military[64] but placed the first Communist into a high position in the U.S. government. [65] He adopted a number of the Communist planks and made them the law of the land---Income tax, public education, and redistribution of property, were just three of those dreadful planks. 
Communists fabricated “proof” for what today purports to be history and is taught in every American institution of learning.
 As master psychologists, Communists remain without peers in the manipulation of human desires and emotions.  Two of the hot buttons they know just how to push are those of heterosexual and homosexual sex.  The Marxists in cahoots with the abolitionists taught northerners that our South “was a great brothel [66] filled with sexually depraved Southerners who inflicted physical horrors on poor black slaves. Marxists inspired imaginative novels such as Uncle Tom’s Cabin.  Intellectually limited or brain-washed Americans still believe such to be truthful accounts of Southern happenings. The propagandists reported that Confederate soldiers cut heads off Union soldiers and kicked them about as footballs and performed a multitude of other hideous atrocities. [67]
Dana became so powerful, he played footsies with a few crazed abolitionists and he and his 48ers used them to create the Republican Party.[68]  [69] On a second try for U.S. control, Dana and his collection of 48ers were able to put Lincoln in office. Lincoln, in turn, made Dana, the Assistant Secretary of War, giving him the ability to rove anywhere the north’s military traveled.  While Southern leaders refused to propagandize, Dana’s written expertise influenced and aided Secretary of War Edwin Stanton’s propaganda efforts; Stanton rolled out an immense quantity of anti-South propaganda, even hired a staff to do so. 
 Dana and Grant saved Sherman from being booted out of the army for mental illness; Dana and Sherman kept Grant from being dumped for drunkenness; Sherman and Dana later made the Presidency possible for Grant.  
Dana had great influence over Secretary of State Edwin Stanton, Radical Republican Senators Benjamin Wade of Ohio, Henry Smith Lane of Indiana, and Morton Wilkinson of Minnesota. These gentlemen and Mr. Lincoln, hearing from Dana of fictitious episodes of Confederate cruelty to Union prisoners, had the U.S. Senate officially declare all Confederates guilty of treason and deserving of torture.[70]  The Senate passed the U.S. SENATE RESOLUTION #97 WHICH PRESCRIBED TORTURE FOR ALL CONFEDERATE PRISONERS and DESCRIBED STARVATION as one of the methods to be used.[71]
Had I more time, I would speak about the north’s mass murderers who were rewarded while innocent Confederate Captain Wirz at Andersonville was hanged after a great farce of a trial [72]  I would tell you about a young Confederate Cavalry soldier of Claiborne Parish, Louisiana, my cousin Samuel Mullinax, who was tortured and murdered with thousands of others at the USA’s Camp Douglas, [73]  [74] [75] and I would tell you about my Great. Great Uncle, John C. Hough of Alabama  imprisoned at Rock Island, Illinois and left blind,  and my Great, Great grandfather David W. Sedberry, held captive with thousands of our boys [76] in two U.S. torture-camps.—the last one— Point Lookout.  I wish that I could share with you and the whole world the content of a number of recent discoveries of the planned horrors at U.S. prison camps for Confederates,[77] but now is not the time. Official Reports (vol.2.73) tell us that tortures of Confederates were “increased in 1864.” Torturing became rampant in ’65 as the direct result of U.S. Senate approval. 
There is absolute, undeniable proof of grotesque Republican- approved tortures of our Confederates— the very same types of tortures our American military boys went through when tortured by the Communists in Korea and Viet Nam.  At Camp Douglas after 748 of our boys died in just three months, the authorities stopped all death reports.  This was not even discovered until 1997. [78] So the death counts are all inaccurate.
To summarize— Our Southern truth to be told is that Communists, pursuing their goal of world domination infiltrated the U.S. government, its military, the nation’s communications media,  and destroyed the South because Communists  feared Southerners’ deep religious convictions, our leadership abilities, our devotion to the U.S. Constitution and our  absolute belief in States Rights. Northerners owned slaves even after the end of their war—slavery was not the reason the Republican Party committed treason against the Constitution, invaded our sovereign Confederate nation, and brought in thousands of foreign fighters to murder Southerners.
The sharing of this long hidden truth will not only give us the vengeance our ancestors call out for, but will help halt the slide of our America into the New World Order[79] of Communism. The truth shall make us free.
Let now be the Confederate hour, let now be ours the power to force truth from mouths of government liars, and light their consciences with heaven’s own fires.
Let us make the people of the world aware that Confederates’ truth fills America’s air.[80]
Deo Vindice!
[50 foot banner listing names o Lincoln’s high ranking U.S. communist officers  rolled out by two ladies.]2***


[1] Joan Hough, “Let Vindice be Aided by Me” parts I. II and III: http://georgiaheritagecouncil.org/site2/commentary/hough vindice aided pt 1-042810.phtml
http: georgiaheritagecouncil.org/site2/commentary/hough vindiced_aided_pt2-042910.phtml http://georgiaheritage council.org/site2/commentary/hough Vindice_aided_pt3/commentary/043010.pht  
[2] Edward Hunter, Brainwashing from Pavlov to Powers (Linden, New Jersey:  The Bookmailer, 1956). 
[3] Thomas J. DiLorenzo, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2003), p. 9.
[4] Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Lincoln Unmasked (New York: Crown Forum, 2000), p. 24.
[5] Clint Johnson, The Politically Incorrect Guide to The South and Why It Will Rise Again (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing,, 2006) pp. 143-144.
6 Walter D. Kennedy, Myths of American Slavery (Gretna, Louisiana, 2003), pp 172-173.
7 James E. Stallings, Sr., Georgia’s Confederate Soldiers Who Died as Prisoners of War-and angels did Attend and Comfort Them ( ( Saline, Minnesota,: McNaughton & Gunn, 2008), p. xix. 
8. Thomas J. DiLorenzo, The Real Lincoln (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2003), p. 5. `and```
9 Walter D. Kennedy and Al Benson, Jr., Red Republicans: and Lincoln’s Marxists: Marxism in the Civil War (New York: iUniverse, 2007p. 62.
10  Hough, Ibid.[7]
11  Kennedy and Benson, 32. 23, 36, 70, 81 82 90, 126, 161, 173, 176, 179, 189, 190, 199, 217, 133. 
12  Ibid.
[13]  Kennedy and Benson.
[14] Ibid. p. 195.
[15] Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Lincoln Unmasked, pp. 156-160.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Thomas j. DiLorenzo, The Real Lincoln, p. 9.
[18] James Ronald Kennedy and Walter Donald Kennedy, The South Was Right (Gretna: Pelican, 1998), p. p. 278. 
[19] Ibid. p. 278.
[20] Kennedy and Kennedy.  Ibid, pp. 271-303.
[21] Hunter, Ibid.
[22] Kennedy and Kennedy, pp. 201-203.
[23] Thomas E. Woods, Jr. and Kevin R.C. Gutzman, Who Killed the Constitution? (New York: Crown Forum, 2008.)
[24]  Al Gore, - from the News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Public Broadcasting Service, March 14, 2000.
[25]  John E. McManus, A Republic If You Can Keep It (Appleton, WI : The John Birch Society, 2010
[26] Kennedy and Benson, Ibid. p. p. 6-7.
[27] Hochbruck, Ibid.
[28] James Ronald Kennedy and Walter Donald Kennedy, The South Was Right (Gretna: pelican, 1998), p. 55.
[29]  Bush Speech to Congress, March 6, 1991.
[30] Daniel Estulin, The True Story of the Bilderberg Group: North American Union Edition. (Chicago, Illinois: Independent Publishers Group, 2009), p. 48.(paper presented to U.s. Ari Command Staff College, March 1947), http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/espsociopolnwo72.htm
[31]  Bart R. Kessler, “Bush”s new World Order:  The Meaning Behind the Words” (paper presented to U.S. Air command Staff College, March 1974).
[32] William F. Jasper, The United Nations Exposed: (Appleton, Wisconsin: The John Birch Society, 2001 and Kennedy and Benson, p. 89.
[33]  J.A. Davis, “Liberty Lost, Part : Evaporation of the Republic” Georgia Heritage Council,,                                        http://georgiaheritagecouncil.org/site2/commentary/davis_liberty_lostVIII_110707.phtml
[34] John F. McManus, A Republic If You Can Keep It. Pp. 6-7.
[35] John E. McManus, A Republic If You Can Keep It (Appleton, WI: The John Birch Society, 2010), pp. 6-10.
[36] Daniel Estulin, The True Story of The Bilderberg Group (Walterville, OR: Trineday, 2009), p.. 106.
[37] John E. McManus, Ibid, pp 6-10.
[38]  Kennedy and Benson, Ibid. p. 174.
[39] Wolfgang Hochbruck, “Achtundvierziger” in den Armeen der Union: Eine vorlaufige List” – Forty-eighters in the Union Armies: A Preliminary Checklist, http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/dettweiler/genweb/e006.htm
[40]  Ibid. 
[41] Hochbruck, Ibid.
[42] Karl Marx and Frederich Engels, The Communist Manifesto, (New York: New American Library, 1998), p. 75.
[43] Michael Fellman Citizen Sherman: A Life of William, Tecumseh Sherman, (Kansas University: Press of Kansas, 1995) p. 168.
[44] Frank Conner, The South Under Siege 1830-2000 (Newman, Georgia: Collards Publishing, 2002), pp. 200-201.
[45] Frank Conner, p. 231.
[46] Ibid. p. 167.
[47] Karl Marx and Frederich Engels, The Communist Manifesto, (New York: New American Library, 1998), p. 75. 
[48]  Kennedy and Benson, p. 176.
[49] Conner, p. 153.
[50] Andrew P. Napolitano, The Constitution in Exile (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2006), p. 240.
[51] Kennedy and Benson. 
[52] Kennedy and Benson 
[53] Ibid. p.   99.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
[54] Charles Higham, Murdering Mr. Lincoln (Beverly Hills: New Millennium Press, 2004).
[55] Kennedy and Benson, Ibid, p. 140, 196,, 
[56]Kennedy and Benson, Ibid. p. 20, 26. And Gale Encyclopedia of Biography: Charles Anderson Dana.
[57] IKennedy and Benson. pp.  136, 140; 196.
[58] Thomas J. DiLorenzo, The Real Lincoln, p.X.
[59] William H. Mellhany, “A Primer on the Illuminati,” New American, June 22, 2009, p. 36.
[60] Kennedy and Benson, p. 196.
[61]Kennedy and Benson.
[62]  Ibid. 
[63] Hochbruck, Ibid. and Kennedy and Benson.
[64] Kennedy and Benson, pp. 109-157.
[65] Kennedy and Benson 
[66] Walter Kennedy, p. 35.
[67] Frank Conner, p. 173.
[68]    Kennedy and Benson, p. 174.                                                                                                                                                                          
[69] Clyde Wilson, “The Gettysburg Speech: Clyde Wilson on the Gettysburg Fraud,” www.LewRockwell.com November 2003
[70] United States Senate Resolution #97 proposed by Radical Republicans Wade,  January 26, 1865
[71]  Ibid.
[72] Kennedy and Kennedy. Ibid. pp. 45-47.
[73] George Levy, To Die in Chicago, (Gretna, Louisiana: Pelican, 2008).
[74] Joan Hough, “Chicago, A City of Our Dead” Palmetto Partisan South Carolina Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, November 2008, p. 5. 
[75] Roger Pickenpaugh, Captives in Gray: The Civil War Prisons of the Union (Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 2009).
[76] James E. Stallings, Sr., Georgia’s Confederate Soldiers Who Die as Prisoners of Warand angels did Attend and Comfort Them (Saline, Minnesota: McNaughton & Gunn, 2008), 
[77] Roger Pickenpaugh, Ibid. 
[78] James E. Stallings, p. 78.
[79] Bart R. Kessler, “Bush’s New World Order:  The Meaning Behind the Words” (paper presented to U.S. Air Command Staff College, march, 1947), 
[80] Joan Hough, “Let Vindice be Aided by Me,” Ibid.

<![CDATA[People of the Lie]]>Tue, 12 Dec 2017 18:27:56 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/people-of-the-lieEditor's note: This article fascinated me because I immediately thought of the big lie that lays at the foundation of the Republican party, dishonest Abe. The big lie that was told and sold after the war between the States was that it was merely fought over the plight of the slaves. All those poor city boys from up north dropped their vocations, left their families and bled the South red to save the slaves who were not welcome in their cities or factories. The world is full of lies because the father of lies, the Devil, controls it. Does he also control you? 

By Robert Ringer

I’ve written about The Big Lie many times over the years, and it’s more in evidence today than ever before in our nation’s capital.  Shock and disgust over sexual harassment in government, Hollywood, and the corporate world is a Big Lie.  Tax reform is a Big lie.  Social Security is a Big Lie.  Global warming is a Big Lie.  Braying over the plight of so-called Dreamers is a Big Lie.  And, of course, any government solution to the healthcare crisis is a Big Lie.

The Big Lie is a tool used by high-level, professional liars, those who are so morally flawed that they are able to apply their craft with a straight face — as in, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”

These accomplished liars understand that the key to effectively utilizing The Big Lie is to refuse to give ground even when the facts threaten to expose you.  On the contrary, effective tellers of The Big Lie are masters at feigning indignation, adopting a sanctimonious posture, and quickly going on the offensive when challenged.

The most masterful perpetrators of The Big Lie are those who wear personality masks intended to deceive.  They are, in the words of M. Scott Peck, “People of the Lie.”
A few examples include:
  • Media personalities who posit themselves as professional commentators while relentlessly pushing their hate-inspired agendas. They are, in fact, People of the Lie.
  • Politicians who cast themselves as champions of “women’s rights,” defenders of the “middle class,” or protectors of “the poor” in an effort to win votes. They are, in fact, People of the Lie.
  • Those who justify the use of violence by claiming to be in hot pursuit of “social justice.” They are, in fact, People of the Lie.
  • Et al.
People of the Lie have always been with us and will continue to be with us so long as the human race exists.  They do and say whatever they believe is necessary to accomplish their ends, which almost always includes achieving power over others.  In fact, in most cases power is the end.  In his book 1984, George Orwell, through his character O’Brien, underscored this reality when he said:

Now tell me why we [the Party] cling to power?  What is our motive?  Why should we want power? … The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake.  We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. … We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it.  Power is not a means; it is an end. … The object of power is power.

It’s worth noting that power and force are not mutually exclusive ends, because a person can use his personal power to act either constructively or destructively, and the ultimate destructive use of power is force.  Force is the use of physical or intellectual power to compel or restrain, thus force robs other people of their power.

In bygone days, the civilized world did not hesitate to use overwhelming, retaliatory force to destroy People of the Lie who tried to establish power over massive numbers of people through the use of force.  Despots like Hitler and Mussolini were crushed without ceremony.  Nevertheless, it is obvious to all but the sleepwalkers among us that People of the Lie are in positions of power more than ever before and are taking ever-greater control of world events.

Sadly, this will not change any time soon.  You and I do not have the means to rid the world of lying tyrants, but we can control how People of the Lie affect us on a personal level by being vigilant, well informed, and willing to face up to the truth about who these people are when they cross our paths.

If it’s obvious that someone is wearing a psychic mask — i.e., trying to represent himself to be someone other than who he really is — it’s almost always a big mistake to try to convince yourself that it’s your imagination.  In my experience, when someone hisses like a snake and slithers like a snake, he always turns out to be a snake.

By all means, you should give family, friends, and seemingly well-meaning people who come into your life the benefit of the doubt.  But when it comes to those whom you suspect of being be People of the Lie, giving them the benefit of the doubt can be an invitation to a snakebite.

In other words, at the first sign of dishonesty, it’s wise to resist the temptation to be naïve.  Do you really believe the teller of The Big Lie is going to respond to your presentation of facts by saying, “Gee, I hadn’t really thought about it in that way before.  I guess I was wrong.”  Forget it.  People of the Lie actually thrive on telling The Big Lie; it’s what they live for.
What I’ve learned through all too much firsthand experience is that the most rationally selfish way to handle People of the Lie is to respond with my feet.  Plain and simple, you do not have an obligation to allow a person of questionable character to enter, or remain in, your life.

And what about People of the Lie who roam the halls of Congress?  While it may not be possible to completely extricate yourself from government busybodies seek want ever more control over your life, it is possible to lessen their control by making a conscious effort to steer clear of them.
How does one go about doing that?  First and foremost, by not looking to People of the Lie in Washington to solve his problems.  As recent events in the nation’s capital have clearly demonstrated, the freeloading charlatans in Washington cannot even solve their own problems.

That said, I would suggest it’s a good idea to keep in mind Ronald Reagan’s admonition that government is not the solution to our problem, but, rather, government is the problem.  Then, once this reality is firmly entrenched in your mind, the challenge is to plan your life accordingly.

reprinted from Lew Rockwell.com

<![CDATA[Independence Hypocrisy]]>Wed, 06 Dec 2017 18:05:56 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/independence-hypocrisyBy Walter E. Williams

Officials in Catalonia, Spain’s richest and most highly industrialized region, whose capital is Barcelona, recently held a referendum in which there was a 92 percent vote in favor of independence from Spain. The Spanish authorities opposed the referendum and claimed that independence is illegal. Catalans are not the only Europeans seeking independence. Some Bavarian people are demanding independence from Germany, while others demand greater autonomy. Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court ruled: “In the Federal Republic of Germany … states are not ‘masters of the constitution.’ … Therefore, there is no room under the constitution for individual states to attempt to secede. This violates the constitutional order.”

Germany has done in Bavaria what Spain and Italy, in its Veneto region, have done; it has upheld the integrity of state borders. There is an excellent article written by Joseph E. Fallon, a research associate at the UK Defence Forum, titled “The Catalan Referendum, regional pressures, the EU, and the ‘Ghosts’ of Eastern Europe” (http://tinyurl.com/y8dnj6s6). Fallon writes that by doing what it’s doing in Bavaria, “Berlin is violating international law on national self-determination. It denies to Bavaria what it granted to the 19 states that seceded from Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. In fact, Germany rushed to be first to recognize the independence of Slovenia and Croatia.” It did that, according to Beverly Crawford, an expert on Europe at the University of California, Berkeley, “in open disregard of (a European Community) agreement to recognize the two states under EC conditionality requirements.”

The secessionist movements in Spain, Germany and Italy have encountered resistance and threats from the central governments, and in Catalonia’s case, secessionist leaders have been jailed. The central governments of Spain, Germany and Italy have resisted independence despite the fact that they are signatories to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which holds that “all peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”

Fallon notes the hypocrisy of Spain, Germany and Italy, as well as the entire European Union. Back in 1991, the EC — the precursor to the EU — “issued its conditions for recognizing the unilateral declarations of independence by states seceding from Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union.” Fallon argues that these same guidelines should be applied to the states of Catalonia, Bavaria and Veneto. Isn’t it double talk for members of the EU to condemn independence movements today, given that they welcomed and supported independence movements for states that were members of the communist bloc?

Catalonia, Bavaria and Veneto are relatively prosperous jurisdictions in their countries. They feel that what they get from the central governments is not worth the taxes they pay. Each wants the central government off its back. They think they could be far more prosperous on their own. That should sound familiar. Some of the motivation for secessionist movements in Europe is similar to the motivation found in the Confederacy’s independence movement of the early 1860s.

Throughout most of our nation’s history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. In the 1830s, the North used its power in Congress to push through massive tariffs to fund the government. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. The Southern states were primarily producers of agricultural products, which they exported to Europe. In return, they imported manufactured goods. These tariffs fell much harder upon the export-dependent South than they did upon the more insular North. In 1859, Southern ports paid 75 percent of federal tariff revenue. However, the majority of the tariff revenue generated was spent on projects that benefited the North.

Tariffs being a contributing cause of the Civil War is hardly ever mentioned. Using the abolition of slavery as an excuse for a war that took the lives of 620,000 Americans confers greater moral standing for the Union.]]>
<![CDATA[What Went Wrong in Charlottesville: At All Levels, Government Is Still the Problem]]>Tue, 05 Dec 2017 15:52:30 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/what-went-wrong-in-charlottesville-at-all-levels-government-is-still-the-problem​By John W. Whitehead
The Rutherford Institute

“In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem, government IS the problem.”—Ronald Reagan

Corruption. Graft. Intolerance. Greed. Incompetence. Ineptitude. Militarism. Lawlessness. Ignorance. Brutality. Deceit. Collusion. Corpulence. Bureaucracy. Immorality. Depravity. Censorship. Cruelty. Violence. Mediocrity. Tyranny.

These are the hallmarks of an institution that is rotten through and through.
What you smell is the stench of a dying republic. Our dying republic.
The American experiment in freedom is failing fast.

Through every fault of our own—our apathy, our ignorance, our intolerance, our disinclination to do the hard work of holding government leaders accountable to the rule of law, our inclination to let politics trump longstanding constitutional principles—we have been reduced to this sorry state in which we are little more than shackled inmates in a prison operated for the profit of a corporate elite.

We have been saddled with the wreckage of a government at all levels that no longer represents the citizenry, serves the citizenry, or is accountable to the citizenry.

We’re not the masters anymore.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about the federal government, state governments, or local governing bodies: at all ends of the spectrum and every point in between, a shift has taken place.

“We the people” are not being seen, heard or valued.

We no longer count for much of anything beyond an occasional electoral vote and as a source of income for the government’s ever-burgeoning financial needs.

Everything happening at the national level is playing out at the local level, as well: the violence, the militarization, the intolerance, the lopsided governance, and an uneasy awareness that the citizenry have no say in how their communities are being governed.

Take my own hometown of Charlottesville, Virginia, for instance.

In recent years, Charlottesville has been plagued by government leaders who are tone-deaf, focused on their own aggrandizement, and incapable of prioritizing the needs of their constituents over their own personal and political agendas; law enforcement officials for whom personal safety, heavy-handed militarized tactics, and power plays trump their duty to serve and protect; polarized citizens incapable of finding common ground, respecting each other’s rights, or agreeing to disagree; and a community held hostage by political correctness, divisive rhetoric and a growing intolerance for any views that may be unpopular or at odds with the mainstream.

It was a perfect storm just waiting for the right conditions to wreak havoc.

Unfortunately, the maelstrom hit in the summer of 2017, when Charlottesville, regularly cited as being one of the happiest cities in America, became ground zero for a heated war of words—and actions—over racism, “sanitizing history,” extremism (both right and left), political correctness, hate speech, partisan politics, and a growing fear that violent words will end in violent actions.

In Charlottesville, as in so many parts of the country right now, the conflict was over how to reconcile the nation’s checkered past, particularly as it relates to slavery, with the present need to sanitize the environment of anything—words and images—that might cause offense, especially if it’s a Confederate flag or monument.

That fear of offense prompted the Charlottesville City Council to get rid of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Leethat has graced one of its public parks for 82 years.

That’s when everything went haywire.

In attempting to pacify one particularly vocal and righteously offended group while railroading over the concerns of those with alternate viewpoints, Charlottesville attracted the unwanted attention of the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis and the alt-Right, all of whom descended on the little college town with the intention of exercising their First Amendment right to be disagreeable, to assemble, and to protest.

When put to the test, Charlottesville did not handle things well at all.

No one—not the armed, violent, militant protesters nor the police—gave peace a chance, not on July 8 when the KKK descended, nor on August 12, when what should have been an exercise in free speech quickly became a brawl that left one dead and dozens more injured.

As the New York Times reported, “Protesters began to mace one another, throwing water bottles and urine-filled balloons— some of which hit reporters — and beating each other with flagpoles, clubs and makeshift weapons. Before long, the downtown area was a melee. People were ducking and covering with a constant stream of projectiles whizzing by our faces, and the air was filled with the sounds of fists and sticks against flesh.”

And then there was the police, who were supposed to uphold the law and prevent violence.
They failed to do either.

Indeed, a 220-page post-mortem of the protests and the Charlottesville government’s response by former U.S. attorney Timothy J. Heaphy merely corroborates our worst fears about what drives the government at all levels: power, money, ego, politics and ambition.

When presented with a situation in which the government and its agents were tasked with protecting free speech and safety, Heaphy concluded that “the City of Charlottesville protected neither free expression nor public safety.”

Heaphy continues: “The City was unable to protect the right of free expression and facilitate the permit holder’s offensive speech. This represents a failure of one of government’s core functions—the protection of fundamental rights. Law enforcement also failed to maintain order and protect citizens from harm, injury, and death. Charlottesville preserved neither of those principles on August 12, which has led to deep distrust of government within this community.”

In other words, the government failed to uphold its constitutional mandates. The police failed to carry out their duties as peace officers. And the citizens found themselves unable to trust either the police or the government to do its job in respecting their rights and ensuring their safety.

Despite the fact that 1,000 first responders (including 300 state police troopers and members of the National Guard)—many of whom had been preparing for the downtown rally for months—had been called on to work the event, despite the fact that police in riot gear surrounded Emancipation Park on three sides, and despite the fact that Charlottesville had had what reporter David Graham referred to as “a dress rehearsal of sorts” a month earlier when 30 members of the Ku Klux Klan were confronted by 1000 counter-protesters, police failed to do their jobs.

In fact, as the Washington Post reports, police “seemed to watch as groups beat each other with sticks and bludgeoned one another with shields… At one point, police appeared to retreat and then watch the beatings before eventually moving in to end the free-for-all, make arrests and tend to the injured.”

Police Stood By As Mayhem Mounted in Charlottesville,” reported ProPublica.

Instead of establishing clear boundaries—buffer zones—between the warring groups and protecting the First Amendment rights of the protesters, police established two entrances into the permit areas of the park and created barriers “guiding rallygoers single-file into the park” past lines of white nationalists and antifa counterprotesters.

Incredibly, when the first signs of open violence broke out, Heaphy reports that the police chief allegedly instructed his staff to “let them fight, it will make it easier to declare an unlawful assembly.”
Read Heaphy’s report for yourself.

It’s full of drama and intrigue, plots and dueling egos, petty tyrants and ambitious politicians. (There’s even mention of a personal email account and deleted text messages.)

Not much different from what is happening on the national scene.

Commissioned by the City of Charlottesville, this Heaphy report was intended to be an independent investigation of what went right and what went wrong in the government’s handling of the protests.

Heaphy found very little to commend.

What went right on Aug. 12 according to Heaphy: 1) Despite the presence of firearms, including members of the militia, and angry confrontations between protesters and counterprotesters, no person was shot and no significant property damage occurred; 2) Emergency personnel did their jobs effectively and treated a large number of people in a short period of time; and 3) Police intelligence gathering was thorough (that’s the best he had to say about police).
Now for what went wrong, according to the report:

1. Police failed to get input from other law enforcement agencies experienced in handling large protests.
2. Police failed to adequately train their officers in advance of the protest.
3. City officials failed to request assistance from outside agencies.
4. The City Council unduly interfered by ignoring legal advice, attempting to move the protesters elsewhere, and ignoring the concerns of law enforcement.
5. The city government failed to inform the public about their plans.
6. City officials were misguided in allowing weapons at the protest.
7. The police implemented a flawed operational plan that failed to protect public safety.
8. While police were provided with riot gear, they were never trained in how to use it, nor were they provided with any meaningful field training in how to deal with or de-escalate anticipated violence on the part of protesters.
9. Despite the input and advice of outside counsel, including The Rutherford Institute, the police failed to employ de-escalation tactics or establish clear barriers between warring factions of protesters.
10. Government officials and police leadership opted to advance their own agendas at the expense of constitutional rights and public safety.
11. For all intents and purposes, police abided by a stand down order that endangered the community and paved the way for civil unrest.
12. In failing to protect public safety, police and government officials undermined public faith in the government.
The Heaphy report focused on the events that took place in Charlottesville, Virginia, but it applies to almost every branch of government that fails to serve “we the people.”

As the Pew Research Center revealed, public trust in the government remains near historic lows and with good reason, too.
This isn’t America, land of the free, where the government is “of the people, by the people [and] for the people.”
Rather, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, this is Amerika, where fascism, totalitarianism and militarism work hand in hand.

So what’s the answer?

As always, it must start with “we the people.”

I’ve always advised people to think nationally, but act locally. Yet as Charlottesville makes clear, it’s hard to make a difference locally when the local government is as deaf, dumb and blind to the needs of its constituents as the national government.
Still, it’s time to clean house at all levels of government.

You’ve got a better chance of making your displeasure seen and felt and heard within your own community. But it will take perseverance and unity and a commitment to finding common ground with your fellow citizens.

Stop tolerating corruption, graft, intolerance, greed, incompetence, ineptitude, militarism, lawlessness, ignorance, brutality, deceit, collusion, corpulence, bureaucracy, immorality, depravity, censorship, cruelty, violence, mediocrity, and tyranny.
Stop holding your nose in order to block out the stench of a rotting institution.

Stop letting the government and its agents treat you like a servant or a slave.

You’ve got rights. We’ve all got rights. This is our country. This is our government. No one can take it away from us unless we make it easy for them.

Right now, we’re making it way too easy for the police state to take over.
Stop being an accessory to the murder of the American republic.]]>
<![CDATA[The Causes of the “Civil War” in the Words of Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis]]>Thu, 30 Nov 2017 15:28:19 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/the-causes-of-the-civil-war-in-the-words-of-abraham-lincoln-and-jefferson-davisPicture
By Thomas DiLorenzo

“When [the states] entered into the Union of 1789, it was with the undeniable recognition of the power of the people to resume the authority delegated for the purposes of that government, whenever in their opinion, its functions were perverted and its ends defeated . . . the sovereign States here represented have seceded from that Union, and it is a gross abuse of language to denominate the act rebellion or revolution.”

–Jefferson Davis, First Inaugural Address, Montgomery, Alabama, February 1861.

“That . . . the Union is perpetual [is] confirmed by the history of the Union itself.  The Union is much older than the Constitution.  It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774.  It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776.  It was further matured, and the faith of all the thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual . . . .  It follows from these views that no State . . . can lawfully get out of the Union . . . and that acts . . . against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary . . .”

–Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.

These two statements by Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis from their respective first inaugural addresses highlight perhaps the main cause of the War to Prevent Southern Independence:  Davis believed, as the founding fathers did, that the union of the states was a voluntary union created when the free, independent, and sovereign states ratified the Constitution, as directed by Article 7 of the Constitution; Lincoln asserted that it was not voluntary, and was more like what future generations would come to know as the Soviet Union – held together by force and bloodshed.  Murray Rothbard mocked Lincoln’s theory of the involuntary American union a “one-way Venus flytrap” theory of the union in his essay, “Just War.”  Indeed, in the same speech Lincoln used the words “invasion” and “bloodshed” to describe what would happen in any state that left his “perpetual” union.  His position was that after fighting a long war of secession from the tyrannical British empire, the founders turned around and created a nearly identical, British-style centralized state from which there could never be any escape.

As important as this issue was, Jefferson Davis announced to the world that an equally if not more important issue was the attempt of the North to finally use the powers of the national state to plunder the South, with a protectionist tariff being its primary tool of plunder.  As he stated in his first inaugural address, the Southern people were “anxious to cultivate peace and commerce with all nations.” 
“There can be no cause to doubt that the courage and patriotism of the people of the Confederate States will be found equal to any measure of defense which may be required for their security.  Devoted to agricultural pursuits, their chief interest is the export of a commodity required in every manufacturing country.  Our policy is peace, and the freest trade our necessities will permit.  It is alike our interest, and that of all those to whom we would sell and from whom we would buy, that there should be the fewest practicable restrictions upon interchange of commodities.  There can be but little rivalry between us and any manufacturing or navigating community, such as the Northwestern States of the American Union.”

“It must follow, therefore, that mutual interest would invite good will and kindness between them and us.  If, however, passion or lust of domination should cloud the judgment and inflame the ambition of these States, we must prepare to meet the emergency, and maintain, by the final arbitrament of the sword, the position we have assumed among the nations of the earth.”

To put these statements into context, it is important to understand the North was in the process of more than doubling the average tariff rate on imports at a time when at least 90 percent of all federal tax revenue came from tariffs on imports.  The rate of federal taxation was about to more than double (from 15% to 32.7%), as it did on March 2, 1861 when President James Buchanan, the Pennsylvania protectionist, signed the Morrill Tariff into law, a law that was relentlessly promoted by Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party.  (The Pennsylvania delegation was a key to Lincoln’s nomination.  Before the Republican convention he sent a private emissary, Judge David Davis, to Pennsylvania with original copies of all of his speeches in defense of protectionist tariffs over the previous twenty-five years in order to convince the Pennsylvania protectionists, led by steel manufacturer/legislator Thaddeus Stevens, that he was their man.  He won over the Pennsylvania delegation and he later appointed Davis to the Supreme Court).
Ever since the Tariff of 1824, and the even more protectionist 1828 “Tariff of Abominations,” with a 48% average tariff rate, the South had been protesting and even threatening nullification and secession over protectionist plunder, as South Carolina did in 1833 when it formally nullified the “Tariff of Abominations.”  The votes in Congress on these tariffs was completely lopsided in terms of Northern support and Southern opposition – although there were small minorities of Southern protectionists and Northern free traders, especially in New York City in the latter case.

The South, like the Mid-West, was an agricultural society that was being plundered twice by protection tariffs:  Once by paying higher prices for “protected” manufactured goods, and a second time by reduced exports after the high tariffs impoverished their European customers who were prohibited from selling in the U.S. by the high tariffs.  Most of the South’s agricultural produce –as much as 75% or so in some years — was sold in Europe.

South Carolina nullified the Tariff of Abominations and forced President Andrew Jackson to agree to a lower, compromise tariff rate that was phased in over ten years, beginning in 1833.  The North did not yet have the political clout to plunder the South, an act that many Southern statesmen considered to be a gross violation of the constitutional contract that justified secession.  But by 1861 the population growth in the North, and the addition of new Northern states, had given the North enough political power to finally plunder the agricultural South and Mid-West with protectionist tariffs.  The Morrill Tariff had passed the House of Representatives during the 1859-’60 session, long before any Southern state seceded, and the writing was on the wall that it was only a matter of time before the U.S. Senate would follow suit.

The Confederate Constitution outlawed protectionist tariffs altogether, calling only for a modest “revenue tariff” of ten percent or so.  This so horrified the “Party of Great Moral Causes” that Republican Party-affiliated newspapers in the North were calling for the bombardment of Southern ports before the war.  With a Northern tariff in the 50% range (where it would be after Lincoln signed ten tariff-raising pieces of legislation, and remained in that range for the succeeding fifty years) compared to the Southern 10% average tariff rate, they understood that much of the trade of the world would go through Southern, not Northern, ports and to them, that was cause for war.  “We now have the votes and we intend to plunder you mercilessly; if you resist we will invade, conquer, and subjugate you” is essentially what the North, with its election of lifelong protectionist Abraham Lincoln as a sectional president, was saying.

Neither Lincoln nor the Republican party opposed Southern slavery during the 1860 campaign.  They only opposed the extension of slavery into the new territories.  This was not because of any concern for the slaves, but was part of their strategy of perpetual plunder.  Mid-West farmers, like Southern farmers, were harshly discriminated against by protectionist tariffs.  They, too, were double-taxed by protectionism.  This is why the Mid-West (called “the North-West” in the 1860s) provided serious antebellum resistance to the Yankee scheme of protectionist plunder.  (The Mid-West also provided some of the most effective opposition to the Lincoln regime during the war, being the home of the “Copperheads,” so named as a slanderous term by the Republican Party). This opposition was watered down, however, when the Republican Party championed the policy of preventing slavery in the territories, preserving them “for free white labor” in the words of Abraham Lincoln himself.  Mid-Westerners were as racist as anyone else in the mid nineteenth century, and the overwhelming majority of them did not want black people, free or slave, living among them. Lincoln’s own state of Illinois had amended its constitution in 1848 to prohibit the immigration of free blacks into the state, and Lincoln himself was a “manager” of the Illinois Colonization Society, which used state tax dollars to deport the small number of free blacks who resided in the state.

White laborers and farm hands also did not want competition for their jobs by blacks, free or slave, and the Republican Party was happy to pander to them.  Then there is the “problem” of slaves in the Territories inflating the congressional representation of the Democratic Party because of the Three-Fifths Clause of the Constitution.  With more Democratic representation protectionist plunder would become that much more difficult to achieve.

This strategy was explained in the Report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs reported by the Confederate States of America in an article on September 4, 2014:

“Whilst the people of the North-West, being like the people of the South, an agricultural people, were generally opposed to the protective tariff policy – the grand sectionalizing instrumentality of the North.  They were allies of the South, to defeat this policy. Hence it has been only partially, and occasionally successful.  To make it complete, and to render the North omnipotent to rule the South, the division in the North must be healed.  To accomplish this object, and to sectionalize the North, the agitation concerning African slavery in the South was commenced . . . .  Accordingly, after the overthrow of the Tariff of 1828 [i.e., the Tariff of Abominations], by the resistance of South Carolina in 1833, the agitation concerning the institution of Southern slavery . . . was immediately commenced in the Congress of the United States . . . . The first fruit of [this] sectional despotism . . . was the tariff lately passed by the Congress of the United States.  By this tariff the protective policy is renewed in its most odious and oppressive forms, and the agricultural States are made tributaries to the manufacturing States.”

Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address: “Pay Up or Die!”

Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address was arguably the strongest defense of Southern slavery ever made by an American politician.  He began by saying that in “nearly all the published speeches” he had made he declared that “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists.”  I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”  He next quoted the Republican Party Platform of 1860, which he fully endorsed, that proclaimed that “the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions . . . is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of four political fabric depend . . .” (emphasis added). “Domestic institutions” meant slavery.

Lincoln then pledged to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, which he in fact did during his administration, returning dozens of runaway slaves to their “owners.”  Most importantly, seven paragraphs from the end of his speech he endorsed the Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, which had already passed the House and Senate and was ratified by several states.  This “first thirteenth amendment” would prohibit the federal government from ever interfering with Southern slavery.  It would have enshrined slavery explicitly in the text of the Constitution.  Lincoln stated in the same paragraph that he believed slavery was already constitutional, but that he had “no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”

In her book Team of Rivals Doris Kearns-Goodwin uses primary sources to document that the source of the amendment was not really Ohio Congressman Thomas Corwin but Abraham Lincoln who, after he was elected but before he was inaugurated, instructed William Seward to get the amendment through the Northern-dominated U.S. Senate, which he did.  Other Republicans saw to it that the Northern-dominated House of Representatives would also vote in favor of it.

So on the day he was inaugurated Abraham Lincoln offered the strongest, most uncompromising defense of Southern slavery imaginable.  He effectively announced to the world that if the Southern states remained in the union and submitted to being plundered by the Yankee-dominated protectionist empire, then nothing would ever be done about slavery by the U.S. government.

The U.S. Senate’s War Aims Resolution later echoed Lincoln’s words that the war was NOT about slavery but about “saving the union,” a contention that Lincoln repeated many times, including in his famous letter to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley in which he said publicly once again that this purpose was to “save the union” and not to do anything about slavery.  In reality Lincoln’s regime utterly destroyed the voluntary union of the founding fathers.  By “saving the union” they meant forcing the South to submit to protectionist plunder, not preserving the highly decentralized, voluntary union of the founding generation based on such principles as federalism and subsidiarity.

In dramatic contrast, on the issue of tariff collection Abraham Lincoln was violently uncompromising.  “Nothing” is more important than passing the Morrill Tariff, he had announced to a Pennsylvania audience a few weeks earlier.  Nothing. In his first inaugural address he stated in the eighteenth paragraph that “[T]here needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority.”  What could he have been talking about?  What would cause “the national authority” to commit acts of “bloodshed” and “violence” against its own American citizens?  Doesn’t the president take an oath in which he promises to defend the constitutional liberties of American citizens?  How would ordering acts of “bloodshed” and “violence” against them be consistent with the presidential oath of office which he had just taken, with his atheistic hand on a Bible, just moments earlier?

Lincoln explained in the next sentence: “The power confided in me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using force against or among the people anywhere” (emphasis added).  The “duties and imposts” he referred to were the tariffs to be collected under the new Morrill Tariff law.  If there was to be a war, he said, the cause of the war would in effect be the refusal of the Southern states to submit to being plundered by the newly-doubled federal tariff tax, a policy that the South had been periodically threatening nullification and secession over for the previous thirty-three years.

In essence, Abraham Lincoln was announcing to the world that he would not back down to Southern secessionists as President Andrew Jackson had done by acquiescing in a negotiated reduction of the Tariff of Abominations (negotiated by Lincoln’s lifelong political idol and inspiration, Henry Clay, the author of the Tariff of Abominations in the first place!).  He promised “violence,” “bloodshed,” and war over tariff collection, and he kept his promise.

<![CDATA[The Cardinal Sin of International Finance]]>Fri, 24 Nov 2017 16:16:25 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/the-cardinal-sin-of-international-finance
By Nick Giambruno 

International Man

reprinted from Lew Rockwell.com

As Doug Casey has correctly noted, the prime directive of any organism—whether it’s an amoeba or a person or a corporation or a government—is to survive.

That’s why the US government protects the petrodollar so zealously. It needs the system to survive.
World leaders who have challenged the petrodollar recently have ended up dead…

Why Everyone Uses the US Dollar… for Now

In the 1970s, the US government struck a series of deals with Saudi Arabia, creating the petrodollar system. The US promised to coddle and protect the Saudi kingdom. And, in exchange, Saudi Arabia would use its dominant position in OPEC to ensure that all oil transactions happened in US dollars.

Until recently, virtually anyone who wanted to import oil from any country needed US dollars to pay for it.
The dollar is just a middleman here. But countries and businesses use it in countless transactions amounting to trillions of dollars that have nothing to do with US products or services.

Plus, if foreign countries are already using dollars for oil, it’s just easier to use the dollar for other international trade. That’s why, in addition to oil sales, the US dollar is used for about 80% of all international transactions.

Take Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, for example. Each led a large oil-producing country—Iraq and Libya, respectively. And both tried to sell their oil for something other than US dollars, before US military interventions led to their deaths.

In October 2000, Saddam had started to sell Iraqi oil for euros only. Iraq said it would no longer accept dollars for oil because it did not want to deal “in the currency of the enemy.”

A little over two years later, the US invaded. Immediately after Baghdad fell to US forces, all Iraqi oil sales were switched back to dollars.

Thanks to WikiLeaks’ release of Hillary Clinton’s emails, we know that protecting the petrodollar—not humanitarian concerns—was a primary reason for overthrowing Libya’s Gaddafi.

According to her leaked emails, the US (and France) feared that Gaddafi would use Libya’s vast gold reserves to back a pan-African currency. This gold-backed currency would have been used to buy and sell oil in global markets. Also, it would have likely displaced a version of the French franc that’s used in Central and Western Africa.

The US and France backed a rebellion, both militarily and financially, that overthrew Gaddafi in 2011.
After Gaddafi’s death, plans for the gold-backed currency—along with Libya’s 4.6 million ounces of gold—vanished.

Of course there were other reasons the US toppled Saddam and Gaddafi. But protecting the petrodollar was a serious consideration, at the very least.

Putin Is a Tougher Adversary

The dollar’s special status gives Uncle Sam tremendous leverage. So it’s no surprise that Russia wants to undermine the petrodollar system.

Russian President Vladimir Putin summed it up this way:

Russia shares the BRICS countries’ concerns over the unfairness of the global financial and economic architecture, which does not give due regard to the growing weight of the emerging economies. We are ready to work together with our partners to promote international financial regulation reforms and to overcome the excessive domination of the limited number of reserve currencies.

Essentially, Putin is saying they all want to ditch the dollar.

That’s largely because the US uses the dollar as a political weapon. For example, the US tried to sanction Russia for its actions in Crimea and Ukraine. These sanctions made it harder for Russia to access the US dollar–based financial system. So of course Russia is going to push for an alternative.

Shortly after the sanctions, Russia struck a massive deal to sell oil and gas to China for yuan. The deal totally bypassed the US financial system… and any sanctions.

China’s Permanent Bypass Around the US Dollar

Russia is the world’s largest energy producer. China is the world’s largest energy importer. Normally, they would trade with each other exclusively in US dollars.

But, as I’ve told you in recent weeks, China is now introducing a more permanent way around that.
I call it China’s “Golden Alternative” to the petrodollar. It’s a streamlined way for Russia and everyone else to sell oil to China for yuan—or effectively gold.

China’s “Golden Alternative” to the Petrodollar

China is launching a practical and attractive alternative to the petrodollar system. It will allow anyone in the world to trade oil for gold. It will also totally bypass the US dollar.

Here’s how it will work…
The Shanghai International Energy Exchange (INE) is introducing a crude oil futures contract denominated in Chinese yuan. It will allow oil producers to sell their oil for yuan.

Of course, China knows most oil producers don’t want a large reserve of yuan. So producers will be able to efficiently convert it into physical gold through gold exchanges in Shanghai and Hong Kong.

Bottom line, two of the biggest players in the global energy market are totally bypassing the petrodollar system.
Informed observers say Russia is already converting a large portion of its yuan earnings to gold.

Of course, other countries are interested in sidestepping the US financial system and US sanctions, too. China’s Golden Alternative will give anyone the option to do just that.

This will make the US dollar a much less effective political weapon.

Other countries on Washington’s naughty list are enthusiastically signing up. Iran, another major oil producer, is accepting yuan as payment. So is Venezuela, which has the world’s largest oil reserves.

I think others will soon follow. From the perspective of an oil producer, it’s a no-brainer.

With China’s Golden Alternative, an oil producer can participate in the world’s largest market and try to capture more market share. It can also easily convert and repatriate its proceeds into gold, an international form of money with no political risk.

But this doesn’t apply to one critical holdout… Saudi Arabia.

Twisting the Saudis’ Arm

Saudi Arabia is the world’s largest oil exporter. A lot of that oil goes to China, the world’s largest importer.

Beijing still reluctantly pays for Saudi crude in US dollars. The Saudis won’t have it any other way, at least for now.

This bothers China. It can only import Saudi crude by obtaining and then using US dollars. And that, of course, means it has to stay in Washington’s good graces.

Trump’s Treasury secretary really drove this point home recently. He threatened to kick China out of the US dollar system if it didn’t crack down on North Korea.

China would rather not depend on an adversary like this. This is one of the main reasons it’s launching the Golden Alternative.

Saudi Arabia, however, refuses to participate. It won’t sell its oil in anything but US dollars because that would break its longstanding petrodollar agreement with the US.

When China, Russia, and others trade oil for yuan, it’s a significant blow to the petrodollar. But if Saudi Arabia switched to yuan, it would take out the petrodollar… and cause an immediate financial panic in the US.

The truth is selling oil for yuan would cost Saudi Arabia a whole lot.

It would immediately lose American diplomatic and military protection. Then the media and think tanks would quickly start pounding the table for the US military to force democracy on Riyadh.

Last year Trump said, “If Saudi Arabia was without the cloak of American protection, I don’t think it would be around.”
He’s absolutely correct.

Of course, the Saudis know all of this. So they’ve been on a short leash… until recently.

In a surprise move, Saudi King Salman recently became the first sitting Saudi monarch to ever visit Russia.

Until recently, the visit would have been unthinkable. Saudi Arabia has been one of the US’ closest allies since the petrodollar system started in the 1970s.

Meanwhile, Russia and Saudi Arabia have been enemies for decades. Most recently, the Saudis and Russians have been on opposite sides of the Syrian Civil War.

That’s why King Salman’s historic visit to Moscow is so remarkable. The Saudis are clearly hedging their bets against the US and the petrodollar system.

Saudi Arabia is now drifting closer to Russia.

The Saudis have committed to invest up to $10 billion in various Russian sectors. But, even more significantly, they’ve agreed to buy the S-400 missile system, Russia’s top line air defense system, as part of a $3 billion weapons purchase.

This deal signals a geopolitical earthquake. The Saudis have never bought Russian military equipment before.

Ever since the birth of the petrodollar, the Saudis have depended on American military protection. After all, it’s what they get in return for pricing their oil in dollars.

The S-400 system deal suggests the Saudis are hedging their bets. First, they’re not buying an American system. Second, they’re buying a Russian system that’s capable of deterring an American attack.

Saudi Arabia is making significant moves to give itself alternatives to American protection.
At the same time, China is cutting back on Saudi crude.
A few years ago, Saudi oil made up over 25% of Chinese oil imports. They were Beijing’s No. 1 supplier. Today, the Saudis’ market share has dropped below 15%.
In other words, the Saudis are losing massive market share and getting pushed out of the biggest oil market in the world. This is mainly because they refuse to sell oil to China in yuan.
China has made itself clear. It’s willing to expand business with anyone who will accept yuan as payment.

Today, Russia has overtaken Saudi Arabia as China’s top supplier. Its share of the lucrative Chinese market has grown from 5% to over 15%.

Russia’s enthusiastic acceptance of yuan as payment is the main reason for this shift.

In the meantime, Angola, an African oil producer, has also come on board. The country now accepts yuan as payment for its oil exports to China. It even made the Chinese yuan its second legal currency in 2015.

Chinese imports from Angola have shot up since. It’s now China’s No. 2 supplier, after Russia.

None of this bodes well for the petrodollar system.

The Saudis have two choices… rip up the petrodollar or get shut out of the world’s most lucrative oil market.

One way or another—and probably soon—the Chinese will find a way to compel the Saudis to accept yuan. The sheer size of the Chinese market makes it impossible for Saudi Arabia to ignore China’s demands indefinitely.

What to Watch For…

China might not convince the Saudis to ditch the petrodollar system tomorrow. But it’s making significant progress.
A few months ago, Saudi Arabia announced it was willing to issue Panda bonds to finance its government spending deficit. (Panda bonds are yuan-denominated bonds from non-Chinese issuers that are sold in China.)

This is remarkable. The Saudis’ currency is pegged to the US dollar. Up until this point, they’ve exclusively used US dollars for all of their major financial initiatives.

Issuing debt in yuan—instead of US dollars—is a significant move. It means Saudi Arabia is drifting closer to China.
Also, the Saudis recently inaugurated the massive Yasref refinery in the Saudi city of Yanbu. The refinery is an $8.5 billion joint venture between Saudi Aramco and China’s Sinopec.

These are noticeable steps. But the Saudis still haven’t given China what it really wants—oil for yuan.
However, it could happen soon…

The Largest IPO in History

In the coming months, the Saudis plan to float a 5% stake in Saudi Aramco, the state oil company.

Saudi Aramco is the most valuable company in the world. It will likely be the biggest equity offering ever. It could triple, or even quadruple, Alibaba’s current record initial public offering (IPO) of $25 billion.

The IPO’s success will depend on Saudi Arabia recruiting big cornerstone investors. But so far, Western investors haven’t shown a lot of enthusiasm.

For China, however, it could be the perfect opportunity to buy political influence in Saudi Arabia.

If China bought a large stake in the Aramco IPO, it would help cement its relationship with Saudi Arabia. It would also put more distance between the Saudis and the Americans.

And critically, it would give the Chinese more leverage to compel the Saudis to accept yuan for oil.

China is in the process of negotiating not just a 5% stake, but potentially a larger one.

Bottom line…the Saudis haven’t made a clean break with the US yet. However, they are drifting toward China financially and Russia militarily.

The Saudis are clearly setting up the option to dump the petrodollar.

If the Saudis sell oil to China in yuan, it would kill the petrodollar overnight. However, short of that, things still look very dire for the petrodollar.

The petrodollar system is facing serious erosion, thanks in large part to China’s Golden Alternative. That’s already baked into the cake.

And with that, severe inflation in the US is a certainty.

This will likely be the tipping point…
After the collapse of the petrodollar,
 the US government will be desperate enough to implement capital controls, people controls, nationalization of retirement savings, and other forms of wealth confiscation.

I urge you to prepare for the economic and sociopolitical fallout while you still can. Expect bigger government, less freedom, shrinking prosperity… and possibly worse.

It’s probably not going to happen tomorrow. But we know where this trend is headed.

It’s possible that one day soon, Americans will wake up to a new reality. Once the petrodollar kicks the bucket and the dollar loses its status as the world’s premier reserve currency, you will have few, if any, options.

The sad truth is, most people have no idea how bad things could get, let alone how to prepare…
Yet there are straightforward steps you can start taking today to protect your savings and yourself from the financial and sociopolitical effects of the collapse of the petrodollar.]]>
<![CDATA[No Fiscal Conservatives at the Pentagon]]>Tue, 21 Nov 2017 18:12:36 GMThttp://deovindice.org/the-condederate-society-blog/no-fiscal-conservatives-at-the-pentagon
Editors note: This essay by Rep. Duncan resonated with me because I often sit perplexed at modern day societies idol worship of our military. Yes, there are those who serve with honor that deserve thanks but often times it becomes a gotcha game of who is more patriotic. That issue belies the problem explained below by Mr. Duncan that the US Military never really has experienced a spending cut in the modern area. Sure they cut veterans benefits and their Tricare healthcare program but in true dollars, they continue to grow, now up to nearly $700 Billion per year, most of it financed by printing funny money or financing it through debt via China. Ya'all know that China is sitting back waiting for the inevitable implosion to occur. The US spends more on military than all the nations of the world combined annually. Why do we need to grow that anymore?

By Rep. John J. Duncan

Several times over my 29 years in Congress I have wondered whether there are any fiscal conservatives at the Pentagon.
It seems that the Defense Department is just like every other gigantic bureaucracy. When it comes to money, the refrain is always “more, more, more.”

On November 14, the House passed what one Capitol Hill paper described as a “$700 billion compromise defense bill.”  It was $80 billion over the budget caps and many billions more than even President Trump had requested.

I opposed almost all the major initiatives of the Obama administration. But it was false to say that the Defense Department was “depleted” or “eviscerated” during those years, or that now we must “rebuild the military.”

In fact, public relations experts in future years should conduct studies about how the Defense Department has been able to convince the public it has been cut when it is getting more money than ever.

Defense Department appropriations have more than doubled since 2000. In addition, the Department has gotten extra billions in several supplemental or emergency appropriation bills.

The military construction bill is a separate bill that has added another $109.5 billion over the last 10 years. It would be hard to find any U.S. military base any place in the world that has not had several new buildings constructed over the last few years.

In fiscal year 2016, we spent over $177 billion on new equipment, guns, tanks, etc. We have spent similar amounts for many years. Most of this equipment does not wear out or have to be replaced after just one year.

It is ironic that the only President in the last 60 or 70 years who has tried to rein in defense spending is the only President in that period who spent most of his career in the military.

In Evan Thomas’ book, Ike’s Bluff, when told by his top staffer that he could not reduce defense spending, President Eisenhower said if he gave another star to every general who cut his budget, there would be “such a rush to cut costs you’ll have to get out of the way.”

The book also quotes Eisenhower as saying “Heaven help us if we ever have a President who doesn’t know as much about the military as I do.”

Therein lies an explanation for a big part of what has caused much excessive and/or wasteful defense spending and, the willingness, even at times eagerness, to go to war and support permanent, never-ending wars.

Only 18% of the current Congress has ever served in any branch of our military. Members are afraid if they do not vote for an increase in defense spending, or if they question waste by the military, some demagogue will accuse them of “not supporting the troops.”

It would be a huge understatement to say that I usually do not agree with New York Times editorials.

But the Times Editorial Board on Oct. 22 published an editorial entitled “America’s Forever Wars,” pointing out that the U.S. “has been at war continuously since the attacks of 9/11” and now has troops in “at least 172 countries.”

The Board wrote that so far the American people have “seemed to accept” all this militarism, but “it’s a very real question whether, in addition to endorsing  these commitments, which have cost trillions of dollars and many lives over 16 years, they will embrace new entanglements…”

The Times added that the Congress “has spent little time considering such issues in a comprehensive way or debating why all these deployments are needed.”

Backing these words up was a cartoon in the Oct. 25 issue of Politico, a Capitol Hill newspaper. The cartoon showed six senators sitting at a hearing.

The first senator, reading a newspaper, says “Who knew we had troops in Niger?!” The second says: “Heck, we don’t even know how the military budget gets spent.”

Finally, the cartoon shows a senator who looks like Sen. Ted Cruz, saying “War is hell. I say we just give the Pentagon an extra $80 billion and call it a day.”

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, himself a veteran, wrote on Oct. 23: “But there is something else at work here: the slavish veneration now accorded the military. You can see it every time someone in uniform testifies before Congress.”
Since now less than one percent of the people serve in the military, it may be that many people who never served feel, perhaps even subconsciously, that they must bend over backwards to show their patriotism.

However, it is not unpatriotic to oppose wasteful defense spending or very unnecessary permanent, forever wars.
President Reagan once said “our troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available.”

We have far too many leaders today who seem to want to be new Winston Churchills and who are far too eager to send people to war.

No true fiscal conservative could ever justify spending many billions more than even President Trump requested.
Our national debt recently went over the $20 trillion level. A few days ago, it was reported that the deficit for fiscal 2017 was $666 billion. This fiscal year, it may be even higher.

Conservatives used to be against huge deficit spending. They also used to be against massive foreign aid. Much of what we have been doing in both Iraq and Afghanistan, training police and farmers, repairing electrical and water systems, even making small business loans, etc., is pure foreign aid.

Many of our foreign interventions have been done under the auspices or authority of the United Nations. Conservatives used to be the biggest critics of the U.N. and world government. Most of our so-called “coalitions” have been funded almost entirely by American taxpayers.

Most interventionists at some point resort to a slur referring to their opponents as isolationists. This is so false. Traditional conservatives support trade and tourism and cultural and educational exchanges with other countries and they agree with helping during humanitarian crises.

They just don’t believe in dragging war out forever, primarily so defense contractors, think tanks, and military bureaucrats can get more money.

One last point: We have far too many officers. In Scott Berg’s biography on Woodrow Wilson, it says during World War I, we had one officer for every 30 enlisted men. Eisenhower once said we had too many officers when there were nine enlisted for every officer. Now we have one officer for only four and a half to five and a half enlisted (varies by branch).

This is very expensive, both for active duty and retirement, but it also makes it much more likely that we will get involved in every little conflict around the world and/or continue basing troops in almost every country.

We simply do not have enough money to pay for defense of so many countries other than our own nor the authority under our Constitution to try to run the whole world.
<![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.]]>