Confederate Society
 
Picture
By:Paul Craig Roberts

PaulCraigRoberts.org
Re-Printed from LewRockwell.com

It is one of history’s ironies that the Lincoln Memorial is a sacred space for the Civil Rights Movement and the site of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech.

Lincoln did not think blacks were the equals of whites. Lincoln’s plan was to send the blacks in America back to Africa, and if he had not been assassinated, returning blacks to Africa would likely have been his post-war policy.

As Thomas DiLorenzo and a number of non-court historians have conclusively established, Lincoln did not invade the Confederacy in order to free the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation did not occur until 1863 when opposition in the North to the war was rising despite Lincoln’s police state measures to silence opponents and newspapers. The Emancipation Proclamation was a war measure issued under Lincoln’s war powers. The proclamation provided for the emancipated slaves to be enrolled in the Union army replenishing its losses. It was also hoped that the proclamation would spread slave revolts in the South while southern white men were away at war and draw soldiers away from the fronts in order to protect their women and children. The intent was to hasten the defeat of the South before political opposition to Lincoln in the North grew stronger.

The Lincoln Memorial was built not because Lincoln “freed the slaves,” but because Lincoln saved the empire. As the Savior of the Empire, had Lincoln not been assassinated, he could have become emperor for life.

As Professor Thomas DiLorenzo writes: “Lincoln spent his entire political career attempting to use the powers of the state for the benefit of the moneyed corporate elite (the ‘one-percenters’ of his day), first in Illinois, and then in the North in general, through protectionist tariffs, corporate welfare for road, canal, and railroad corporations, and a national bank controlled by politicians like himself to fund it all.”

Lincoln was a man of empire. As soon as the South was conquered, ravaged, and looted, his collection of war criminal generals, such as Sherman and Sheridan, set about exterminating the Plains Indians in one of the worst acts of genocide in human history. Even today Israeli Zionists point to Washington’s extermination of the Plains Indians as the model for Israel’s theft of Palestine.

The War of Northern Aggression was about tariffs and northern economic imperialism. The North was protectionist. The South was free trade. The North wanted to finance its economic development by forcing the South to pay higher prices for manufactured goods. The North passed the Morrill Tariff which more than doubled the tariff rate to 32.6% and provided for a further hike to 47%. The tariff diverted the South’s profits on its agricultural exports to the coffers of Northern industrialists and manufacturers. The tariff was designed to redirect the South’s expenditures on manufactured goods from England to the higher cost goods produced in the North.

This is why the South left the union, a right of self-determination under the Constitution.

The purpose of Lincoln’s war was to save the empire, not to abolish slavery. In his first inaugural address Lincoln “made an ironclad defense of slavery.” His purpose was to keep the South in the Empire despite the Morrill Tariff. As for slavery, Lincoln said: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” This position, Lincoln reminded his audience, was part of the 1860 Republican Party platform. Lincoln also offered his support for the strong enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act, which required Northerners to hunt down and return runaway slaves, and he gave his support to the Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, already passed by Northern votes in the House and Senate, that prohibited any federal interference with slavery. For Lincoln and his allies, the empire was far more important than slaves.

DiLorenzo explains what the deal was that Lincoln offered to the South. However, just as empire was more important to the North than slavery, for the South avoiding large taxes on manufactured goods, in effect a tax on Southern agricultural profits, was more important than northern guarantees for slavery.

If you want to dislodge your brainwashing about the War of Northern Aggression, read DiLorenzo’s books, The Real Lincoln, and Lincoln Unmasked.

The so-called Civil War was not a civil war. In a civil war, both sides are fighting for control of the government. The South was not fighting for control of the federal government. The South seceded and the North refused to let the South go.

The reason I am writing about this is to illustrate how history is falsified in behalf of agendas. I am all for civil rights and participated in the movement while a college student. What makes me uncomfortable is the transformation of Lincoln, a tyrant who was an agent for the One Percent and was willing to destroy any and every thing in behalf of empire, into a civil rights hero. Who will be next? Hitler? Stalin? Mao? George W. Bush? Obama? John Yoo? If Lincoln can be a civil rights hero, so can be torturers. Those who murder in Washington’s wars women and children can be turned into defenders of women’s rights and child advocates. And probably they will be.

This is the twisted perverted world in which we live. Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, is confronted with Washington’s overthrow of the elected government in Ukraine, a Russian ally and for centuries a part of Russia itself, while Putin is falsely accused of invading Ukraine. China is accused by Washington as a violator of human rights while Washington murders more civilians in the 21st century than every other country combined.

Everywhere in the West monstrous lies stand unchallenged. The lies are institutionalized in history books, course curriculum s, policy statements, movements and causes, and in historical memory.

America will be hard pressed to survive the lies that it lives.

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

Copyright © 2015 Paul Craig Roberts


 
 
Picture
By Thomas DiLorenzo

Reprinted from LewRockwell.com. Dr. DiLorenzo is a friend of the Society.

According to his Wikipedia entry, New York Times house neocon David Brooks is a protégé of William Kristol – the two labeled themselves as “national greatness conservatives” back in the ‘90s; predicted in the Wall Street Journal in 2003 that American forces would be “welcomed as liberators” in Iraq; describes himself as a follower of Alexander Hamilton’s mercantilist economic agenda; has argued that Republicans should abandon completely the limited government philosophy that became popular (at least rhetorically) during the “Goldwater and Reagan years”; wrote his senior thesis at the University of Chicago about a book that argued that humans evolved from “killer apes” (that apparently caught the eye of William F. Buckley, Jr. who offered him a job); is often complimentary towards Barack Obama; and is the proud father of a son in the army – the Israeli Army, not the U.S. Army.

Translating from Washingtonese, this mean that he is somewhat of a fascist who looks down his nose at constitutionalism; an imperialist and propagandist for the state who earns his income spinning tall tales about the alleged benefits of aggressive war; and a nationalist who believes not in national but governmental “greatness.” These are all the main ingredients of a modern Lincoln cultist, as Brooks demonstrated in an April 7 New York Times column entitled “What Candidates Need.”

“I have two presidential election traditions,” Brooks wrote.  “I begin covering each campaign by reading a book about Abraham Lincoln [probably not one by Yours Truly], and I end each election night, usually after midnight, at the statue of the Lincoln Memorial.”

Brooks should be credited with bravery for being anywhere in public in Washington, D.C., The Town That Lincoln Built, after midnight.  He does not say if he holds a séance there, or just prays at the foot of the gigantic statue of the corporate lawyer/lobbyist in an armchair that is the Lincoln Memorial.

Reading most books about Lincoln by “Lincoln scholars” will generally make one stupid and misinformed, as Brooks very ably demonstrates.  This is because all such books are bundles of excuses, phony rationales, and fabrications.  They are all written like defense briefs in The War Crimes Trial of Abraham Lincoln, authored by third-rate lawyers or law students.  Being a “Lincoln scholar” means fabricating an excuse for everything.  The bigger and more elaborate the excuse, the more “prestigious” is the “Lincoln scholar.”

For example, when the high priestess of the Lincoln cult, Doris Kearns-Goodwin, wrote in her book, Team of Rivals, of how Lincoln was actually the source and promoter of the CorwinAmendment to the Constitution, which would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with Southern slavery, shepraised him for it.  Rather than condemning him for supporting the explicit enshrinement of slavery in the text of the U.S. Constitution, Goodwin heaped praise on Lincoln because this slick political maneuver, she said, helped “save” the political fortunes of the Republican Party.

Another example is how, in his last book on Lincoln, Harry Jaffa tried for the ten-thousandth time in his career to explain away Lincoln’s admonition in one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates that he was “opposed to making voters or jurors of Negroes.”  Lincoln opposed giving “Negroes” the right to vote in the 1850s, Jaffa wrote, so that they could have the right to vote in the 1950s.  This of course is absurd nonsense but also a good example of the dishonest academic hocus pocus known as “Straussianism.”

Then there is the book, Lincoln’s Melancholy, by Joshua Wolf Shenk. The book describes Abe Lincoln’s various mental illnesses, including severe depression that caused wild mood swings, for which Abe took a mid-nineteenth-century “medicine” that contained a heavy dose of mercury. The book was showered with awards and made into a History Channel documentary.

Most thoughtful people would view this as alarming – that a man with severe mental illnesses was elected president.  Predictably, the “spin” that Joshua Shen puts on these facts is that Lincoln’s mental illnesses somehow “fueled his greatness.” He was even greater than 150 years of Lincoln cultism has explained, said Shen, for he accomplished what he did despite the fact that he suffered from mental illness!

Having read a few books on Lincoln, Brooks is apparently familiar with many of the excuses of the Lincoln excuse-making industry. He mentions in his article that “Lincoln had very little formal education.” This is a bit of an understatement, since Lincoln’s formal education consisted of less than one year in elementary school. Again, this would seem alarming to some people but not the very model of a modern Lincoln cultist. Brooks repeats one of the canned excuses of the Lincoln cult by poo-pooing the usefulness of education. “Today we pile on years of education,” he sneered, and “cluster our students on campuses with people with similar grades and test scores.”  Education  Schmeducation.

Lincoln, on the other hand, “spent his formative years in daily contact with an astounding array of characters.”  He admittedly didn’t read much (reminiscent of George W. Bush’s boast that he didn’t read anything), but what he did read he read “intensely,” says Brooks.  How he knows how “intensely” Lincoln read is not explained.

Brooks praises Abe for believing in “hard work,” as though Abraham Lincoln was unique among nineteenth-century Americans in that regard.  Brooks praises Lincoln’s “moral vision” that included “a government that built canals and railroads and banks . . .”  This, however, was a profoundly immoral vision for it was based in the immoral mercantilist agenda of corporate welfare for canal-building and railroad corporations.  By Lincoln’s time there already had been several decades of immense corruption and financial disaster surrounding state government subsidies for such “internal improvements,” including a colossal financial debacle in Illinois that was the work of Illinois state legislator Abraham Lincoln, leader of the Whig Party in the state in the late 1830s.

The original national bank – the Bank of the United States – was so corrupt and economically destabilizing that Congress refused to renew its original charter, and President Andrew Jackson successfully vetoed its refunding.  This “Whiggish vision” of political corruption based on economic ignorance was Lincoln’s “north star,” writes David Brooks.

Brooks has apparently read Lincoln’s Melancholy, for in his Times article he repeats the standard excuse but with a minor twist:  “His experience of depression and suffering gave him a radical self-honesty.”  To some, severe depression that gives a person a psychotic split personality is worrisome; to David Brooks, it meant in Lincoln’s case that “He had the double-minded personality that we need in all our leaders.”

Brooks says that Lincoln was “an exceptionally poor hater,” yet he micromanaged the waging of war on Southern civilians for four long years and praised and promoted generals like Sherman who committed these war crimes. He was supposedly “able to see his enemy’s point of view,” yet he refused to meet with Confederate Peace Commissioners before the war to discuss Southern payments for federal property, and endorsed a military policy of unconditional surrender.

Brooks ends his farcical article with the sad declaration that in the next presidential election, “We will not get a Lincoln.” Amen to that.

Thomas J. DiLorenzo is professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland and the author of The Real Lincoln; ;Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest AbeHow Capitalism Saved AmericaHamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution – And What It Means for America Today. His latest book is Organized Crime: The Unvarnished Truth About Government.

 
 
Picture
By Jimmy Ward:

Below is an excellent article written in 2001 by Thomas DiLorenzo, a professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland. He has written several books on the subject of Lincoln, along with other historical events. I've underlined and highlighted particular points.

For much of my adult life I've vectored any discussion of Lincoln around his true legacy of unconstitutional actions, specifically the forced illegal invasion of the Southern States and suspension of habeas corpus in the north. However, most heinous and still a contentious boil in the South was the unconscionable warfare Lincoln sanctioned against the civilian populace. Most notable for such atrocities were Union Generals Philip Sheridan and William Sherman, who were rewarded by Lincoln for their cowardly / savage attacks against civilians in the Shenandoah Valley and Georgia-Southern campaigns respectively. Course, there were lesser notable yankee officers who directed their troops against civilians, though not all engaged in this criminal act.

Scripturally speaking, a comparison can be made regarding Amalek, leader of a semi-nomadic people known for their craven, rapacious nature, who attacked the Hebrews during the Exodus. Lincoln acted the role of Amalek, while Sheridan and Sherman, along with their troops, acted the role of the Amalekites. If you recall in a recent post, the Amalekites were distinguished in the holy Scripture by two villainous characteristics: cruelty and cowardice.

In every scriptural story in which an Amalekite is privileged to participate, the reader witnesses this extraordinarily evil people not only committing cruel acts, but at the same time committing those acts in an unashamedly cowardly manner. They were warriors, yes, but they were not noble warriors. They never fought a fair fight, as Moses reported in Deuteronomy 25:17-19. The Amalekites did not attack the army of Israel. Rather, said the man of God, Amalek "smote the hindmost of thee, even all that were feeble behind thee, when thou wast faint and weary; and he feared not God." They attacked the stragglers, those in Israel who were too ill, too weak, or too young to protect themselves, perhaps even women and children. This best illustrates what Lincoln and his yankee horde committed against Southern civilians.  

Though Obama, our current White House mosqued Muslim Mole, has earned a prominent spot in the "worst Presidents" discussion, no one has eclipsed the magnitude of brutality and destruction against his own people like Lincoln. Before Obama, Lincoln was the template of "fundamental transformation" as our original Constitution was destroyed by his hand, establishing an unsavory precedent for future administrations and Congress. Course, the Greek / Roman-style Lincoln temple in Washington is part of the cloaking device created to deflect the public from the real Lincoln. Most focus on select Lincoln quotes while surrendering to the false delivery of slavery and preserving the union as an excuse for his barbarism.

In Exodus 17:8-16, we are told that the Amalekites "came and fought with Israel", and that the Lord was so furious with the Amalekites that He swore to "have war with Amalek from generation to generation."

Fact is: No one was more worthy of death on April 14th, 1865 than Lincoln - America's Amalek.

Article below posted referenced by Jimmy Ward is posted herein by The Confederate Society. Dr. DiLorenzo has allowed the Society to post his essay.

By Thomas DiLorenzo:

One hundred thirty-six years after General Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox, Americans are still fascinated with the War for Southern Independence. The larger bookstores devote an inordinate amount of shelf space to books about the events and personalities of the war; Ken Burns’s "Civil War" television series and the movie "Gettysburg" were blockbuster hits; dozens of new books on the war are still published every year; and a monthly newspaper, Civil War News, lists literally hundreds of seminars, conferences, reenactments, and memorial events related to the war in all 50 states and the District of Columbia all year long. Indeed, many Northerners are "still fighting the war" in that they organize a political mob whenever anyone attempts to display a Confederate heritage symbol in any public place.

Americans are still fascinated by the war because many of us recognize it as the defining event in American history. Lincoln’s war established myriad precedents that have shaped the course of American government and society ever since: the centralization of governmental power, central banking, income taxation, protectionism, military conscription, the suspension of constitutional liberties, the "rewriting" of the Constitution by federal judges, "total war," the quest for a worldwide empire, and the notion that government is one big "problem solver."

Perhaps the most hideous precedent established by Lincoln’s war, however, was the intentional targeting of defenseless civilians. Human beings did not always engage in such barbaric acts as we have all watched in horror in recent days. Targeting civilians has been a common practice ever since World War II, but its roots lie in Lincoln’s war.

In 1863 there was an international convention in Geneva, Switzerland, that sought to codify international law with regard to the conduct of war. What the convention sought to do was to take the principles of "civilized" warfare that had evolved over the previous century, and declare them to be a part of international law that should be obeyed by all civilized societies. Essentially, the convention concluded that it should be considered to be a war crime, punishable by imprisonment or death, for armies to attack defenseless citizens and towns; plunder civilian property; or take from the civilian population more than what was necessary to feed and sustain an occupying army.

The Swiss jurist Emmerich de Vattel (1714-67, author of The Law of Nations, was the world’s expert on the proper conduct of war at the time. "The people, the peasants, the citizens, take no part in it, and generally have nothing to fear from the sword of the enemy," Vattel wrote. As long as they refrain from hostilities themselves they "live in as perfect safety as if they were friends." Occupying soldiers who would destroy private property should be regard as "savage barbarians."

In 1861 the leading American expert in international law as it relates to the proper conduct of war was the San Francisco attorney Henry Halleck, a former army officer and West Point instructor whom Abraham Lincoln appointed General-in-Chief of the federal armies in July of 1862. Halleck was the author of the book, International Law, which was used as a text at West Point and essentially echoed Vattel’s writing.

On April 24, 1863, the Lincoln administration seemed to adopt the precepts of international law as expressed by the Geneva Convention, Vattel, and Halleck, when it issued General Order No. 100, known as the "Lieber Code." The Code’s author was the German legal scholar Francis Leiber, an advisor to Otto von Bismarck and a staunch advocate of centralized governmental power. In his writings Lieber denounced the federal system of government created by the American founding fathers as having created "confederacies of petty sovereigns" and dismissed the Jeffersonian philosophy of government as a collection of "obsolete ideas." In Germany he was arrested several times for subversive activities. He was a perfect ideological fit with Lincoln’s own political philosophy and was just the man Lincoln wanted to outline the rules of war for his administration.

The Lieber Code paid lip service to the notion that civilians should not be targeted in war, but it contained a giant loophole: Federal commanders were permitted to completely ignore the Code if, "in their discretion," the events of the war would warrant that they do so. In other words, the Lieber Code was purely propaganda.

The fact is, the Lincoln government intentionally targeted civilians from the very beginning of the war. The administration’s battle plan was known as the "Anaconda Plan" because it sought to blockade all Southern ports and inland waterways and starving the Southern civilian economy. Even drugs and medicines were on the government’s list of items that were to be kept out of the hands of Southerners, as far as possible.

As early as the first major battle of the war, the Battle of First Manassas in July of 1861, federal soldiers were plundering and burning private homes in the Northern Virginia countryside. Such behavior quickly became so pervasive that on June 20, 1862 — one year into the war — General George McClellan, the commanding general of the Army of the Potomac, wrote Lincoln a letter imploring him to see to it that the war was conducted according to "the highest principles known to Christian civilization" and to avoid targeting the civilian population to the extent that that was possible. Lincoln replaced McClellan a few months later and ignored his letter.

Most Americans are familiar with General William Tecumseh Sherman’s "march to the sea" in which his army pillaged, plundered, raped, and murdered civilians as it marched through Georgia in the face of scant military opposition. But such atrocities had been occurring for the duration of the war; Sherman’s March was nothing new.

In 1862 Sherman was having difficulty subduing Confederate sharpshooters who were harassing federal gunboats on the Mississippi River near Memphis. He then adopted the theory of "collective responsibility" to "justify" attacking innocent civilians in retaliation for such attacks. He burned the entire town of Randolph, Tennessee, to the ground. He also began taking civilian hostages and either trading them for federal prisoners of war or executing them.

Jackson and Meridian, Mississippi, were also burned to the ground by Sherman’s troops even though there was no Confederate army there to oppose them. After the burnings his soldiers sacked the town, stealing anything of value and destroying the rest. As Sherman biographer John Marzalek writes, his soldiers "entered residences, appropriating whatever appeared to be of value . . . those articles which they could not carry they broke."

After the destruction of Meridian Sherman boasted that "for five days, ten thousand of our men worked hard and with a will, in that work of destruction, with axes, sledges, crowbars, clawbars, and with fire…. Meridian no longer exists."

In The Hard Hand of War historian Mark Grimsley argues that Sherman has been unfairly criticized as the "father" of waging war on civilians because he "pursued a policy quite in keeping with that of other Union commanders from Missouri to Virginia." Fair enough. Why blame just Sherman when such practices were an essential part of Lincoln’s entire war plan and were routinely practiced by all federal commanders? Sherman was just the most zealous of all federal commanders in targeting Southern civilians, which is apparently why he became one of Lincoln’s favorite generals.

In his First Inaugural Address Jefferson said that any secessionists should be allowed to "stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." But by 1864 Sherman would announce that "to the petulant and persistent secessionists, why, death is mercy." In 1862 Sherman wrote his wife that his purpose in the war would be "extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least of the trouble, but the people" of the South. His loving and gentle wife wrote back that her wish was for "a war of extermination and that all [Southerners] would be driven like swine into the sea. May we carry fire and sword into their states till not one habitation is left standing."

The Geneva Convention of 1863 condemned the bombardment of cities occupied by civilians, but Lincoln ignored all such restrictions on his behavior. The bombardment of Atlanta destroyed 90 percent of the city, after which the remaining civilian residents were forced to depopulate the city just as winter was approaching and the Georgia countryside had been stripped of food by the federal army. In his memoirs Sherman boasted that his army destroyed more than $100 million in private property and carried home $20 million more during his "march to the sea."

Sherman was not above randomly executing innocent civilians as part of his (and Lincoln’s) terror campaign. In October of 1864 he ordered a subordinate, General Louis Watkins, to go to Fairmount, Georgia, "burn ten or twelve houses" and "kill a few at random," and "let them know that it will be repeated every time a train is fired upon."

Another Sherman biographer, Lee Kennett, found that in Sherman’s army "the New York regiments were . . . filled with big city criminals and foreigners fresh from the jails of the Old World." Although it is rarely mentioned by "mainstream" historians, many acts of rape were committed by these federal soldiers. The University of South Carolina’s library contains a large collection of thousands diaries and letters of Southern women that mention these unspeakable atrocities.

Shermans’ band of criminal looters (known as "bummers") sacked the slave cabins as well as the plantation houses. As Grimsley describes it, "With the utter disregard for blacks that was the norm among Union troops, the soldiers ransacked the slave cabins, taking whatever they liked." A routine procedure would be to hang a slave by his neck until he told federal soldiers where the plantation owners’ valuables were hidden.

General Philip Sheridan is another celebrated "war hero" who followed in Sherman’s footsteps in attacking defenseless civilians. After the Confederate army had finally evacuated the Shenandoah Valley in the autumn of 1864 Sheridan’s 35,000 infantry troops essentially burned the entire valley to the ground. As Sheridan described it in a letter to General Grant, in the first few days he "destroyed over 2200 barns . . . over 70 mills . . . have driven in front of the army over 4000 head of stock, and have killed . . . not less than 3000 sheep. . . . Tomorrow I will continue the destruction."

In letters home Sheridan’s troops described themselves as "barn burners" and "destroyers of homes." One soldier wrote home that he had personally set 60 private homes on fire and opined that "it was a hard looking sight to see the women and children turned out of doors at this season of the year." A Sergeant William T. Patterson wrote that "the whole country around is wrapped in flames, the heavens are aglow with the light thereof . . . such mourning, such lamentations, such crying and pleading for mercy [by defenseless women]… I never saw or want to see again."

As horrific as the burning of the Shenandoah Valley was, Grimsley concluded that it was actually "one of the more controlled acts of destruction during the war’s final year." After it was all over Lincoln personally conveyed to Sheridan "the thanks of the Nation."

Sherman biographer Lee Kennett is among the historians who bend over backwards to downplay the horrors of how Lincoln waged war on civilians. Just recently, he published an article in the Atlanta Constitution arguing that Sherman wasn’t such a bad guy after all and should not be reviled by Georgians as much as he is. But even Kennett admitted in his biography of Sherman that:

Had the Confederates somehow won, had their victory put them in position to bring their chief opponents before some sort of tribunal, they would have found themselves justified…in stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command for violations of the laws of war, specifically for waging war against noncombatants.

Sherman himself admitted after the war that he was taught at West Point that he could be hanged for the things he did. But in war the victors always write the history and are never punished for war crimes, no matter how heinous. Only the defeated suffer that fate. That is why very few Americans are aware of the fact that the unspeakable atrocities of war committed against civilians, from the firebombing of Dresden, the rape of Nanking, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to the World Trade Center bombings, had their origins in Lincoln’s war. This is yet another reason why Americans will continue their fascination with the War for Southern Independence.

 



 
 
PictureMarx and Lincoln, pen pals and two peas in a pod.
By Thomas DiLorenzo

Reprinted from LewRockwell.com. Dr. DiLorenzo is a friend of the Confederate Society. 

Should the Polish people memorialize fellow Poles who collaborated with the Soviets?  This of course is a preposterous question to ask, yet the “logic” displayed in a recent National Review article suggests that the answer to the question would be an unequivocal “yes.”

The article in question is “The Romance of the Confederacy” by one Josh Gelernter (March 28 issue), who is identified as someone who “writes for National Review and The Weekly Standard.”  In this article Gelernter points out that there were Southerners in the Union Army during the War to Prevent Southern Independence.  In border states like Maryland, for instance, about half the men who fought were on the Union side.  Rather than memorializing the ancestors of the vast majority of Southerners — the foot soldiers of the Confederate Army, almost none of whom owned slaves (as Gelernter admits) — it is this class of traitors who should be honored and memorialized instead, he writes.  Southerners should “abandon the Confederacy” and embrace “the heritage of Southern Unionists.”  To your average Southerner, this would be identical to the Polish people memorializing and honoring their fellow countrymen who collaborated with the Soviets.

Gelernter begins his preposterous proposal with quotations of some of Lincoln’s more outlandishly false and phony commentary.  He quotes Lincoln as being opposed to men who “wrung their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces,” but omits the fact that in his first inaugural address Lincoln pledged his full support of the Corwin Amendment to the Constitution that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering in Southern slavery.  In that speech Lincoln declared that, in his opinion, slavery was already constitutional (as opposed to the opinion of Lysander Spooner, author of The Unconstitutionality of Slavery), and that he had “no objection” to making it “express and irrevocable” in the text of the U.S. Constitution.  Lincoln’s real position, based on his actions and not just his pretty words, was that it was fine and dandy for a man to wring his bread from another man’s brow as long as he kept paying federal taxes.

In the same sentence Gelernter also quotes another piece of nineteenth-century Republican Party propaganda – that the South seceded to “extend” slavery.  The truth is that by seceding the South no longer had any chance of “extending” slavery into the new U.S. governmentterritories.  It was equally absurd for Lincoln to argue that the South would somehow be able to bring slavery back to Massachusetts and other Northern states, yet Gelernter cites such words as though they were Sacred Truth.

Gelernter also quotes Dishonest Abe as accusing the South of wanting “to make war rather than let the nation survive.”  But it was Lincoln who invaded the Southern states, committing a clear act of treason under Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, that defines treason as follows:  “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to theirEnemies, giving them Aid and Comfort (emphasis added).”  The “United States” is always in the plural in all the founding documents, signifying that what is being referred to are the free and independent states, notsomething called “the United States government.” Levying war upon the Southern states is of course exactly what Lincoln did.  The South seceded; it did not intend to invade and conquer the North.  It was the “Yankees” who wanted to invade, conquer, plunder, and occupy the South, and they succeeded.

As to the comment by Lincoln, quoted by Gelernter, that Southerners would “make war rather than let the nation survive,” it is important to note that the founders did not create a consolidated “nation” but a confederacy or voluntary union of states.  Lincoln’s war destroyed the voluntary union of states created by the founders.  It was the South that fought for the principle of a voluntary union; the North fought to replace it with acoerced union held together by the mass murder of war and the perpetual threat thereof. If this sounds similar to the Soviet Union, that’s because it is.  That is why, to this day, if someone asks the question, “What do you think the federal government would do if a state seceded?,” most Americans would probably immediately think of some form of mass violence and invasion as the answer.

Gelernter inadvertently illustrates just how unpopular the military invasion of the South was among Northerners.  In addition to creating an army of slaves through military conscription, with the Union Army eventually shooting deserters on a daily basis, the Lincoln administration employed at least 1 million foreign mercenaries, as Gelernter admits.  While hundreds of thousands of Northern men were evading the draft or leaving the battlefield by the tens of thousands on the eve of battle (seeDesertion in the Civil War by Ella Lonn), the Lincoln administration was bribing foreigners to join its army with promises of free land under the Homestead Act. Thus hordes of foreign mercenaries, many of who did not even speak English, were recruited to march South to supposedly teach (at gunpoint) the descendants of Southern-born Presidents Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Tyler, Taylor, Polk, and Jackson what it really meant to be an American.

The Southern men who sided with the enemy against their own families and neighbors participated in the waging of war on Southern civilians for four long years.  This included the bombardment of entire cities like Charleston and Atlanta when there were no enemy soldiers there, massive looting, plundering, and destruction of private property, and the gang rape of Southern women, white and black, but especially black, by U.S. Army “soldiers.” (See Crystal Reimster, “Rape and Justice in the Civil War,” New York Times, April 25, 2013). According to James McPherson in his book, Battle Cry of Freedom, at least 50,000 Southern civilians perished during the war.  Standardizing for today’s  population, that would be the equivalent of roughly 500,000 American civilians murdered by the U.S. government for the “crime” of believing that the union of states was voluntary.  But Southern men who assisted in the perpetration of these war crimes deserve to be honored by Southerners according to the New York neocons at National Review and The Weekly Standard.

Gelernter ends his preposterous proposal by invoking a song (!) written by one of General Sherman’s “bummers” (as his looting, plundering, and murdering-of-civilians “soldiers” were called) that includes lyrics implying that when Sherman’s  Army showed up in South Carolina there supposedly many Southern men who “wept with joyful tears” and could hardly “be restrained from breaking forth in tears” upon seeing the U.S. flag.  Only a mindless, flag-waving moron could believe such a thing.

Thomas J. DiLorenzo is professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland and the author of The Real Lincoln; ;Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest AbeHow Capitalism Saved AmericaHamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution – And What It Means for America Today. His latest book is Organized Crime: The Unvarnished Truth About Government.


 
 
Picture
by Al Benson Jr.

On April 6th I read an article by a thoroughly politically correct gentleman named Charles J. Dean on the website www.al.com dealing with the so-called "end" of the "Civil War." I don't know where Mr. Dean learned his history, but Lenin could not have taught him any better.

Mr. Dean noted in his article: "On April 9, 1865  General Robert E. Lee surrendered his sword and his Army of Northern Virginia to Gen. Ulysses Simpson Grant marking the end of the Civil War." Mr. Dean has swallowed the fiction most of us were programmed with in government schools--namely that Appomattox was the end of the War and that was it.

Actually, all General Lee surrendered at Appomattox was the Army of Northern Virginia and no more. He could have surrendered all the Southern armies in the field but he did not do that. And there were other Confederate armies in the field. Joe Johnston in North Carolina did not surrender until April 26th and there were others after that. And the Confederate Government never did officially surrender. Jeff Davis and his cabinet fled Richmond and continued to try to govern on the road. Some were eventually captured and some were not. But no official surrender. And I think the last battle of the War, officially, was fought at Palmito Ranch in Texas in either late May or sometime in June, I can't recall which right now.

But Mr. Dean, in his verbal assault on the South says: "But all these many years later I sometimes wonder if that bloody war for some of you has ever ended. Or if some of you have ever accepted the defeat the South was dealt." He then went on to write about how the Confederate Flag was "racist" from its inception and how the South fought to maintain slavery. You've seen and heard it all before. Most of it can best be described as the usual Cultural Genocide perpetrated by Yankee/Marxist propagandists since the end of the War--and the fact that it is still being propagated shows that, for the Yankees, the War never really ended. Oh, the shooting part ended alright, but the Cultural part has continued for 150 years now, thanks to Northern vitriol--and shows no signs of diminishing.

Thankfully, quite a number of folks contacted Mr. Dean to disabuse him of the Yankee/Marxist propaganda he was pushing and I guess, from his comments, some of them were rather less than polite. Although from reading his comments, I don't think it would have made any difference if all the replies had been the epitome of politeness and correctness. They would not have been able to confuse him with the facts.

I've told this story before, but it bears repeating. I know a preacher who is also a historian and one time he talked with someone that told him, quite bluntly "You lost the War, get over it." To which he replied that the South could accept having lost the War but what they couldn't accept was the fact that the North tried to destroy their culture (and is still trying). That's what they could not accept. In regard to the South and her culture, Cultural Genocide (Cultural Marxism) has reigned in this country almost since the War ended. "Reconstruction" and Yankee public schools were the start of it and it has gone on, to one degree or another, for decades now. It still continues. The present-day "reconstruction" crowd is bound and determined to remove any and all memories of Southern culture--flags, statues, place names, street and park names, all of it. It must all be annihilated--except for the memory of slavery (which the North also had, but that fact has been conveniently swept under the rug). The memory of slavery will, they hope, produced "white guilt" in the South and maybe from that the reparations crowd can accrue a little of the long green from the guilt-ridden. In other words, much of it is a scam.

And they have made lots of Southern folks feel guilty when the should not have. And as far as "racism" there was every bit as much of that in the North (still is) as there was in the South. It just doesn't get talked about because the real agenda is to prostrate the old, Christian South. That's what it's all about. So, in reality, the North has been fighting a culture war against the South since Appomattox--and before. Southern folks should quit buying into the guilt trip, start doing some homework and pointing out the sins of the North--and there are many to be pointed out.

I speak as someone who was born in the North, but I've lived in the South for over twelve years now, and I've watch how Northern Marxists play this Alinskyite  game against the South and most Southern folks seem too polite to resist. Folks, start resisting! Do the homework, find out where your accusers are really coming from (the hard left) and start exposing them as the Scripture commands in Ephesians 5:11.


POSTED BY AL BENSON JR. AT 4/09/2015 0 comments


3/19/2015It's All Cultural Genocide
by Al Benson Jr.

This may not seem to some folks to have much to do with Southern heritage and the Cultural Genocide agenda that is being perpetrated on the South but actually, the two situations run in tandem with one another.

A friend in the Confederate Society of America sent me this. The title of it is: "Black Student Union Wants Campus Building Renamed After Most-Wanted Cop Killer." And this happened, where else, but the University of California at Berkeley, the Marxist Mecca of the West (left) Coast. The commentary I received continues: "UC Berkeley, the pinnacle of activist colleges, allows for a Black student union--a problem in itself, (can you imagine the fuss is someone wanted a white student union). This so-called 'union' is pressing to rename a campus building after a cop-killing black female, who murdered a New Jersey State Trooper in 1973 and then fled to Cuba.  Assata Shakur, formerly known as Joanne Chesimard, is a former black panther and the first woman on the FBI's 'Most Wanted' terrorists. I'm sure she's quite worthy of such a distinction at such a liberal/progressive college as UC Berkeley."

My friend noted that, for about 25 years, similar groups across the country, most especially in the South,  have been pressing, usually with success, to rename buildings, bridges, streets, parks and all manner of other things that have anything to do with the Confederacy or Confederate Veterans. Groups have been recently involved in removing Confederate flags in Lexington, Virginia at Washington and Lee University which, if some had their way, would probably be renamed Marx and Lenin University! Lee/Jackson Day will soon be only a fond memory in Charlottesville, Virginia, thanks to the efforts of some "community organizers" in that fair city. "Community organizers!" Where have you heard that term before?

A few valiant Confederate heritage groups have protested much of this, but they are small and don't get much help or support from other patriotic groups. Years ago, I recall a flap over Confederate flags in a cemetery where Confederate soldiers were buried and the Sons of Union Veterans spoke up and supported the Confederates. Not much of that going on today. Now there is even a move to remove US flags at certain "progressive" campuses around the country and veterans groups are all up in arms over it. But they weren't too keen on supporting the Confederate groups in a similar situation. I wonder if they expect support now from the Confederate groups in the name of "patriotism."

Years ago, probably about 20 now, some of us said that when these Marxist (and they are Marxist) groups had finished mangling the Confederate flag they would proceed to go after the US flag. Nobody wanted to hear it. Well, folks, the day has arrived and most are still clueless. My friend stated: "This is because too many 'good people' are clueless as to Marxist methodology and therefore are clueless as to how to prosecute a war to stop their aggression/takeover. Eventually, they will show up at your front door."

This is all the result of a century of propaganda against the South first, and then all of America next, by "progressive" (socialist) politicians, college professors, and even some "useful idiot" preachers. This kind of thing is NOT happening by accident and these events are not "coincidental." There is an agenda behind it all and until Southern folks begin to wake up and realize that and to realize they have to help each other combat this sort of thing, it will continue--until all your parks, streets, schools, and whatever else, have undergone name changes and are now named after Marxists and socialists who have been responsible for tearing down the country, beginning with the South.

About now some good Christian folks will speak up and say--"Hey, don't worry about this, the Lord  is in control" and He is, no doubt of that. But maybe, just maybe, He might want to use YOU to exercise some of that control in these situations and you ain't having any. Think about that.

 
 
Picture


By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

(reprinted with permission from Lewrockwell.com)

Two weeks ago Starbucks was forced to abandon a widely ridiculed campaign to promote discussion of race in America by writing “Race Together” on coffee cups. The Right criticized it as another self-righteous exercise in p.c., while the Left complained that a discussion starter introduced by a rich product of “white privilege” like Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz wasn’t quite leftist enough.

Over at EPJ, Bob Wenzel pointed out the not-exactly-unexpected finding that Schultz lives in a part of Seattle called Madison Park, whose 1,538 residents include a mere 80 black people. And in fact, Schultz lives in an especially exclusive part of Madison Park: a nine-house gated community that doesn’t exactly “look like America,” if I may borrow a phrase.

To help push the discussion along, Starbucks also ran an advertisement in USA Today, in the form of a questionnaire, demanding to know how many times per year we’ve hosted someone of another race at our homes, and how many times customers had dined with people of a different race. It is evidently not enough for people to make uncoerced decisions regarding their friendships and social lives; they should instead choose their friends on the basis of percentages and bean counting.

The Starbucks fiasco pointed to a broader point: almost no one calling for a frank discussion of race really wants one. What they want is an echo chamber. They want to hear the same ideological assumptions behind racial differences in income, employment, and education thoughtlessly repeated. Since those assumptions are false, these discussions produce nothing of value. Just more misplaced resentment, anger, and frustration.

The usual “discussion about race” we are supposed to have involves attributing racial differences in income and employment to “discrimination,” oppression, and “white privilege,” and then coming up with suitable programs of penance and redistribution. But as Thomas Sowell has shown, differences in income and employment between groups exist all over the world, in a great multitude of situations; he even points to plenty of cases in which groups suffering official state discrimination have outperformed a country’s majority population. Sowell has also demonstrated that when we correct for age, geographical location, education, and other relevant demographic factors, the racial income gap in the US essentially disappears.

As for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Sowell reveals already-existing trends in black employment that few know about and no one mentions, and finds that the Act did not accelerate those trends:

In the period from 1954 to 1964, for example, the number of blacks in professional, technical, and similar high-level positions more than doubled.  In other kinds of occupations, the advance of blacks was even greater during the 1940s – when there was little or no civil rights policy – than during the 1950s when the civil rights revolution was in its heyday.

The rise in the number of blacks in professional and technical occupations in the two years from 1964 to 1966 (after the Civil Rights Act) was in fact less than in the one year from 1961 to 1962 (before the Civil Rights Act).  If one takes into account the growing black population by looking at percentages instead of absolute numbers, it becomes even clearer that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 represented no acceleration in trends that had been going on for many years.  The percentage of employed blacks who were managers and administrators was the same in 1967 as in 1964 – and 1960.  Nor did the institution of “goals and timetables” at the end of 1971 mark any acceleration in the long trend of rising black representation in these occupations.  True, there was an appreciable increase in the percentage of blacks in professional and technical fields from 1971 to 1972, but almost entirely offset by a reduction in the percentage of blacks who were managers and administrators.

By 1980, in fact, college-educated black couples were earning slightly more than whites of the same description. Similar long-term upward trends are evident for Asians and Hispanics as well.

Ah, but correcting for education merely conceals the inequities, a critic might say: given the lousy education they wind up getting, no wonder blacks are underrepresented.

It’s certainly true that the state gives these kids a rotten education. But that can’t be the full explanation of what we are seeing. When students of different races were asked what grades would get them into trouble with their parents, Asian students responded that it was anything below A-. The threshold for white students, on the other hand, was B-, and for black students it was C-. This is the tip of the iceberg of a problem that those who urge us to discuss race don’t really seem to want investigated.

If anything, the so-called privilege we hear so much about runs in reverse. Blacks are admitted into education and employment despite much poorer average credentials.

Some of us are old enough to recall the leak at Georgetown Law School two decades ago, revealing that blacks who had much lower test scores than whites were being admitted. But this wasn’t really news: only 17 black students in the entire country had at least the average LSAT score of a Georgetown student, and Georgetown was admitting 70 black students.

For those who pretend these differences are attributable to class differences, the data provide little comfort. In fact, the racial gap in educational achievement is only slightly smaller when social class is held constant.

Are blacks underrepresented in academia because of “racism”? This thesis began to be advanced in all seriousness in the late 1980s, even though US universities were tearing each other limb from limb in competition for the small number of qualified black candidates. And that, not “racism,” is the issue. The 25 blacks who earned doctorates in mathematics in the US in 2009, for example, were only 1.6 percent of all doctorates in the field given out by US universities. For engineering the figure was 1.8 percent.

That year, not a single black student earned a PhD in agronomy, animal breeding and nutrition, astronomy, astrophysics, chemical and physical oceanography, classics, horticulture, logic, marine science, number theory, nuclear physics, nuclear engineering, paleontology, Spanish, theoretical chemistry, or wildlife/range management. Perhaps this, rather than the automatic assumption of white wickedness, has more to do with it.

Then there is crime. Jason Riley, author of Please Stop Helping Us, describes the situation:

Today blacks are about 13 percent of the population and continue to be responsible for an inordinate amount of crime. Between 1976 and 2005 blacks com­mitted more than half of all murders in the United States. The black arrest rate for most offenses — including robbery, aggravated assault and property crimes — is still typically two to three times their representation in the population. Blacks as a group are also overrepresented among persons arrested for so-called white-collar crimes such as counterfeiting, fraud and embezzlement. And blaming this decades-long, well-documented trend on racist cops, prosecutors, judges, sentencing guidelines and drug laws doesn’t cut it as a plausible explanation.

And according to William Stuntz, the late Harvard Law professor, “High rates of black violence in the late twentieth century are a matter of historical fact, not bigoted imagination. The trends reached their peak not in the land of Jim Crow but in the more civilized North, and not in the age of segrega­tion but in the decades that saw the rise of civil rights for African Americans – and of African American control of city governments.”

The kind of conversation Starbucks and the rest of the “racism” industry wants us to have about race expects us to chalk all this up to “racism” – or “institutional” or “structural” racism, a phenomenon that apparently failed to affect Chinese- and Japanese-Americans, who have been despised by all sectors of American society, whether labor unions in the 19th century or hyper-patriots in the 20th, with Japanese-Americans even being confined in camps during World War II. But they had matched whites in income by 1959, and were earning one-third more just a  decade later. The success of Chinese- and Japanese-Americans, in fact, has created such difficulty for the discriminationists that those groups have now been conflated with less successful Samoans, Hawaiians, and Vietnamese, in a category called “Asian and Pacific Islanders,” in order to make their achievements look less impressive.

If anyone wanted a free and genuine discussion of race, it would have to be honest enough to include issues like these. Such a discussion might also include, along the lines of Walter Williams’ book The State Against Blacks, some mention of how the state makes life difficult for the poor, how the minimum wage eerily parallels black teenage unemployment, and how labor unions have been a protectionist racket intended to protect white workers against competition.

If the phrase “Race Together” can be made meaningful at all, it would have to mean an attitude of genuine good will between the races, as opposed to the condescending oppressor-and-oppressed model that has yielded us such perverse results. Professor Williams jokes that he received his Ph.D. in economics “back when it wasn’t fashionable for white people to like black people.” What he meant by that, obviously, wasn’t that it’s good for members of one race not to get along with those of another, but that in those days his professors felt comfortable treating him just like everyone else, without the condescending tokenism and pats on the head that would later become so prevalent. When he spouted nonsense, they told him so. And he’s a better scholar for it.

What is holding back nonwhites is not a lack of good will by white people, or inadequate wealth redistribution or coercive special privilege. For all the talk of white “racism,” whites have yielded countless university and employment spots, at the expense of their own children, to nonwhites who would not otherwise have been accepted. And for an indication of what trillions in welfare-state spending have yielded, one need only take a glance at Detroit, or take a stroll down the corridor of an inner-city school.

The double standards, the demonization of whites, the use of the “racism” slur, the race hustlers who profit from inciting hatred – all of this would have to go if we are truly to “Race Together.”


 
 
Picture
By Ron Paul

Ron Paul Institute

Reprinted with permission by lewrockwell.com 



The American Empire has been long in the making. A green light was given in 1990 to finalize that goal. Dramatic events occurred that year that allowed the promoters of the American Empire to cheer. It also ushered in the current 25-year war to solidify the power necessary to manage a world empire. Most people in the world now recognize this fact and assume that the empire is here to stay for a long time. That remains to be seen.

Empires come and go. Some pop up quickly and disappear in the same manner. Others take many years to develop and sometimes many years to totally disintegrate. The old empires, like the Greek, Roman, Spanish and many others took many years to build and many years to disappear. The Soviet Empire was one that came rather quickly and dissipated swiftly after a relatively short period of time. The communist ideology took many decades to foment the agitation necessary for the people to tolerate that system.

Since 1990 the United States has had to fight many battles to convince the world that it was the only military and economic force to contend with. Most people are now convinced and are easily intimidated by our domination worldwide with the use of military force and economic sanctions on which we generously rely. Though on the short term this seems to many, and especially for the neoconservatives, that our power cannot be challenged. What is so often forgotten is that while most countries will yield to our threats and intimidation, along the way many enemies were created.

The seeds of the American Empire were sown early in our history. Natural resources, river transportation, and geographic location all lent itself to the development of an empire. An attitude of “Manifest Destiny” was something most Americans had no trouble accepting. Although in our early history there were those who believed in a powerful central government, with central banking and foreign intervention, these views were nothing like they are today as a consequence of many years of formalizing the power and determination necessary for us to be the policeman of the world and justify violence as a means for spreading a particular message. Many now endorse the idea that using force to spread American exceptionalism is moral and a force for good. Unfortunately history has shown that even using humanitarian rhetoric as a justification for telling others what to do has never worked.

Our move toward empire steadily accelerated throughout the 20th century. World War I and World War II were deadly for millions of people in many countries, but in comparison the United States was essentially unscathed. Our economic power and military superiority steadily grew. Coming out of World War II we were able to dictate the terms of the new monetary system at Bretton Woods as well as the makeup of all the international organizations like NATO, the United Nations, and many others. The only thing that stood in America’s way between 1945 and 1990 was the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Significant events of 1990 sealed the fate of the Soviet Empire, with United States enjoying a green light that would usher in unchallenged American superiority throughout the world.

Various names have been given to this war in which we find ourselves and is which considered necessary to maintain the empire. Professor Michael Rozeff calls it the “Great War II” implying that the Great War I began in 1914 and ended in 1990. Others have referred to this ongoing war as “The Long War.” I hope that someday we can refer to this war as the “The Last War” in that by the time this war ends the American Empire will end as well. Then the greatness of the experiment in individual liberty in our early history can be resumed and the force of arms can be replaced by persuasion and setting an example of how a free society should operate.

There are several reasons why 1990 is a significant year in the transition of modern day empires. It was a year that signaled the end of the USSR Empire and the same year the American Empire builders felt vindicated in their efforts to assume the role of the world’s sole superpower.

On February 7, 1990 the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union met and ceded its monopoly political power over its empire. This was followed in a short period of time with the breakup of the Soviet system with 15 of the 17 republics declaring their independence from Moscow. This was not a total surprise considering the fact that the Soviets, in defeat, were forced to leave Afghanistan in February 1989. Also later that year, on November 9, 1989, the Berlin wall fell. Obviously the handwriting was on the wall for the total disintegration of the Soviet system. The fact that the Communist Party’s leaders had to concede that they no longer could wield the ominous power that the Communist Party exerted for 73 years was a seminal event. None of this could have been possible without significant policy changes instituted by Mikhail Gorbachev after his assuming power as president in 1985, which included Glasnost and Perestroika—policies that permitted more political openness as well as significant economic reforms. These significant events led up to the Soviet collapse much more so than the conventional argument that it was due to Ronald Reagan’s military buildup that forced the Soviets into a de facto “surrender” to the West.

The other significant event of 1990, and not just a coincidence, was the “green light” message exchanged between April Glaspie and Saddam Hussein on July 25, 1990. Though the details of this encounter have been debated, there is no doubt that the conclusion of it was that Saddam Hussein was convinced that the United States would not object to him using force to deal with a dispute Iraq had with Kuwait. After all, the US had just spent eight years aligning itself with him in his invasion and war with the Iranians. It seemed to him quite logical. What he didn’t realize was the significance of the changes in the world powers that were ongoing at that particular time. The Soviets were on their way out and the American Empire was soon to assert its role as the lone super power. The US was anxious to demonstrate its new role.

When one reads the communications between Washington and Iraq, it was not difficult to believe that a green light had been given to Saddam Hussein to march into Kuwait without US interference. Without this invasion, getting the American people to support a war with Iraq would have been very difficult. Before the war propaganda by the US government and the American media began, few Americans supported President Bush’s plans to go to war against an ally that we assisted in its eight-year war against Iran. After several months of propaganda, attitudes changed and President Bush was able to get support from the US Congress, although he argued that that was unnecessary since he had obtained a UN resolution granting him the authority to use his military force to confront Saddam Hussein. The need for Constitutional authority was not discussed.

US ambassador April Glaspie was rather explicit in her comments to Saddam Hussein: “we have no opinion on Arab – Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.” The US State Department had already told Saddam Hussein that Washington had “no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait.” It’s not difficult interpreting conversations like this as being a green light for the invasion that Hussein was considering. Hussein had a list of grievances regarding the United States, but Glaspie never threatened or hinted about how Washington would react if Hussein took Kuwait. Regardless, whether it was reckless or poor diplomacy, the war commenced. Some have argued that it was deliberate in order to justify the beginning of the United States efforts in rebuilding the Middle East – a high priority for the neoconservatives. Actually whether the invasion by Saddam Hussein into Kuwait was encouraged or permitted by deliberate intentions or by miscalculations, the outcome and the subsequent disaster in Iraq for the next 25 years was a result of continued bad judgment in our dealing with Iraq. That required enforcing our goals with military intervention. The obvious failure of this policy requires no debate.

On August 1, 1990, one week after this exchange between ambassador Glaspie and Saddam Hussein, the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq occurred. Immediately following this attack our State Department made it clear that this invasion would not stand and President Bush would lead a coalition in removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait. On January 17, 1991, that military operation began. The forced evacuation of Iraqi troops from Kuwait was swift and violent, but the war for Iraq had just begun and continues to this day. It also ushered in the climactic struggle for America’s efforts to become the official and unchallenged policeman of the world and to secure the American Empire.

President Bush was not bashful in setting the stage for this clearly defined responsibility to assume this role since the Soviet Empire was on the wane. A very significant foreign policy speech by Bush came on September 11, 1990 entitled, “Toward a New World Order.” This was a clear definition of internationalism with United States in charge in the tradition of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D Roosevelt. In this speech there was a pretense that there would be Russian and United States cooperation in making the world safe for democracy—something that our government now seems totally uninterested in. Following the speech, the New York Times reported that the American left was concerned about this new world order as being nothing more than rationalization for imperial ambitions in the middle 1980s. Obviously the geopolitics of the world had dramatically changed. The green light was given for the American hegemony.

This arrogant assumption of power to run the world militarily and to punish or reward various countries economically would continue and accelerate, further complicating the financial condition of the United States government. Though it was easy for the United States to push Hussein back into Iraq, subsequent policy was destined to create havoc that has continued up to the present day. The sanctions and the continuous bombing of Iraq were devastating to the infrastructure of that country. As a consequence it’s been estimated that over 500,000 Iraqis died in the next decade, many of them being children. Yet there are still many Americans who continue to be mystified as to why “they – Arabs and Muslims – hate us.” By the end of 1991, on Christmas Day, the final blow to the Soviet system occurred. On that date Gorbachev resigned and the Soviet flag was lowered for the last time, thus officially ending the Soviet Empire. Many had hoped that there would be “a peace dividend” for us since the Cold War was officially ended. There’s no reason that could not have occurred but it would have required us to reject the notion that it was our moral obligation and legal responsibility to deal with every crisis throughout the world. Nevertheless we embarked on that mission and though it continues, it is destined to end badly for our country. The ending of the Soviet Empire was a miraculous event with not one shot being fired. It was a failed system based on a deeply flawed idea and it was destined to fail. Once again this makes the point that the use of military force to mold the world is a deeply flawed policy. We must remember that ideas cannot be stopped by armies and recognize that good ideas must replace bad ones rather than resorting to constant wars.

It should surprise no one that a policy endorsing the use of force to tell others how to live will only lead to more killing and greater economic suffering for those who engage in this effort, whether voluntarily or involuntarily. Twenty five years have passed since this green light was given for the current war and there’s no sign that it will soon end. So far it has only emboldened American political leaders to robustly pursue foreign interventionism with little thought to the tremendous price that is continuously paid.

During the 1990s there was no precise war recognized. However our military presence around the world especially in the Middle East and to some degree in Africa was quite evident. Even though President George HW Bush did not march into Baghdad, war against the Iraqi people continued. In an effort to try to get the people to rebel against Saddam Hussein, overwhelming sanctions and continuous bombing were designed to get the Iraqi people to rebel and depose Hussein. That did not work. Instead it worked to continue to build hatred toward America for our involvement in the entire region.

Our secretive influence in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation had its unintended consequences. One was that we were fighting on the side of bin Laden and we all know how that turned out. Also, in an effort to defeat communism, the CIA helped to promote radical Islam in Saudi Arabia. Some argue that this was helpful in defeating the Soviets in Afghanistan. This most likely is not true since communism was doomed to fail anyway, and the cost to us by encouraging radical Islam has come back to haunt us.

It has been estimated that our policies directed at Iraq during the 1990s caused the death of thousands of Iraqis, many of these coming from the destruction of their infrastructure and creating a public health nightmare. When Madeleine Albright was asked about this on national TV she did not deny it and said that that was a price that had to be paid. And then they wonder why there is so much resentment coming from these countries directed toward United States. Then George Bush Junior invaded Iraq, his justification all based on lies, and another 500,000 Iraqis died. The total deaths have been estimated to represent four percent of the Iraqi population. The green light that was turned on for the Persian Gulf War in 1990 stayed lit and even today the proponents of these totally failed wars claim that the only problem is we didn’t send enough troops and we didn’t stay long enough. And now it’s argued that it’s time to send ground troops back in. This is the message that we get from the neoconservatives determined that only armed might can bring peace to the world and that the cost to us financially is not a problem. The proponents never seem to be concerned about the loss of civil liberties, which has continued ever since the declaration of the Global War on Terrorism. And a good case can be made that our national security not only has not been helped, but has been diminished with these years of folly.

And the true believers in empire never pause. After all the chaos that the US government precipitated in Iraq, conditions continue to deteriorate and now there is strong talk about putting troops on the ground once again. More than 10,000 troops still remain in Afghanistan and conditions there are precarious. Yemen is a mess as is also Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Ukraine — all countries in which we have illegally and irresponsibly engaged ourselves.

Today the debate in Congress is whether or not to give the President additional authority to use military force. He asked to be able to use military force anyplace anytime around the world without further congressional approval. This is hardly what the Founders intended for how we dealt with going to war with other nations. Some have argued, for Constitutional reasons, that we should declare war against ISIS. That will prove to be difficult since exactly who they are and where they are located and how many there are is unknown. We do know it is estimated that there are around 30,000 members. And yet in the surrounding countries, where the fighting is going on and we are directly involved, millions of Muslims have chosen not to stand up to the ruthless behavior of the ISIS members.

Since declaring war against ISIS makes no more sense than declaring war against “terrorism,” which is a tactic, it won’t work. Even at the height of the Cold War, in a time of great danger to the entire world, nobody suggested we declare war against “communism.” Islamist extremism is based on strong beliefs, and as evil as these beliefs may be, they must be understood, confronted, and replaced with ideas that all civilized people in the world endorse. But what we must do immediately is to stop providing the incentive for the radicals to recruit new members and prevent American weapons from ending up in the hands of the enemy as a consequence of our failed policies. The incentives of the military-industrial complex along with the philosophy of neoconservatism that pushes us to be in more than 150 countries, must be exposed and refuted. Occupation by a foreign country precipitates hatred and can never be made acceptable by flowery words about their need for American-style “democracy.” People who are occupied are always aware of the selfish motivation of the occupiers.

The announcement by President George HW Bush on September 11, 1990 about the new world order was well received. Prior to that time it was only the “conspiracy theorists” who constantly talked about and speculated about the New World Order. Neoconservative ideas had been around for a long time. They were endorsed by many presidents and in particular Woodrow Wilson with his goal of spreading American goodness and making the ”world safe for democracy” – none of which can be achieved by promoting war. In the 1990s the modern day neoconservatives, led by William Kristol and Robert Kagan, enjoyed their growing influence on America’s foreign policy. Specifically, in 1997 they established the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) for the specific purpose of promoting an aggressive foreign policy of interventionism designed to promote the American Empire. This policy of intervention was to be presented with “moral clarity.” “Clarity” it was, but “moral” is another question. Their goal was to provide a vision and resolve, “to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interest.”

It was not a surprise that admittedly the number one goal for the New World order was to significantly increase military spending and to be prepared to challenge any regime hostile to America’s interests. They argued that America had to accept its unique role as the sole superpower for extending international order as long as it served America’s interests. Although neoconservatives are thought to have greater influence within the Republican Party, their views have been implemented by the leadership of both Republicans and Democrats. First on PNAC’s agenda was to continue the policy designed to undermine Saddam Hussein with the goal of eventually invading Iraq – once they had an event that would galvanize public support for it. Many individuals signed letters as well as the statement of principles and most were identified as Republicans. Interestingly enough, the fourth person on the list of signatories for the statement of principles was Jeb Bush, just as he was planning his second run for governor of Florida. The neoconservatives have been firmly placed in a position of influence in directing America’s foreign policy. Though we hear some debate between the two political parties over when and whom to strike, our position of world policeman is accepted by both. Though the rhetoric is different between the two parties, power always remains in the hands of those who believe in promoting the empire.

The American Empire has arrived, but there’s no indication that smooth sailing is ahead. Many questions remain. Will the American people continue to support it? Will the American taxpayer be able to afford it? Will those on the receiving end of our authority tolerate it? All empires eventually end. It’s only a matter of time. Since all empires exist at the expense of personal liberty the sooner the American Empire ends the better it will be for those who still strive to keep America a bastion for personal liberty. That is possible, but it won’t be achieved gracefully.

Though the people have a say in the matter, they have to contend with the political and financial power that controls the government and media propaganda. The powerful special interests, who depend on privileges that come from the government, will do whatever is necessary to intimidate the people into believing that it’s in their best interest to prop up a system that rewards the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. The nature of fiat money and the privileges provided to the special interests by the Federal Reserve makes it a difficult struggle, but it’s something that can be won. Unfortunately there will be economic chaos, more attacks on our civil liberties, and many unfortunate consequences coming from our unwise and dangerous foreign policy of interventionism.

Since all empires serve the interests of a privileged class, the people who suffer will constantly challenge their existence. The more powerful the empire, the greater is the need for the government to hold it together by propaganda and lies. Truth is the greatest enemy of an abusive empire. Since those in charge are determined to maintain their power, truth is seen as being treasonous. Whistleblowers and truth tellers are seen as unpatriotic and disloyal. This is why as our empire has grown there have been more attacks on those who challenge the conventional wisdom of the propagandists. We have seen it with the current administration in that the president has used the Espionage Act to curtail freedom of the press more than any other recent president. Fortunately we live in an age where information is much more available than when it was controlled by a combination of our government and the three major networks. Nevertheless it’s an uphill struggle to convince the people that it is in their best interests to give up on the concept of empire, foreign interventionism, allowing the special interests to dictate foreign policy, and paying the bills with the inflation of the money supply provided by the Federal Reserve. The laws of economics, in time, will bring such a system to an end but it would be nice if it would be ended sooner through logic and persuasion.

If it’s conceded that there was a dramatic change with the green light given by April Glaspie and President Bush in 1990, along with the collapse, almost simultaneously, of the Soviet system, the only question remains is when and who will turn on the red light to end this 25 year war. Sometime it’s easier to establish an empire than it is to maintain and pay for it. That is what our current political leaders are in the business of currently doing and it’s not going well. It appears that a comparatively small but ruthless non-government entity, ISIS, is playing havoc with our political leaders as well as nearly all the countries in the Middle East. Because there is no clear understanding of what radical Islam is all about  —since it is not much about Islam itself — our policies in the Middle East and elsewhere will continue to drain our resources and incite millions more to join those who are resisting our occupations and sanctions. The day will come when we will be forced to give up our role as world policeman and resort to using a little common sense and come home.

This will only occur when the American people realize that our presence around the world and the maintenance of our empire has nothing to do with defending our Constitution, preserving our liberties, or fulfilling some imaginary obligation on our part to use force to spread American exceptionalism. A thorough look at our economic conditions, our pending bankruptcy, our veterans hospitals, and how we’re viewed in the world by most other nations, will compel Americans to see things differently and insist that we bring our troops home – the sooner the better.

Vocal proponents of the American Empire talk about a moral imperative that requires us to sacrifice ourselves as we try to solve the problems of the world. If there was even a hint this effort was accomplishing something beneficial, it might be more difficult to argue against. But the evidence is crystal-clear that all our efforts only make things worse, both for those we go to teach about democracy and liberty and for the well-being of all Americans who are obligated to pay for this misplaced humanitarian experiment. We must admit that this 25-year war has failed. Nevertheless it’s difficult to argue against it when it requires that that we not endorse expanding our military operations to confront the ISIS killers. Arguments against pursuing a war to stop the violence, however, should appeal to common sense. Recognizing that our policies in the Middle East have significantly contributed to the popular support for radical Islam is crucial to dealing with ISIS. More sacrifices by the American people in this effort won’t work and should be avoided. If one understands what motivates radical Islam to strike out as it does, the solution would become more evident. Voluntary efforts by individuals to participate in the struggle should not be prohibited. If the solution is not more violence on our part, a consideration must be given to looking at the merits of a noninterventionist foreign policy which does not resort to the killing of hundreds of thousands of individuals who never participated in any aggression against United States — as our policies have done since the green light for empire was given.

How is this likely to end? The empire will not be ended legislatively or by the sudden embrace of common sense in directing our foreign policy. The course of interventionism overseas and assuming the role of world policeman will remain for the foreseeable future. Still the question remains, how long will that be since we can be certain that the end of the empire will come. Our military might and economic strength is now totally dependent on the confidence that the worldwide financial markets give to the value of the US dollar. In spite of all the reasons that the dollar will eventually be challenged as the world reserve currency, the competition, at present, by other currencies to replace it, is nil. Confidence can be related to objective facts such as how a country runs its fiscal affairs and monetary policy. Economic wealth and military strength also contribute artificial confidence to a currency. Perceptions and subjective reasons are much more difficult to define and anticipate. The day will come when the confidence in the dollar will be greatly diminished worldwide. Under those conditions the tremendous benefits that we in the United States have enjoyed as the issuer of the reserve currency will be reversed. It will become difficult if not impossible for us to afford huge budget deficits as well as very large current account deficits. National debt and foreign debt will serve as a limitation on how long the empire can last. Loss of confidence can come suddenly and overwhelmingly. Under those conditions we will no longer be able to afford our presence overseas nor will we be able to continue to export our inflation and debt to other nations. Then it will require that we pay for our extravagance, and market forces will require that we rein in our support for foreign, corporate, and domestic welfare spending. Hopefully this will not come for a long time, giving us a chance to educate more people as to its serious nature and give them insight into its precise cause. Nevertheless we live in a period of time when we should all consider exactly what is the best road to take to protect ourselves, not only our personal wealth but also to prepare to implement a system based on sound money, limited government, and personal liberty. This is a goal we can achieve. And when we do, America will enjoy greater freedom, more prosperity and a better chance for peace.


 
 
Picture
By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Mises.org

Reprinted with permission from Mr. Rockwell 

[Excerpted from the inaugural issue of The Austrian.]

For a century and a half, the idea of secession has been systematically demonized among the American public. The government’s schools spin fairy tales about the “indivisible Union” and the wise statesmen who fought to preserve it. Decentralization is portrayed as unsophisticated and backward, while nationalism and centralization are made to seem progressive and inevitable. When a smaller political unit wishes to withdraw from a larger one, its motives must be disreputable and base, while the motivations of the central power seeking to keep that unit in an arrangement it does not want are portrayed as selfless and patriotic, if they are considered at all.

As usual, disinformation campaigns are meant to make potentially liberating ideas appear toxic and dangerous, and conveying the message that anyone who seeks acceptance and popularity ought to steer clear of whatever it is — in this case, secession — the regime has condemned. But when we set the propaganda aside, we discover that support for secession means simply this: it is morally illegitimate to employ state violence against individuals who choose to group themselves differently from how the existing regime chooses to group them. They prefer to live under a different jurisdiction. Libertarians consider it unacceptable to aggress against them for this.

The libertarian principle of secession is not exactly embraced with enthusiasm by the people and institutions I call “regime libertarians.” Although these people tend to be located in and around the Beltway, regime libertarianism transcends geographical location, which is why I coined this special term to describe it.

The regime libertarian believes in the market economy, more or less. But talk about the Federal Reserve or Austrian business cycle theory and he gets fidgety. His institute would rather invite Janet Yellen for an exclusive cocktail event than Ron Paul for a lecture.

He loves the idea of reform — whether it’s the Fed, the tax code, government schools, whatever. He flees from the idea of abolition. Why, that just isn’t respectable! He spends his time advocating this or that “tax reform” effort, instead of simply pushing for a lowering or repeal of existing taxes. It’s too tough to be a libertarian when it comes to antidiscrimination law, given how much flak he’s liable to get, so he’ll side with left-liberals on that, even though it’s completely incompatible with his stated principles.

He is antiwar — sometimes, but certainly not as a general principle. He can be counted on to support the wars that have practically defined the American regime, and which remain popular among the general public. He sups in happy concord with supporters of the most egregiously unjust wars, but his blood boils in moral outrage at someone who told an off-color joke twenty-five years ago.

I suppose you can guess where our regime libertarian stands on secession. Since the modern American regime emerged out of the violent suppression of the attempted secession of eleven states, he, too, is an opponent of secession. If cornered, he may grudgingly endorse secession at a theoretical level, but in practice he generally seems to support only those acts of secession that have the approval or connivance of the CIA.

Mention secession, and the subject immediately turns to the southern Confederacy, whose moral enormities the regime libertarian proceeds to denounce, insinuating that supporters of secession must be turning a blind eye to those enormities. But every libertarian worthy of the name opposes any government’s support for slavery, centralization, conscription, taxation, or the suppression of speech and press. That goes without saying.

As Tom Woods has pointed out, the classical liberal, or libertarian, tradition of support for secession can boast such luminaries as Alexis de Tocqueville, Richard Cobden, and Lord Acton, among many others. I’d like to add two more figures: in the nineteenth century, Lysander Spooner, and in the twentieth, Frank Chodorov.

Spooner presents a real problem for the regime libertarians. Every libertarian acknowledges the greatness and importance of Spooner. The trouble is, he was an avowed secessionist.

Lysander Spooner was born in Massachusetts in January 1808, and would go on to become a lawyer, an entrepreneur, and a political theorist. He believed that true justice was not so much a matter of compliance with man-made law, but a refusal to engage in aggression against peaceful individuals. His American Letter Mail Company competed successfully against the US Post Office, offering better service at lower prices, until the government forced him out of business in 1851. His work No Treason (1867), a collection of three essays, took the position that the Constitution, not having been agreed to by any living person and only ever expressly consented to by a small handful, cannot be binding on anyone.

In a work called The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, Spooner had argued that the primary interpretive key in understanding the Constitution was what we now call “original meaning.” This is different from “original understanding,” the concept referred to by figures like Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia. According to that view, we should interpret the Constitution according to the original intent of those who drafted and ratified that document. Spooner rejected this.

What mattered, according to Spooner, was not the inscrutable “intention” behind this or that word or passage, but rather the plain meaning of the word or passage itself. Furthermore, given that human liberty was a mandate of the natural law, any time constitutional language might appear to run contrary to the principle of liberty, we ought to prefer some other meaning of the words in question, even if we have to strain a bit to do so, and even if the anti-liberty interpretation is the more natural reading.

Thus Spooner could claim, contrary to the majority of abolitionists, that the Constitution was in fact an antislavery document, and that its oblique and fleeting references to slavery — a word never used in the Constitution — did not have to carry the meanings commonly attributed to them. Frederick Douglass, the celebrated former slave turned abolitionist writer and speaker, adopted Spooner’s approach in his own work.

Spooner’s anti-slavery work went well beyond this exercise in constitutional exegesis. He provided legal services, sometimes pro bono, for fugitive slaves, and advocated jury nullification as a means of defending escaped slaves in court. His 1858 “Plan for the Abolition of Slavery,” called for northern-backed insurrection in the South, as well as such lesser measures as flogging slaveholders who themselves used the whip, and encouraging slaves to confiscate their masters’ property.

Spooner was also a supporter of John Brown, and in fact raised money and formulated a plan to kidnap the governor of Virginia until Brown was released.

In other words, it would be difficult to deny Spooner’s dedication to the anti-slavery cause.

And yet here is Spooner on the so-called Civil War.

On the part of the North, the war was carried on, not to liberate slaves, but by a government that had always perverted and violated the Constitution, to keep the slaves in bondage; and was still willing to do so, if the slaveholders could be thereby induced to stay in the Union.

According to Spooner, the US regime waged the war on behalf of the opposite principle. “The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals.”

Spooner continued:

No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle — but only in degree — between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man’s ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure.

By the logic of the regime libertarian, Spooner was a “neo-Confederate” defender of slavery — after all, he asserted the southern states’ right to withdraw from the Union! What other motivation could he have? But this is too preposterous even for them.

Spooner was correct about all of this, needless to say. The war was in fact launched not to free the slaves, as any historian must concede, but for purposes of mysticism — why, the sacred “Union” must be preserved! — and on behalf of economic interests. The regime libertarian expects us to believe that the analysis we apply to all other wars, in which we look beneath the official rationales to the true motivations, does not apply to this single, glorious exception to the catalogue of crimes that constitute the story of mankind’s experiences with military aggression.

Let’s turn now to the second libertarian figure. Frank Chodorov, by all accounts, was one of the great writers of the Old Right. Liberty Fund published a collection of his writings called Fugitive Essays. Chodorov founded what was then called the Intercollegiate Society of Individualists, and served as an editor of Human Events, where the early presence of Felix Morley ensured that noninterventionist voices, at least at the beginning, would get a hearing. Murray N. Rothbard considered Chodorov’s monthly publication analysis to be one of the greatest independent publications in American history.

Naturally, Chodorov supported both secession and “states’ rights.” In fact, he thought every schoolchild should “become familiar with the history and theory of what we call states’ rights, but which is really the doctrine of home rule.”

Ralph Raico, the great libertarian historian and Senior Fellow of the Mises Institute, has documented how the decentralized political order of Europe made possible the emergence of liberty. The lack of a single political authority uniting Europe, and to the contrary a vast multiplicity of small jurisdictions, placed a strict limit on the ambitions of any particular prince. The ability to move from one place to another meant that a prince would lose his tax base should his oppressions grow intolerable.

Chodorov made the same observation:

When the individual is free to move from one jurisdiction to another, a limit is put on the extent to which the government may use its monopoly power. Government is held in restraint by the fear of losing its taxpaying citizens, just as loss of customers tends to keep other monopolies from getting too arrogant.

No tyrant ever supports divided or decentralized power, which is why twentieth-century totalitarians were such opponents of federalism. The US regime, too, has devoted over two centuries to dismantling the barriers that the states once imposed to their untrammeled exercise of power. As Chodorov put it, “The unlikelihood of getting the states to vote themselves out of existence turned the centralizers to other means, such as bribing the state authorities with patronage, alienating the loyalty of the citizenry with federal subsidies, establishing within the states independent administrative bodies for the management of federal works programs.”

Here’s how Chodorov concluded:

There is no end of trouble the states can give the centralizers by merely refusing to cooperate. Such refusal would meet with popular acclaim if it were supplemented with a campaign of education on the meaning of states’ rights, in terms of human freedom. In fact, the educational part of such a secessionist movement should be given first importance. And those who are plumping for a “third party,” because both existing parties are centralist in character, would do well to nail to their masthead this banner: Secession of the 48 states from Washington.

Now that is a libertarian speaking.

Secession is not a popular idea among the political and media classes in America, to be sure, and regime libertarians may roll their eyes at it, but a recent poll found about a quarter of Americans sympathetic to the idea, despite the ceaseless barrage of nationalist propaganda emitted from all sides. A result like this confirms what we already suspected: that a substantial chunk of the public is willing to entertain unconventional thoughts. And that’s all to the good. Conventional American thoughts are war, centralization, redistribution, and inflation. The most unconventional thought in America today is liberty.

Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.



 
 
Picture
By: Jimmy Ward

This brings to mind the Nuremberg trials from whence the Nuremberg Codes sprang - setting the guidelines for medical research involving human beings. We often site Hitler, his Nazis, and the Holocaust as examples of a monstrous regime who pressed doctors to engage in Frankenstein-type research methods.

Sadly, we are just as guilty. As I've posted many times, since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, we have slaughtered nearly 60 million children. If you only factor the six million Jews slaughtered by Hitler, you realize we are over 9 times worse than Hitler. Apparently, we learned nothing from the Nuremberg trials except to follow their example.

Add this current abominable practice and you can understand why our country is in the shape it's in. Since big money will be involved, one can see this encouraging more abortions.

And we talk about human rights??? God forgive us.

http://eaglerising.com/15919/disgusting-us-turning-organs-aborted-babies-commodities-growing-inside-animals/


 
 
Picture
By: Susan Hathaway


Since the January announcement that Charlottesville City Councilman Kristen Szacos had proposed an ordinance change that would eliminate the Lee-Jackson City Holiday in Charlottesville, we have shared information about the rich Confederate history of the city.  One of my favorite topics is the presentation of a battle flag to the men of Stuart’s Horse Artillery, hand sewn by the ladies of Charlottesville by the Mayor and City Council of Charlottesville, after they managed to turn back the Yankee army, against 5 to 1 odds, and save the city from destruction during the Battle of Rio Hill on February 29, 1864.  There is a good summary here…

http://m.dailyprogress.com/lifestyles/yesteryears_column/yesteryears-grateful-charlottesville-residents-presented-a-special-flag-after-rio/article_93d2b27e-a614-11e3-922c-0017a43b2370.html?mode=jqm#.Ux0t7hj1fsA.twitter

When our friend Blaine Hypes, of the Flat Top Copperheads in WV, saw one of the posts about the flag, he contacted me and told me he had a replica and wanted us to have it to use in our fight in Charlottesville.  I was thrilled, but even more so when I received it and it turned out to be a custom-made beauty!  Last night, we took the flag with us, and before the meeting, visited the Confederate monument, just a few blocks away from council chambers.  A citizen passing by offered to take a photo of us holding the flag.

 When we arrived at council chambers, 45 minutes early, there was already a line to sign up for one of 12 available slots for public speaking.  We were disappointed when we made our way to the sign-up sheet, and realized that we were numbers 13, 14, and 15 in line, respectively, and none of us would have the opportunity to speak.  With a full half hour left before the meeting was to begin, we saw the Charlottesville citizen who had been shouted down at the last meeting when he spoke in favor of the Lee-Jackson holiday, and I took the flag over to show him and chat with him a bit.  I went back to my seat, admittedly frustrated that we wouldn’t have the opportunity to speak.  Moments later, someone tapped my shoulder, and when I looked up, it was the same gentleman, who had come to offer us his slot to speak.  He said that he speaks at every meeting, and he wanted us to have the opportunity to do so since we had come so far.  Overwhelmed by his generous offer, we accepted and quickly decided to combine the contents of the presentations we had prepared and that I would deliver the address.

I included the history of the flag, and Patrick and Barry held it up as I spoke.  Video of my remarks can be viewed here, with special thanks to Terry L. Hulsey of Fort Worth, TX, for granting me permission to use a quote from his correspondence to City Council... and David Tatum for posting the video…

http://atrueconfederate.blogspot.com/2015/03/not-so-silent-ii.html

Transcript of remarks:

Honorable Mayor, Councilors, Citizens of the Charlottesville and the Commonwealth,

Since I last spoke in these chambers, much has been made about the fact that I, and a few others who spoke against the proposed amendment to remove the Lee-Jackson holiday, are not Charlottesville residents, as if that somehow makes what we have to say irrelevant.  After witnessing the way speakers in this chamber were treated who dared to have an opinion different than those of the vocal citizens in attendance, I can completely understand why the hundreds of citizens of Charlottesville who have contacted us do not feel comfortable attending these meetings or speaking up in this atmosphere.  In addition, we heard from city employees who are upset about the proposed change, but fear that if they speak out in any way, there will face retaliation from what they see as a biased and prejudicial administration.

Charlottesville has a rich Confederate history.  On March 7, 1864, the ladies of Charlottesville presented a hand sewn flag to the men of Stuart’s Horse Artillery after the unit, facing 5 to 1 odds, stopped the Yankee army from burning and destroying Charlottesville.  The battle flag was carried by the unit until it surrendered in April of 1865, and is now on display in the Jefferson County Museum in Charles Town, WV.  The flag shows the patina of age, along with the rents of battle, but it continues to serve as a reminder of what might have been the worst day in Charlottesville history, if not for the courage of its brave defenders.

Some friends in West Virginia had a replica made and we brought it today to the show the assembly.

I would like to again point out the real and present danger of the precedence you are setting, should you decide to eliminate this holiday tonight.  If you take it upon yourselves to strike down a holiday that was established by the duly elected representatives of this city, you are opening the door to having the same thing happen to Thomas Jefferson Day, for instance, should a future council decide he is not “worthy of honoring”.  I, and many of those present here, witnessed one of your own citizens call for the removal of every trace of Thomas Jefferson from the very city that he helped build, and receive APPLAUSE and CHEERS in this chamber, following his remarks.  Certainly, you MUST see that once you open this door, there will be no end to the PC cleansing of our history and heritage.

In the background of this proposed amendment, Charlottesville’s commitment to be a “Community of Mutual Respect” is cited, apparently as one of the reasons for this change, which reads:

“In all endeavors, the City of Charlottesville is committed to racial and cultural diversity, inclusion, racial reconciliation, economic justice, and equity. As a result, every citizen is respected. Interactions among city leaders, city employees and the public are respectful, unbiased, and without prejudice.”

How can you possibly claim cultural diversity when you choose to dishonor Confederate Veterans, whose descendants make up a large segment of your population?  How can you suggest that this amendment will promote racial reconciliation, when it serves to divide instead of bring people together?  How can you claim that this decision is unbiased, and without prejudice when it singles out an entire group of people and dishonors their heritage?

I understand that at least one member of this very Council has suggested that the Confederate Memorials here in Charlottesville, yes, even, the magnificent equestrian sculpture of Robert E. Lee, copied in many localities across the U.S., should be removed, and by your actions tonight, you will show the Commonwealth and the nation whether or not you are heading down that very dangerous path. 

But, even if you choose to move forward with this desecration, and should your backwater tyranny temporarily succeed, you will, ultimately, fail. History will remain unchanged, and the sterling character of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson will remain, long after your names are forgotten. 

I urge you to set aside the prejudice and bias which led to this proposed amendment, and leave the Lee-Jackson Holiday as is. 

When the public speaking period ended, Councilmen responded to the public comments and not one of them addressed the Lee-Jackson Day issue.  Not only that, but instead of calling for a vote and having each councilman publicly record their vote for or against the ordinance, they approved it unanimously as part of a “consent agenda”, bundled with a number of other resolutions and appropriations.  This was obviously intentional and a predetermined method of avoiding making any type of individual public statement... a cowardly move, and stunning even for those who were well versed on the background and history of this council.

Returning home after midnight, I received a message from someone suggesting that going to Charlottesville had been a waste of time.  I strongly disagree.  Even though there were a few moments Monday afternoon when, thinking of other things that demanded my attention, I considered bowing out, those of us who attended were overwhelmingly grateful that we had taken the time to do so.  We had the opportunity to once again go on public record against the Council, share a bit of Confederate history with a packed chamber (including a large number of local high school students in attendance), and made sure that Council knew there were at least a handful of citizens who will not go quietly into the night. On top of all that, we got to flag City Council!  ;)

That alone would have been enough to make the trip worthwhile, but as we were leaving we had conservations with no less than TWO local residents about putting Battle Flag Memorials on their property in Charlottesville.  It appears that City Council has alienated a large segment of its population, and we can only pray that the unwarranted assault on the Lee-Jackson holiday will serve as a wake-up in Charlottesville, and across the Commonwealth.  In addition, a local resident who is involved with public access television offered to have us develop a regular segment, highlighting Confederate history and heritage defense issues!

We left Charlottesville disgusted by the manner in which the Charlottesville City Council took it upon themselves to strike down a holiday which had been rightfully observed in the city since 1888… but with the satisfaction of knowing that taking a stand for what is right is ALWAYS the right thing to do, no matter what the odds.

We only wish there had been hundreds more there to stand with us.

Many thanks to all those who took the time to write letters and emails and make phone calls to members of City Council.  Your support is greatly appreciated and was not in vain.  They may have won this battle, but we have no intention of giving up the fight.  Stay tuned...

Sincerely,

Susan Hathaway

Va. Flaggers