By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Some of our assumptions are so deeply embedded that we cannot perceive them ourselves.
Case in point: everyone takes for granted that it’s normal for a country of 320 million to be dictated to by a single central authority. The only debate we’re permitted to have is who should be selected to carry out this grotesque and inhumane function.
Here’s the debate we should be having instead: what if we simply abandoned this quixotic mission, and went our separate ways? It’s an idea that’s gaining traction – much too late, to be sure, but better late than never.
For a long time it seemed as if the idea of secession was unlikely to take hold in modern America. Schoolchildren, after all, are told to associate secession with slavery and treason. American journalists treat the idea as if it were self-evidently ridiculous and contemptible (an attitude they curiously do not adopt when faced with US war propaganda, I might add).
And yet all it took was the election of Donald Trump for the alleged toxicity of secession to vanish entirely. The left’s principled opposition to secession and devotion to the holy Union went promptly out the window on November 8, 2016. Today, about one in three Californians polled favors the Golden State’s secession from the Union.
In other words, some people seem to be coming to the conclusion that the whole system is rotten and should be abandoned.
It’s true that most leftists have not come around to this way of thinking. Many have adopted the creepy slogan “not my president” – in other words, I may not want this particular person
having the power to intervene in all aspects of life and holding in his hands the ability to destroy the entire earth, but I most certainly do want someone else
to have those powers.
Not exactly a head-on challenge to the system, in other words. (That’s what we libertarians are for.) The problem in their view is only that the wrong people are in charge.
Indeed, leftists who once said “small is beautiful” and “question authority” had little trouble embracing large federal bureaucracies in charge of education, health, housing, and pretty much every important thing. And these authorities
, of course, you are not to question (unless they are headed by a Trump nominee, in which case they may be temporarily ignored).
Meanwhile, the right wing has been calling for the abolition of the Department of Education practically since its creation in 1979. That hasn’t happened, as you may have noticed. Having the agency in Republican hands became the more urgent task.
Each side pours tremendous resources into trying to take control of the federal apparatus and lord it over the whole country.
How about we call it quits?
No more federal fiefdoms, no more forcing 320 million people into a single mold, no more dictating to everyone from the central state.
Radical, yes, and surely not a perspective we were exposed to as schoolchildren. But is it so unreasonable? Is it not in fact the very height of reason and good sense? And some people, we may reasonably hope, may be prepared to consider these simple and humane questions for the very first time.
Now can we imagine the left actually growing so unhappy as to favor secession as a genuine solution?
Here’s what I know. On the one hand, the left made its long march through the institutions: universities, the media, popular culture. Their intention was to remake American society. The task involved an enormous amount of time and wealth. Secession would amount to abandoning this string of successes, and it’s hard to imagine them giving up in this way after sinking all those resources into the long march.
At the same time, it’s possible that the cultural elite have come to despise the American bourgeoisie so much that they’re willing to treat all of that as a sunk cost, and simply get out.
Whatever the case may be, what we can and should do is encourage all decentralization and secession talk, such that these heretofore forbidden options become live once again.
I can already hear the objections from Beltway libertarians, who are not known for supporting political decentralization. To the contrary, they long for the day when libertarian judges and lawmakers will impose liberty on the entire country. And on a more basic level, they find talk of states’ rights, nullification, and secession – about which they hold the most exquisitely conventional and p.c. views – to be sources of embarrassment.
How are they going to rub elbows with the Fed chairman if they’re associated with ideas like these?
Of course we would like to see liberty flourish everywhere. But it’s foolish not to accept more limited victories and finite goals when these are the only realistic options.
The great libertarians – from Felix Morley and Frank Chodorov to Murray Rothbard and Hans Hoppe — have always favored political decentralization; F.A. Hayek once said that in the future liberty was more likely to flourish in small states. This is surely the way forward for us today, if we want to see tangible changes in our lifetimes.
Thomas Sowell referred to two competing visions that lay at the heart of so much political debate: the constrained and the unconstrained. In the constrained vision, man’s nature is not really malleable, his existence contains an element of tragedy, and there is little that politics can do by way of grandiose schemes to perfect society. In the unconstrained vision, the only limitation to how much society can be remade in the image of its political rulers is how much the rubes are willing to stomach at a given moment.
These competing visions are reaching an endgame vis-a-vis one another. As Angelo Codevilla observes, the left has overplayed its hand. The regular folks have reached the limits of their toleration of leftist intimidation and thought control, and are hitting back.
We can fight it out, or we can go our separate ways.
When I say go our separate ways, I don’t mean “the left” goes one way and “the right” goes another. I mean the left goes one way and everyone else – rather a diverse group indeed –goes another. People who live for moral posturing, to broadcast their superiority over everyone else, and to steamroll differences in the name of “diversity,” should go one way, and everyone who rolls his eyes at all this should go another.
“No people and no part of a people,” said Ludwig von Mises nearly one hundred years ago, “shall be held against its will in a political association that it does not want.” So much wisdom in that simple sentiment. And so much conflict and anguish could be avoided if only we’d heed it.
By Dave Bertrand
ommunism in America has gone from behind the scenes in isolated college classrooms and smoke filled offices in Washington D.C. to outright damnation on a major scale....creating fear among their leaders that a Trump presidency will destroy everything they have spent their lives preparing for.
Chuck Hagel, (Obama's Secretary of Defense) during a BBC interview, stated his concern: "The World Order (New World Order) is crumbling and that's sad to see(sic), since we created it for a strong alliance among nations, and now it's falling apart(sic)."
What does that mean?? It means the "Alliance" to (jointly) destroy (other) countries that do not participate in a New World Order by which the United States and the United Nations would dictate
international laws and require countries to maintain a defense system....arms sales by the Military Industrial Complex defense contractors and ultimately financed by an elaborate scheme (once called) "Global Warming Carbon Taxes" to "Climate Change," which mega producers of energy, including you, me and the dog next door, would have to pay a "Carbon Tax" to move about the country, and would limit farm animals that feed the world, because they fart.
You are out of "Carbon Tax Credits?" You either stay home for the rest of the month, or be forced to carpool with someone. That's taxation without representation, an oppressive tax that would deny us our Civil Rights. ObamaCare does exactly that !Under the United Nations
, we have already seen the groundwork for controlling our resources, neighborhoods, and land grab tactics under U.N. Agenda 21. HOA's are foreclosing on homeowners that are delinquent with fees, or because you failed to comply with the correct approved color of your house, and a property owner built a pond on his property and is now in jail. Protecting a turtle in Nevada has wiped-out approximately 50 ranchers of their homes and the Bundy's are still in jail."Sustainable Living," is a U.N. Agenda 21 enterprise in a majority of small communities and cities.
The objective is to destroy the middle class with rules and regulations set by the United Nations
to make us more poorer and to force us to buy cheap products from other countries (via lopsided trade deals), compacting people into smaller apartments and houses, while a select few at the top make outlandish profits.The New World Order destroys a country's sovereignty and (our) Constitution
....which makes it easier for law makers to limit the 1st amendment and the eventual total confiscation of weapons, thus destroying the 2nd amendment. The United Nations ban on weapons is on the books....therefore, no weapons, tyranny advances, ultimate slavery and control is accomplished with socialism as the means of production and communism is the strong arm.
Then came Donald Trump, a self professed anti-New World Order billionaire, and the world went crazy.....
Many countries that would have benefitted from a "Carbon Tax" fund from certain major world powers, paid by the citizens (serfdom), and would have been easy money for those countries. In-turn, they would spend that money on military hardware from the United States. And of course....an ongoing false flag enemy would always threaten a country's sovereignty.
Now that al Qaida / ISIS, a CIA created bogeyman with radical elements, (Obama lost control over)....are now being destroyed by Trump and Putin.....causing the Queen and Merkel stress over a potential downsizing of NATO. The Rothchild empire and all their minions cannot conceive losing their military force (NATO) with Russia sitting at their back door like a hawk in waiting.
No doubt, Putin would like to re-unite the lost Russian satellite countries with the "mother country."
However....the difference now is a possible peace accord between Putin and Trump to slow everyone down from their grandioso ambitions of world control. NATO will stay intact and the real culprit in the Middle East is a nuclear Iran, but with collective persuasion....Iran will be contained and happy if Trump and Putin are happy. Even if Trump has to take-out every military and missile site in Iran, Putin is likely to condemn but not react. Under a Hillary regime....it would mean WWIII.
Those NOT happy, since all decades of planning and discourse around the world, since Hitler failed, now becoming a failure for the Rothchild empire et al, and exposure of communism, not seen since the days of McCarthyism when communism was exposed, has now taken to the streets in-order to train and indoctrinate colleges and political organizations with George Soros (Media Matters) funding, is paving the way to hell.
Europe is falling apart because of Obama's refugee created false flag, and because of BREXIT....other European countries will follow suit, which furthers the downfall of a "World Government." The strategy by Obama and Clinton would have created a worldwide demand for order...a New World Order, just short of using "Project Blue Beam" a DARPA plan to stage a false flag alien attack or a "second coming" to help rein-in demand for a New World Order by a worldwide population affected by a crisis.
However....we cannot discount the spiritual and evil dimensional influence that encompasses the earth.
Good versus evil is real and we as humans must remain steadfast and alert. The New World Order is anything but good and the humans leading the effort are very influenced by the forces of evil. If there is such a thing as Satan....George Soros is him in the flesh, a man that Trump will eventually have arrested, if Soros is not killed in the meanwhile. Of course, there are plenty of other Satan loving Sal Alinsky types to take his place of whom dedicated his book "Rules for Radicals" to Lucifer....and we know that Hillary's mentor during college was Sal Alinsky and now many colleges follow his radical writings.
The sub-level promoters of communism, the Sal Alinsky followers, Clinton, Obama, Soros and terrorist Bill Ayers are organizing as we speak, even though Hillary may have been assured freedom from jail, she and her Muslim and illegal alien Hispanic supporters are moving forward under fabricated ideas that Trump is going to continue banning Muslims and will begin deporting illegal aliens. Thanks to FakeStream Media, but mainly the Communist News Network (CNN) the hysteria is unfounded and not true. "It's not a Muslim ban."
President Trump is fulfilling most every promise to the American people, but is NOT a promise to the socialist Left communist thugs organized by Clinton's followers i.e., LULAC, Le MEChA, La Raza, the Chicano Brown Shirts (Reconquista de Aztlan) the Communist Party USA, C.A.I.R., Muslim Brotherhood and Black Lives Matter.....the thugs are burning down their own institutions, cities and shootings are up 100% in major cities around America since Trump took office.
THEY will get their deportations and mass incarcerations, since THEY want to validate their hatred for the American people, but mostly for Trump.
In the meanwhile....the New World Order planners and schemers are sitting back and hoping the violence will lead to a Civil War to force Trump's hand and his impeachment and/or assignation. If anything....THEY are working on the 2020 election, propping Hillary up (again) with support by Hollywood, Democrats, and the Communists.
Personally...I see no end in sight of the violence unless the Trump administration takes an aggressive move to wrap these people up very tight and not budge an inch. Because he gave Hillary an inch, she is taking a foot....and her thug following will do the same.
On top of the internal chaos in America, we have an enemy to the south (nothing new) and Trump has told Mexico, he will send the U.S. military into Mexico if necessary to destroy Drug Cartel strongholds, but if anything....I think Trump will militarize the border. He really doesn't have a choice...
The Liberty Movement fought like hell to change the rogue government, but now we must be vigilant and forceful when necessary, strong and determined, while countering the psychological warfare of the Fakestream Media at every turn.
We cannot lose this country again....no matter what.
Speaking in the Senate on March 2, 1953, Senator McCarran said:
"I believe that this nation is the last hope of Western civilization and if this oasis of the world shall be overrun, perverted, contaminated or destroyed, then the last flickering light of humanity will be extinguished. I take no issue with those who would praise the contributions which have been made to our society by people of many races, of varied creeds and colors. ... However, we have in the United States today hard-core, indigestible blocs which have not become integrated into the American way of life, but which, on the contrary are its deadly enemies. Today, as never before, untold millions are storming our gates for admission and those gates are cracking under the strain. The solution of the problems of Europe and Asia will not come through a transplanting of those problems en masse to the United States. ... I do not intend to become prophetic, but if the enemies of this legislation succeed in riddling it to pieces, or in amending it beyond recognition, they will have contributed more to promote this nation's downfall than any other group since we achieved our independence as a nation."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1952 The following commentary is provided by Craig Maus, President of the Confederate Society of America regarding Dave's article above.
In 1992 our Confederate Society declared this:
* The 3 Major ‘News’ Networks have become the propaganda ministries of a NATIONAL government that hasn’t been a Representative Republic
* The ‘educational system’ has been likewise compromised;
It is currently serving as another
extension for this NATIONAL government allowing for their Proxy & Ideology
to be further advanced thru a
NATIONAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT of their own creation.
It was created from a supposed need for ‘educational equality’
Rather, it has served in displacing ALL elements relative to this Republic’s former being, serving instead the manifest of an altered Political Orthodoxy who emulates ‘representation’ but is anything but;
It has become a mechanism through which the NATIONAL government operates freely & with wanton obfuscation while systematically advancing the SOCIALIST narrative under the guise of ‘public education’.
Thus Any & ALL TRUTH’S ever associated with the American Republic have been conveniently eliminated or compromised away.
This in turn has created the ‘stage’ that allows this NATIONAL government to reign supreme while removing itself from any & all accountability while simultaneously replacing accountability with equivocation.
This is what we are seeing today resulting from a Socially-Adjusted America whose cloaking instruments provides for & allows the various Social-Manifest’s to proceed unchallenged & in direct conflict with the original Republic’s mandates.
They dare to call it by a new name- Political Correctness.
This can only have devastating consequences for ALL;
* Further, Special Interest Purveyor’s such as the NAACP have become likewise, ‘Enabler’s’ for the ENABLERS within this NATIONAL government.
Their Resolution from last year’s 1991
Declaration clearly attests to our claim.
They are clearly NO longer satisfied with their original mission as it pertained to Civil Rights.
Power is now their collective mantra and they have clearly become yet another Arm of this NATIONAL government creating more miss-giving’s via divisive rhetoric & tactics that will prove to have negative, devastating & cataclysmic effects in the days & years to come.
It is clear that they, along with their Imperial Masters within this NATIONAL government, are procuring for themselves a Marxist Dais that has been long in the making beginning in earnest after the Southern Confederacy lost in 1865.
* This will prove to be the final nail in the Republic’s coffin if the Malignancy of RECONSTRUCTION is NOT reversed
Ultimately, a Political Polarization is bound to be realized that will become the catalyst that will DESTROY US as Chaos & Anarchy can only result as was noted by John C. Calhoun in 1831!
This and more
we had the temerity to declare & speak of nearly 25 years ago
As such, we were called Radicals, Yahoo’s and of course, the ‘nom-de-plum’ of all names, Racists.
As a result, a salient vitriol was quickly dispatched to SILENCE our voices.
Miss-information, combined with Revisionist History & coupled with the never-ending contemporary orthodoxy of racism was affixed to folks such as we!…‘There are NONE so blind as those whose eye’s refuse to see’…
Racism would serve the Marxist Propaganda machine mightily with few, EXCEPT US, willing to confront this progeny of deceivers.
As a result, America’s former Republic was now nearing the final stages of that RECONSTRUCTION that had begun in earnest in 1865!
Sadly, ANY ATTEMPT to put forward a SENSIBLE & COHERENT presentation wherein the ‘Dots of History Past’ could be presented that would reveal what had been in progress over the preceding 127 years stood about as much a chance as a snowball in hell.
It was apparent to this Confederate Society that a Confederate Alliance
was paramount & essential if we & our former Republic
stood any reasonable chance of surviving.
Sadly, attempts to bring this about were torpedoed by those whose self-importance proved to outweigh the ‘merits’ of those whose lives were given to prevent this nightmare of a
Socialist NATIONAL government from ever coming about.
Instead of the needed confrontation that was required, the ‘cardinal quintessence’ for non-action
became their clarion resolve absolving themselves from any & all serious actions that were necessary & obvious.
This abrogation from responsibility simply helped to accelerate the Republic’s demise as we knew it would.
Ultimately Confederate History, which was every bit the same as that of the American Republic
, would come under a blistering attack
It represented & reflected too much of that ‘Contract’
that was the basis for our former, Original American Republic… it was clearly in the ‘ideological’ way of this NATIONAL government just as it was in the way long before 1860.
You see Folks, America’s Original Confederation
was the embodiment of our Republic and “Those People” in Washington, along with their Special Interest counterparts, could ill afford to leave anything remotely associated with it & us left standing.
We & their Marxist IDEOLOGY were in direct conflict
with one another.
You might say that the RED STATES
& BLUE STATES
were clearly defined long ago…..
but y’all were NEVER allowed to ‘Connect those Dots!’
Thus the REMOVAL of ALL THINGS
relating to our Confederation (Confederacy), that were essentially representative of America’s Original Confederated Republic
, had to be eradicated at ALL costs.
This is what MANY today have difficulty in bringing themselves to accept much less consider.
of American History was as necessary as it was key If the NATIONAL-CENTRAL government of UNLIMITED SIZE was to proceed unabated.
Social ‘Unfairness’ became the ‘rallying cry’ of their Marxist ilk.
It served a clear purpose allowing them to attack America in ‘plain sight’ with many contributing to this GENOCIDE
out of sheer fear.
Many simply forgot how to FIGHT BACK!
It existed everywhere- particularly in the work force and many feared for their jobs & personal well-being.
Thus in the name of Social ‘Un-Fairness’ did the Marxists flourish, prevail & advance.
Contemporary ‘Racism’ shielded their attack that was now a full onslaught.
* The Charleston Shooting, years later, provided the FINAL contrivance (excuse) for these Oligarchs.
This is what they had been waiting & yearning for.
Now they had ‘something’ to feast upon & used the unfortunate actions of a DERANGED PERSON, who supposedly held a Confederate Flag sometime prior, to garnish the support necessary to ‘Neutralize’ Us, the Truth & most of America from her Original Republic once & for all.
Thus any retention of history or information in general relative to us as a People and a Confederation would be eradicated- GENOCIDE pure & simple under the guise of Social-Equality & Necessity…A.K.A., Marxism 101.
“Those People” could ill afford in leaving ANY rampart ever associated with the majesty of our History left standing.
We have always been a major thorn in their Marxist sides.
ANY knowledge relative to the ‘Connection of Historical Dots’ would reveal to anyone with an ounce of GOD’s common sense how we were ALL
* Nicki Haley of South Carolina would lead the way in this ‘FINAL NEUTRALIZATION’ and what better a ‘candidate’ than one of ‘cross-denomination’ to further SEGREGATE the TRUTH from one & all alike.
She was a ‘package perfect’ for this undertaking.
This was the EXCUSE they had been anxiously awaiting for- the EXCUSE that would provide them with the ability to MUZZLE any left standing on the Podium of Patriotism
.Now what has this got to do with the material from Dave herein and below? EVERYTHING!____________________________________________________________
You see Folks, Washington long ago implemented a Policy of RECONSTRUCTION.
It was intended always
to remove any & all from any battlement that could potentially threaten the Orthodoxy of their ‘Imperial Throne’.
In so doing, any retention of former History had to be removed from any recognition in order to avoid potential recrimination.
The Oligarchy could ill afford to find itself in a position whereby Accountability & Explanation could undo what they spent the last 150 years in procuring.
Additionally, they had to ‘set the bar’ so high as to make many Americans think that they & only they could lead them to the ‘Promised Land’ and thus, the Dumbing Down process was as Deliberate as it was Contrived coinciding with the advent of their NATIONAL ‘EDUCATIONAL’ DEPARTMENT.
Combine that with the Deliberate Destruction of the Middle-Class via their ‘Re-Distribution Policy’, created as another extension emanating from their so-called ‘Socialized Policy of
In-Equality’, & the Pharaohs of Washington were just inches from their intended ‘end-zone’….having proceeded without interference for decades._____________________________________________________________________Ever hear the expression- ‘The Best Laid Plans of Mice & Men that go AWRY’?
Theirs was a ‘WEB always intended to DECEIVE’.
Like a contiguous virus concocted in a lab, such betrayal was bound to afflict many raising heretofore questions
they thought were to NEVER AGAIN surface.
NECESSITY does that at times….
And thus many began to hear those Voices once again that Washington & Friends thought they deposited in the ashes of their heinous & concocted War they dared to call ‘Civil’.You might say “Those People” thought those Voices had Gone the way of the Wind…funny how GOD has a way of re-uniting his Flock with them…________________________________________________________________________________
* Led by the DemonCRAP Party with the RepubliCON Party acting as the ‘cover’, “Those People”, as General Robert E. Lee so profoundly described them so long ago, thought they had sealed the deal and fully expected Hillary ROTTEN Clinton to take it ‘IN’ for the LAST TIME
* “Those People” thought it was going to be a slam-dunk thinking their web of deception was in the Final Stage of America’s ‘MAKE-OVER’.
was all but insured but….
“They thought they had Neutralized us Irredeemable, ‘Bible-Seeking Gun-Toting folks here in the Red ‘Country’.They NEVER thought an anomaly like TRUMP could ever get ‘elected’…BUT HE DID BECAUSE OF US IN THE RED STATES & COUNTIES of America.________________________________________________________________________________
What YOU are witnessing today & what is happening across America folks & in both houses of ‘congress’ and at those Institutions of ‘higher learning’ who have been INSTITUTIONALIZING our children, is precisely that which our Confederate Society told you would come about 25 years ago
Remember what us ‘Radicals’ said in 1992 when we predicted what would, NOT IF, result when y’all turn the other cheek to those who have only THEIR OWN SELF-INTERESTS at heart?
You are seeing the very ‘KICK-BACK’ associated with & emanating from a MARXIST IDEOLOGY that has been walking among us for decades.We Confederates warned you of this!
We were simply ‘ahead of our time’…..just as our Confederate Brethren before us were ahead of their time when, in 1860, they too tried to tell us ALL what was going on.________________________________________________________________________________Where is this going & can it be Contained or Controlled? In our opinion, it CANNOT!
It is simply far too gone and far too en-grained & the BLUE STATES & COUNTIES clearly underscore this. Co-existence with them is IMPOSSIBLE.
Theirs is a cancer whose Ideology is beyond any hope of redemption.
NOTHING you or I say can change this.
Their Ideology & Ours are Polar Opposites of one another… impossible of co-existence. Theirs is compelled to DESTROY ALL OTHERS at ANY & ALL COSTS! We are simply in THEIR way…. JUST AS WE WERE IN THEIR WAY SOME 155 YEARS AGO!
* In closing, I find it interesting how they now
clamor for “Sanctuary States”
that would allow their Pervasive Ideology to reign supreme above us ALL!
Strange when you think about it
… how when we Confederates LEGALLY
sought to SEPARATE ourselves from these same maniacal Marxists
via LEGAL Constitutional Secession,
we got Invaded….
despite representing the legal wishes of our former STATE Citizens who had earlier elected that ‘congress’ that choose to look the ‘other way’…
* These are the same people today who, having admonished us Confederates for decades, NOW want to do ILLEGALLY
what we did LEGALLY more than 150 years ago!Are YOU ‘Connecting that DOT’?
* I guess they NEVER ‘learned’ from their Marxist ‘teachers’ that they have been ‘FEDERALLY NATIONALIZED’
resulting from Lincoln’s War.
They are NO longer STATE CITIZENS as we ALL once were but have been made ‘Federal Citizens’… the same as we & subject to the SAME WHIMS of this NATIONAL government .However, in our case, we became UNWILLING SURROGATES resulting from an Illegal & Undeclared War that put us into Submission as unwilling Surrogates.But they have been extolling the ‘virtues’ of their NATIONAL government as long as it ‘worked’ for them.But now that the RED STATES PULLED AN UPSET, that which was formerly NO GOOD for the GANDER, according to THEM, should be now made GOOD for their Goose!RATHER IRONIC !
They are NOW being ‘serviced’ by the SAME NATIONAL ‘JAILER’
who, had Hillary had won, would have had their TOTAL SUPPORT!
I guess this is where ‘EQUALITY’ NO longer applies- wouldn’t YOU say?
I find a sordid type of amusement in this irony …..
NOW they MUST ‘satisfy’ their ‘appetite’ at the Same Trough from which we have been forced to eat
for the last 150 years…..I SINCERELY HOPE THEY GET THEIR DESIRED ‘SANCTUARY STATES’…. for then, perhaps, may we also get Ours at long last!After all, what’s good for the Goose is good for the Gander…. isn’t it?…’What goes around comes around’…less we ever forget!____________________________________________________________
So FOLKS, y’all are now getting a TOTAL ‘glimpse’ of what we Confederates saw coming & why we WANTED NOTHING to do with “Those People”.
Courts of ‘LAW’ would ‘suggest’ that CONTRACTS are binding…..
However, It ONLY WORKS if the Original Signee’s who agreed to the Original CONSCRIPT are present…..
It is an altogether different ‘CONTRACT’ when the ‘Party of the First Part’ ELIMINATES
the ‘PARTY of the Second Part’….wouldn’t YOU say?
‘Connecting the Dots’ yet?
Yes, We CONFEDERATES tried to warn you….
by Al Benson Jr.
Anyone who has read any amount of the material I have written, either in my newsletter The Copperhead Chronicle or in articles on the Internet, knows that I have employed the term Yankee/Marxist on more than one occasion. One of my readers, one time, asked me if using the term Yankee/Marxist wasn’t redundant. He had a point. However, my use of the term, redundant though it may be, is to amplify in people’s minds the truth that the Yankee, for the most part, has a Marxist worldview. He mostly has no use for the God of the Bible, whose Son and Holy Spirit he would vociferously deny, and he has no use for the concept of private property (except his own) and his agenda during the War of Northern Aggression was always “steal all you can carry off and destroy the rest. I suppose it needs to be stated here that by the term “Yankee” I am not referring to all Northerners, of which, though I have a Confederate ancestor, I am one.
The Yankee/Marxist’s was to “free the slaves” was a noble-sounding rationale and cover for his rape and pillage of the South, on several different levels, and his main effort was to make sure that his “god” in Washington (the federal government) was forever worshiped and bowed down to. His cultural Marxist progeny today will even admit this if you pay strict attention to what they say. One of the more well-known among them, Newt Gingrich, recently made a statement on television in which he said: “We fought a civil war to establish one sovereignty, the U.S. government.” Well, so much for “freeing the slaves” right? That was a good cover story, but Mr. Gingrich slipped up when he told the truth here–and tell the truth he did!
The Yankee/Marxist simply could not abide freedom and liberty for anyone. Everyone needed to be totally regulated and constantly supervised–for his own good naturally. He had an overriding compulsion to control people’s lives and make them do what he felt was the right thing–even if they did not feel like doing what he thought was right and proper, why then, he’d work to pass a law that made people do what he wanted. After all, he knew best. His cultural Marxist children still do the same thing today. Obama Care is a prime example and firearms registration (and eventual confiscation) is yet another.
That William Tecumseh Sherman shared this worldview can be seen from many of his comments over the years. In his book Citizen Sherman Michael Fellman has duly noted Sherman’s propensity toward military dictatorship on pages 80, 87, 131, 147, and 184.
Presently, I am in the midst of reading an interesting book by Winston Groom called Vicksburg 1863 in which Mr. Groom details all that went on in the Yankee attempt(s) to capture Vicksburg during the War. It was quite an extensive operation that lasted over a year and went into several attempts by various methods, to take the city (all of which failed) until the final siege of the city ended it all. Sherman figured prominently in some of these efforts.
In discussing Southerners and their resistance to Northern “benevolence” Sherman said: “This is a larger class than most men supposed and they are the most dangerous set of men this war has turned loose upon the world. They are splendid riders, first-rate shots, and utterly reckless. These men must all be killed or (imprisoned) by use before we can hope for peace.” A quote from page 34. You will note that Sherman’s “final solution” to dealing with anyone that did not conform to his will was extermination. He took the same tack with the Indians in the West after the War was over (if they don’t do what we want then kill ’em all). Ol’ Cump Sherman was a real humanitarian–in the same mode as Joseph Stalin–who may have learned some lessons from Sherman.
It bothered Sherman that, when the Yankees took Memphis, most folks there were not real happy at his arrival in their fair city. If they expressed that in any tangible way, he retaliated, gentle soul that he was. Mr. Groom noted: “First he threatened to close any church–and this included virtually all of them–whose minister or priest refused to offer a Sunday prayer to the president of the United States, whom they reviled. Next he began expelling from their homes the wives and families of rebel soldiers and sympathizers in reprisal for Confederates shooting at Union gunboats operating on the Mississippi…On September 24th he ordered the town of Randolph, Tennessee burned to the ground in retaliation for people firing on U.S. vessels and also, for the same reason, commanded the immolation of all homes, farms and outbuildings for fifteen miles down the Arkansas side of the river opposite Memphis.” And Mr. Groom noted, in this context, “These seem to be the earliest of Sherman’s pyromaniacal urges in connection with Southern civilians and their property, but by a long shot they were not his last.” This quote from page 182. It almost seems like an understatement!
After reading some of the other things Sherman did during the War, I seriously wonder if he wasn’t a closet pyromaniac and the War gave him an opportunity to flaunt his aberrant behavior that he had not had previously–and after all, it was only Southern private property, along with war material, that he destroyed, and only Southerners that he turned out to starve and freeze when his bummers burned everything they couldn’t carry away. No problem there, right? Naturally the authors of what passes for our “history” books don’t feel anyone really needs to know all this, so they just leave most of it out, except for a vague reference here or there, the same way they leave out all the information about all the Marxists in Lincoln’s armies, and in the Republican Party. Nothing to see here folks, just move along, and don’t look too close!
So Sherman may not have been, technically speaking, a cultural Marxist.Most of those we refer to as cultural Marxists did not enter the picture until the early 1900s with the advent of the Frankfurt School, as we have noted in other articles, but Sherman was most definitely a Yankee/Marxist and they can rationally be considered as the 19th century prototype for the cultural Marxists that were to follow them.
The aim of the cultural Marxists is to water down and ultimately destroy Christianity and to rid the world of that horrible curse known as Western Civilization, which has its base in Christianity. This is one reason the cultural Marxists never quit. Their agenda calls for the destruction of the Christian faith and its Triune God and replacing the Trinity with their own “god,” a collectivist, centralized tyranny that they call the “revolution of the proletariat.” And lest you think this is a new struggle within the past 100 years or so, or even back as far as the French Revolution, this struggle goes all the way back to Genesis 3 in the Holy Bible.
Reprinted from The Copperhead Chronicle, fourth quarter, 2016
By: Jack Perry
Reprinted from Lew Rockwell.com
I want to be as fair-minded as I can in what I am about to say. Now, the media acts like the government has been running better than a Swiss watch for the last eight years. And I don’t want to sit here and act like it ran like a Swiss watch the eight years before that, either. Nor will it run like one going forward. Why? Because it is still the government we are talking about. One man isn’t wholly responsible for this train wreck we see before us. But what’s more, one man will not be fully responsible for future messes, as much as the media would have us believe.
I will save time and refer to our federal government as Guv from here on. Look here, Guv, the population of homeless people has been increasing every year. Now, how is it that you’re able to run around and blather this nonsense about us being “the greatest nation on Earth” when every city park looks like a refugee camp? And why do they look like refugee camps? Because they are! They’re economic refugees! You clowns have collectively spent the prosperity of three or four generations now! And for what? The Vietnam War? The Iraq War? This horrifying nightmare you brought to us trying to bring Dumbocracy to Syria? I see the homeless every day. More than half are seriously mentally ill. No, let local police handle it, right?
Speaking of the homeless, there are flyers and handbills everywhere telling homeless veterans where they can try and get help. No, not from the VA. I’m talking hot meals, showers, a place to sleep. Some of them are so recently discharged, you can hear their dogtags still jangling under their shirts as they walk. See, these are the results of your trying to bring “democracy” to people who will fight tooth and nail to keep your version of that out of their countries. But you’re done with them, right? Again, let the local police handle it. We’ve got a war to start with Russia, after all.
I’m tired of hearing this nonsense about how great Guv has been for the last eight years. Sorry, but this is the same Guv that has been in control for over a couple hundred years now and they’ve done nothing but pauperize huge swathes of the nation that used to have economic stability. Tax this, tax that, pass this law, sign BS trade treaties over here, jail people for smoking weed, and on and on it goes. We have more people per-capita in prison than the Soviets had socked away in gulags and you jokers want to tell me we’re so great? Flush out your headgear, dummies. You jail people over smoking some flowers while you people commit multiple felonies, torture human beings, start illegal wars, and kill people all over the planet and not one of you—not one!—sees a day of jail time for it. No, jail is also the relocation camp for the economic refugees your insane policies have created. And the mentally ill, too, by the way.
The poor, yeah, you’re all so keen on us, aren’t you? As if we’re cute little waifs in a Norman Rockwell painting that you condescend to flip a dime to on the street corner. Excuse me, but the fundraisers you all attend cost $25,000 a plate. That’s more than we earn in a year! And, what, Guv? You think you KNOW us and what our needs are? Many of us haven’t even heard of the crap you serve at these shindigs and you want to act like you’re in solidarity with us? Here’s a news flash for you: I don’t trust any of you and I don’t even like any of you. I’ve seen too many broken promises. Too many people that went to jail for weed while you people, again, committed multiple felonies and flippin’ walked.
You do these stupid things like provoking the Russians—the Russians!—and act like we’re all behind you on this? Yeah? We’re the one that will be incinerated. If we’re lucky. You’ll all be hiding in those bunkers you built for yourselves with that 100 year supply of Xanax and heaven alone knows what other drugs you stashed away down there. Right, no jail terms for you! Let some poor soul have a bottle of Xanax without a prescription, he goes to jail. You guys stash a century’s worth of it for a couple thousand people to party like it’s Doomsday (because it is) and they probably high-fived throughout the Pentagon and put in a few purchase requisitions for Quaalude's.
Look here, Guv, what makes you think you’re so dang smart? Smart people don’t get into wars they can’t win because they don’t get into wars. Look at the Swiss. They make nice watches. They make lots of nice stuff besides that. Why? Because they’re not flushing away their prosperity down the commode on senseless wars that drain the economy. You run around with this BS meme that “war is good for the economy” and the only “economy” it’s good for is the offshore one the CIA has through black markets, shell corporations, and bogus bank accounts. Man, the German SS had nothing on these guys! Those bush league buffoons in black uniforms wouldn’t make it through Day One at Langley. Not crooked enough. Great team you’ve got there, Guv. CIA means Crooks In America.
You created a humanitarian disaster in Syria and a war of epic proportions. That war will not be truly be over for a decade, I’ll bet. And the terrorist attacks coming from it will plague Europe and the United States for two decades, at least. And for what?! Democracy?! My word, do any of you realize what you have done?! Almost 300,000 people dead and more to die and you think they care about voting for some charlatan with a pass key to the bathroom at Langley? If this goes on, in order to have elections in Syria, you’ll need to hold a mass seance. You spent how many hundreds of millions of dollars on this insane war and vets from the last one are sleeping on the streets. Bravo, Guv! Outstanding performance! Those Hollywood celebrity policy parrots will be glad to play you in the next movie to glorify this endless slaughter. Then you can invite them up to the White House and give them the ear you have long refused to give to the real people who aren’t playing real people on TV.
You see, Guv, I am not fooled by this. I know that it doesn’t matter who is president, the United States military, probably on orders from the CIA, will continue to provoke the Russian military until someone gets nervous and shoots. Bravo! The border skirmish we’ve all been waiting for! Now we can jump right in and lose another war. Notify local police departments across America that the homeless population will soon be increasing rather rapidly. Well, those who live anyway. Right, let’s park American troops in Poland. Because that’s right where the last world war we had began in earnest. Might as well keep using a winning combination, right? Those poor, duped Poles. Waving American flags as American tanks and Humvees roll in. And none of them know they’re expendable and we can’t beat the Russians in a conventional war. Meaning Krakow will be a smoking, radioactive crater within 48 hours of a border skirmish escalating into a full-scale launch-on-warning. Let’s see you wave American flags then.
And how does a war with Russia help us, exactly? Oh, I know! Then we can pass more wartime measures, more laws that will probably govern and dictate when a red flag needs to pop up on a Homeland Security because someone checked out a “flagged” book at a public library in Twin Falls, Idaho. “Patriotic Americans will not read Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, or any such Russky propaganda! We have instructed public libraries to remove these books from their shelves and give us a list of names of who has checked them out over the last twenty years! If any librarian refuses to do so, he or she will be subject to arrest as a person-of-interest! And anyone found in possession of music by Shostakovich is subject to arrest! Let no one even think of cooking Beef Stroganoff! After all, if it saves just one life…” That’s how you think, isn’t it, Guv? Everyone is a suspect, everyone is guilty. Except you, Guv. And you’re the one actually committing the crimes! Brilliant! Perfect alibi! “How can I be the crook? I wrote the laws!”
So don’t hand me this crap that the government has been rolling along, slick as you please, for the past eight years. The government has rolled the world into a humanitarian disaster. The government is rolling the world into another world war. And the most fascinating thing about it is that most of Europe, who will be the nuclear battlefield as far as the first salvos of tactical nukes go, thinks that Guv has not been behind it! And practically begs Guv to provoke the Russians even more! Ukraine changed hands between Russia and Poland for hundreds of years and, what, now we’re concerned about it? Gosh, how did they ever manage to bicker over this piece of territory while the United States was busy shooting its indigenous population in the name of Manifest Destiny? Right, Guv, you’ve got the proven track record on what can and cannot be done with lands and populations one side deems up for grabs, right? As long as you apologize for shooting them later, it’s all good. What? Give the land back? No, Guv has moved on. Now Guv tells other countries to give back land or enforces no-fly zones. And Europe seems to forget what their cities looked like the last time the Russians came through. And Guv, too, for that matter.
Right, everything has been just peaches and cream for the last eight years. Gosh, I know I’m impressed. Russia is conducting mass civil defense drills for the first time since the end of the Cold War. They’ve fielded another 100 thermonuclear warheads with dozens of new ICBMs. Gee, Guv, sure is a smart move to put troops into places where the possibility of a border clash is certain. Or, perhaps, some trigger-happy Polish soldier decides to “get even” and takes a shot at the Russians and hides behind an American tank. Or some Estonian. Or some U.S. naval vessel fires on a passing Russian warplane. “We can’t let the Russians embarrass us!” Indeed. It’s certainly worth the deaths of several billions of people to ensure we are never embarrassed.
It sure is swell to see everyone feel that the CIA is now telling us the truth. At least the news media does. Why not? Many of them probably get press releases from some press agency funded by In-Q-Tel. Look that one up. Right, CIA venture capital firm. Gee, Guv, exactly what companies do they fund anyway? Or do you even know? Of course they must be telling us the truth. Like they told us the truth about Iraq. And Syria. Now, we know the CIA tortured people. So if the news media affords this organization impeccable truthiness, it would be like the news telling us in 1939, “Oh, yes, we know the Soviets tampered with our elections. The Gestapo told us so!” Why not? Guv brought over several Nazi war criminals here during Operation Paperclip and afforded credibility to them, too. Must be where Guv learned it.
Nazi war criminals helped us win the Space Race, too. The one liberals think was so peaceful and not about proving who had the most accurate ballistic missiles. “If we can put a man on the moon, we can drop a warhead right into Leonid Brezhnev’s vodka tumbler!” Later, they padlocked psychiatric hospitals, shook them all out on to the streets, and built the Space Shuttle. Yay! The Guv-lovers all want more money spent on NASA. Well, in order to do that, we need to order local governments to build more city parks. That way, there will be a place for the burgeoning population of homeless to be sequestered. Then we can afford to send a mission to Mars to prove that planet is less viable than Death Valley. But, hey, we’ll beat the Russians to another orbiting sphere of lifeless rock! I understand Guv entertains notions of building a “base” on Mars. More likely, a secret prison for “unlawful enemy combatants” and other non-people who no longer exist. “It’s not on Earth! So no laws regarding the treatment of human beings apply! On Mars, we don’t even have to think of them as human beings!” But, no worries. They won’t be able to afford to cart the homeless up there.
Sell this government to someone else. I’m not buying it.
Editor's note: This is an excellent piece by Mr. Robert's but where the CSA disagrees is with a comment toward the end of piece that says the "left" has abandoned Marxism. They have not. That defines them. They are only interested in total control of the narrative of history, the dominance of society, and the rejection of those who are not in line with them.
By: Paul Craig Roberts
“Racist” is the favorite epithet of the left. Every white person (except leftists) is a racist by definition. As we are defined as racists based on our skin color, I am puzzled why we are called racists a second, third, and fourth time due to specific acts, such as favoring the enforcement of immigration laws. For example, President Donald Trump says he is going to enforce the immigration laws. For the left this is proof that Trump has put on the White Sheet and joined the KKK.
The left doesn’t say what a president is who does not enforce the laws on the books. But let’s look at this from the standpoint of the immigration laws themselves. In 1965 a bill passed by the “racist” Congress and signed by the “racist” President Lyndon Johnson completely changed the racial composition of US legal immigration.
In 1960 75% of US legal immigration was European, 5% was Asian, and 19% was from Americas (Mexico, Central and South America and Caribbean Islands).
In 2013 10% of legal immigrants were European, 30% were Asian, 55% were from Americas, and 5% from Africa. http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/fifty-years-1965-immigration-and-nationality-act-continues-reshape-united-states
The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act is a very strange law for racists to have enacted. Would racists pass a law, which has been on the books for 52 years, that fundamentally transformed the racial profile of the US by limiting white immigration, thereby ultimately consigning whites to minority status?
We could say the racists did not know what they were doing, or thought they were doing something else. However, the results have been obvious at least since 1980, and the law is still on the books.
We live during a time when there is an abundance of information, but facts seldom seem to inform opinions. The left delights in branding the Founding Fathers racists. The left was ecstatic when a 1998 DNA study concluded that Thomas Jefferson was one of eight possible ancestors of Eston Hemings, a descent of Jefferson’s slave Sally Hemings. The left seized on the implied sexual relationship as proof of Thomas Jefferson’s racism.
Let’s assume Jefferson had a sexual relationship with Sally Hemings. Does this prove he was a racist, or does it prove the opposite? Why is it a sign of racism for a white to have sex with a black? Does this prove that James Bond was a racist in the film “Die Another Day”? Do we really want to define racially mixed marriages as racist, as a white conquest over a black, Asian, or Hispanic?
The left has declared the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to be racist documents and, therefore, proof that the US was founded on racism. The left is particularly incensed that the Constitution counts enslaved blacks as three-fifths of a white person. Is the three-fifths clause a sign or racism, or was it a compromise to get an agreement on representation in the House of Representatives?
It was the latter. Indeed southerners, such as James Madison and Edmund Randolph, wanted blacks to be counted one to one with whites. It was northerners, such as Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, who wanted blacks to count as fractions of a person. Why was this?
The issue was whether the North or the South would have majority representation in the House. The country already had different economic interests which came to conflict in the War of Southern Secession, which is mischaracterized as a civil war. (A civil war is when two sides fight for control of the government. The Confederacy was not fighting for control of the government in Washington. The South was fighting to secede from the union in order to avoid economic exploitation.)
The southern states were agricultural, and from early colonial times long before there was a United States or a Confederate States of America the absence of a work force meant that the agricultural labor force was imported as slaves. For the South slavery was an inherited institution, and from the South’s standpoint, if blacks were not included in the population on which US representation in Congress would be based, the South would have a minority voice in Congress and would not agree to the Constitution. The three-fifths clause was a compromise in order to move the Constitution toward agreement. It had nothing to do with racism. It was about achieving balance in regional representation in Congress. http://www.blackpast.org/aah/three-fifths-clause-united-states-constitution-1787
The Southern Secession resulted from divergent economic interests and was not fought over slavery. In former times when the left had real intellects, such as Charles A. Beard, a historian who stressed class conflict and a founder of the New School for Social Research and president of both the American Political Science Association and the American Historical Association, the left understood the divergence of interests between northern industry and southern agriculture. Those who think Lincoln invaded the South in order to free slaves need to read Thomas DiLorenzo’s books on Lincoln. DiLorenzo establishes beyond all doubt that Lincoln invaded the Confederacy in order to preserve the Union, that is, the American Empire, which has continued its growth into the 21st century.
The preponderance of war correspondence on both sides shows that few were fighting for or against slavery. According to the 1860 US census, slave owners were a small fraction of the Southern population. http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html
The Confederate Army consisted almost entirely of non-slave owners who fought because they were invaded by Union armies.
The large agricultural interests (slave owners) had the money necessary for raising armies and were represented in the governing bodies. So naturally, their interests would be represented in the articles of secession.
As the war began with Lincoln’s invasion of the South, we should look to see Lincoln’s explanation for the war. The reason he gave repeatedly was to preserve the Union. Most historians understood this until “racism” became the explanation of all white history and institutions.
As for Thomas Jefferson, he was opposed to slavery, but he understood that the agricultural South was trapped in slavery. The “discovery” of the New World provided lands for exploitation but no labor force. The first slaves were white prisoners, but whites could not survive the malaria. Native Indians were tried, but they were not only as susceptible to malaria as whites but also used their native knowledge of the terrain to resist those who would enslave them. Blacks became the work force of choice because of genetic superiority in resistance to malaria. As Charles C. Mann reports in his book, 1493
, “About 97 percent of the people in West and Central Africa are Duffy negative, and hence immune to vivax malaria.”
Thus, the real “racist” reason that blacks became the labor force was their survivability rate due to genetic superiority from their immunity to malaria, not white racists determined to oppress blacks for racial reasons.
The myth has taken hold that black slavery originated in white attitudes of racial superiority. In fact, as a large numbers of historians have documented, including Charles C. Mann and the socialist economic historian Karl Polanyi, brother of my Oxford University professor, the physical chemist and philosopher Michael Polanyi, black slavery originated and flourished in Africa where tribes fought one another for slaves. The victorious would market their captives to Arabs and eventually as time passed to Europeans for transport to the new world to fill the vacuum of a missing labor force. (See for example, Karl Polanyi, Dahomey and the Slave Trade
It is a mystery how the myth of Thomas Jefferson’s alleged racism and love for slavery survives his drafts of the Declaration of Independence. One of Jefferson’s drafts that was abandoned in compromise over the document includes this in Jefferson’s list of King George’s offenses:
“he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.”http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.html
Jefferson’s attack on King George sounds like the left’s racist attack on Jefferson.
It is amazing how proud some Americans are of their ignorance and how quick they are to hate based on their ignorance. In America the level of public discourse is so far below the gutter level that a person who ventures forth to tell the truth can expect to be met with violent hatred and every epithet in the book. Criticize ever so slightly the Israeli government’s theft of Palestine, and the Israel Lobby will immediately brand you an “anti-semite,” that is, a hater of Jews who wants to send them to the gas chamber. If you don’t denounce whites, especially Southern whites, as racists, you are not only a racist but also a member of the KKK who wants to lynch blacks.
Yes, I know. It works also in the other direction. If you don’t hate the left, you are one of them. Because I criticized the George W. Bush regime for its war crimes, conservatives branded me a “pinko-liberal-commie” and ceased to publish my columns.
Hardly anyone, even southerners, understands that racism in the South originated in the horrors that were inflicted on the South during the Reconstruction era that followed the military defeat of the Confederacy. The North inflicted blacks on southerners in ways that harmed prospects for relations between the races and gave rise to the KKK as a resistance movement. As Reconstruction faded, so did the KKK. It was later revived as a shadow of its former self by poor whites who were ambitious for personal power.
The question remains: How can President Trump or anyone unite a country in which historical understanding is buried in myths, lies, and the teaching of hate?
Try to imagine the expressions of hatred and the denunciations that this factual article will bring to me.
If we care about humanity and the creatures on Earth, our task is to find and to speak the truth. That is what I endeavor to do.
When the left abandoned Marxism and the working class, the left died. It has no doctrine to sustain itself, just hatreds based on historical ignorance and misunderstanding of the limits within which life is lived. Humans are not superheros or magicians who can reconstruct humanity by waving a wand or smashing evil. Everyone lives within limitations, and the many submit more than do the few.
It is the few who fight against the limits to whom we owe the defense of our humanity.
It is the haters who are the barriers to moral and social progress.
By: Patrick Buchanan
Re-posted from Lew Rockwell.com
Don’t Make Any Sudden Moves” is the advice offered to the new president by Richard Haass of the Council on Foreign Relations, which has not traditionally been known as a beer hall of populist beliefs.
Haass meant the president should bring his National Security Council together to anticipate the consequences before tearing up the Iran nuclear deal, moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem or shooting down a missile being tested by Kim Jong Un.
In arguing against rash action, Haass is correct.
Where the CFR and the establishment are wrong, and Donald Trump is right, however, is in recognizing the new world we have entered.
The old order is passing away. Treaties and alliances dating from the Cold War are ceasing to be relevant and cannot long be sustained.
Economic patriotism and ethnonationalism, personified by Trump, seem everywhere ascendant. Transnationalism is yielding to tribalism.
The greater danger for President Trump is that the movement he led will be abandoned, its hopes dashed, and the agenda that Trump rejected and routed will be reimposed by a Republican Establishment and its collaborators in politics and the press. Again, it was Trump who read the nation right, which is why he is taking the oath today.
The existential threat to the West no longer comes from the East, from a Russian army crashing through Poland and Germany and driving for the Elbe and Fulda Gap.
The existential threat to the West comes, instead, from the South.
The billion-plus peoples of the Maghreb, Middle East, and sub-Sahara, whose numbers are exploding, are moving inexorably toward the Med, coming to occupy the empty places left by an aging and dying Europe, all of whose native-born populations steadily shrink.
American’s bleeding border is what concerns Americans, not the borders of Estonia, South Korea, Kuwait or the South China Sea.
When Trump calls NATO “obsolete,” he is saying that the great threat to the West is not Putin’s recapture of a Crimea that belonged to Russia for 150 years. And if the price of peace is getting out of Russia’s face and Russia’s space, maybe we should pay it.
George Kennan himself, the architect of Cold War containment of Stalin’s Russia, admonished us not to move NATO to Russia’s border.
Of Brexit, the British decision to leave the EU, Trump said this week, “People, countries want their own identity and the U.K. wanted its own identity … so if you ask me, I believe others will leave.”
Is he not right? Is it so shocking to hear a transparent truth?
How could Europe’s elites not see the populist forces rising? The European peoples wished to regain their lost sovereignty and national identity, and they were willing to pay a price to achieve it.
Apparently, the Davos crowd cannot comprehend people who believe there are more important things than wealth.
Yet while President Trump should avoid rash actions, if he is to become a transformational president, he will spurn an establishment desperately seeking to hold onto the world that is passing away.
Article V of the NATO treaty may require us to treat a Russian move in the Baltic as an attack on the United States. But no sane president will start a war with a nuclear-armed Russia over Estonia.
No Cold War president would have dreamed of so rash an action.
Rather than risk such a war, Ike refused to send a rifle or bullet to the heroic Hungarian rebels in 1956. Painful, but Ike put America first, just as Trump pledged to do.
And given the strength of ethnonationalism in Europe, neither the eurozone nor the EU is likely to survive the decade. We should prepare for that day, not pretend that what is taking place across Europe, and indeed worldwide, is some passing fever of nationalism.
Notwithstanding Secretary of State-designate Rex Tillerson’s diktat, the United States is not going to force China to vacate the fortified reefs in the South China Sea she claims as her national territory.
Stick to that demand, and we best prepare for war.
As for the Taiwan card, it was played in 1972 by Richard Nixon as the price of his opening to China. Four decades ago, Jimmy Carter cut diplomatic ties with Taiwan and terminated our security pact.
For Xi Jinping to accept that Taiwan might be negotiable would mean an end of him and the overthrow of his Communist Party of China.
The Chinese will fight to prevent a permanent loss of Taiwan.
The imperative of the new era is that the great nuclear powers — China, Russia, the United States — not do to each other what Britain, France, and Germany did to each other a century ago over a dead archduke.
President Trump should build the wall, secure the border, impose tariffs, cut taxes, free up the American economy, bring the factories home, create millions of jobs and keep us out of any new wars.
With rare exceptions, wars tend to be fatal to presidencies.
By: Jack Perry
Re-posted from Lew Rockwell.com
I have said here a number of times, Buddhism teaches that nothing ever happens at random. Nothing just occurs out of the blue, all by itself. A series of causes and conditions leads up to it. Everything is governed by this. Rain doesn’t just fall. A series of causes and conditions leads up to it, many of which have nothing to do with water by appearance to the human eye. Everything is caused by other things happening. Nothing happens at random.
Now, the Democrats currently think that this presidential election is some random event that just happened without causes and conditions leading up to it. They also think some external factor—Russia—created something from nothing. That being, the random event of losing the election. Even if Russia was a factor, what causes and conditions led up to Russia getting involved? Would it not be the fact the Democrats have continually provoked them? But the Democrats have not proven this because the truth is much more obvious. In fact, the Democrats themselves were the primary cause that they lost the election and they put into motion the causes and conditions that led up to it.
What we need to understand is that we live in a country divided into two distinctly different cultures, if you will. I call these Middle America and Coastal America. We saw this manifest as the electoral colleges handing the win to Trump. But to understand this dynamic, we need to first define these two cultures. Coastal America is predominantly the West and East Coast and the massive populations they have, which represent the slight majority population of the United States. These are, though not all of them, liberals to one degree or another. Middle America represents land mass, that being, they occupy most of the states between the two coasts. They represent often conservative populations. The electoral win represents the win of Middle America over Coastal America in this election.Physical Gold & Silver in your IRA. Get the Facts.
In a cohesive nation, people define themselves as citizens of it. They would say, before anything else, “I am an American” and that would bind us together as a people regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. However, Coastal America does not do this. Coastal America is a place of dividedness, as much as they proclaim “diversity” and “inclusiveness”. No. They define themselves by what makes them separate from everyone else. That being, skin color, gender, or sexual orientation. What’s more, they then attempt to lay claim to more rights than everyone else, special accommodations, and more political voice than everyone else. To the point that they believe their political voice can silence opposition by smearing opposition as “hate” and so forth. What’s more, they also say everyone else cannot “understand” them, therefore, outbursts of anger are supposed to be tolerated by everyone else. Thus, in truth, it is the Democrats who created the atmosphere of dividedness in this country because it is their special interest groups who set themselves above everyone else and separated themselves.
What happened was Middle America began to understand their voice no longer mattered in the face of everyone else that said because they were a thus-and-so ethnic group or self-identified gender subset. For example, if people in Middle America did not want men dressed as women using the same bathrooms as their ten-year-old daughters, they were slandered as “bigots” rather than their concerns as parents being heard. Therefore, Middle America finally had enough and decided they might as well divide themselves also. For their own interests, for once. The die was already cast, after all. It was the Democrats and liberals who first said, “We are not like you! We are different! We need a more political voice! We need to be heard!” Middle America simply said, “And so do we, for a change!”
Now, these causes and conditions led up to Donald Trump elected as president by Middle America over the slight population majority of Coastal America. They decided they needed someone who cared about things they cared about and did not concern himself with hypersensitive squishiness around most-favored special interest groups. These reasons are predominantly economic in nature. They wanted a guy who was more concerned with what appeared in working peoples’ pay envelopes and not what letter of the alphabet ought to come next after LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ, blah, blah, blah and the new gender of the month club. if Coastal America wants to continue with those games, that’s fine. But they need to understand it is they who have rendered the word “American” obsolete and, ergo, they cannot complain when others then agree that, yes, we are divided.
Now we must come to the facts. The first fact is: We no longer have anything in common. Middle America and Coastal America cannot be reconciled at this point. Too much has happened for that to be repaired. We need to understand another dynamic. Coastal America controls population centers, some industry, the political machine, the entertainment industry, and major ports. But Middle America controls the food, oil, minerals, and the vast majority of lands where nuclear weapons are sequestered. You, Coastal America, cannot simply dictate your will to the people that feed you. Period. What works for you out there in Los Angeles does not work for people in Utah, sorry. If you keep pretending like everyone in America thinks like you do, then you are fools. You divided yourself from the concept of being “American” because you said you were first and foremost this ethnic group or gender subset. You forgot something: We are first human beings. And human history teaches that without cohesiveness, any nation or society will decay and fall apart.
Therefore, the causes and conditions leading up to eventual secession are already present. The election of Donald Trump is a huge signal that this will eventually occur as more causes and conditions manifest. Soon, Middle America will discover they will be better off to be their own socio-economic group without having to carry the dead weight of Coastal America bureaucracy and political correctness/foolishness behind it. Those things cost money. To order some small town in Kansas to build bathrooms for a third gender classification means they’ve got to take that money from schools to do it. At some point, Middle America will rather keep that money. I think we’re, hmmm, about ten years away from economic powers arising in Middle America that will create an economic secession and pursue their own economic policies apart from the feds. I predict Texas as the epicenter since they’ve got a huge port and energy resources. Trump proved that Middle America can assert political power. From there, even more, can and will be done.
It needs to be said again: Many of us in this nation no longer have anything in common. Many people identify themselves as something besides “American” first. There is nothing wrong with that, either. But let us be honest and state that we also should be free to pursue our own mutually exclusive socio-economic interests. It will happen. All things arise and pass away. This is another truth in Buddhism. Things come into being and then pass away and become other things. This time is now here in the United States. We are simply not “united” anymore and states are more like a collection of scorpions in a bottle, battling one another for federal funding. This cannot continue and will not continue. The reason states compete is not for federal funding, in truth. It is to recover wealth stolen by the federal government from the states via federal income tax. One day, states will wake up to that and decide to keep that wealth rather than beg the feds for it as alms.
The “self-identity politics” of the Democrats have borne the fruits of such endeavors. If you run around preaching how different we are and demanding everyone bend to the will of whatever someone defines him/herself as, then do not complain when others set themselves apart, too. There are now universities where the faculty has been told that even to say “him” or “her” or “gender specific” titles is to be avoided because it might hurt the feelings of people to whom those gender-specific titles do not apply. Ok, but these are also the people that think they have the right to run around labeling those who disagree with them as “bigots” and “intolerant” and so forth. What, then, can be the expected result of this tearing away at the fabric of cohesiveness?
This isn’t something the conservatives created or manifested out of thin air as a random occurrence all by itself. The United States didn’t collectively wake up one day and say, “Gosh, I think I’ll vote for Donald Trump and do my part of creating a divided nation.” No. The nation was already divided. A series of causes and conditions led up to that. The primary is that groups of people held forth that they were different from everyone else. They alone knew what it was like to suffer hardships. They alone had suffered, yes, and no one who wasn’t one of them knew what it was like. No one but them had ever been persecuted in history. Well, people are more than willing to hear your struggles and make good on past injustices. However, after a time, it became evident that more never was enough. People kept on adding more letters of the alphabet to LGBTQ and creating new minority groups that would, in turn, demand their own political power, concessions, and social accommodations. Again, who created the divisions in our society here? They were being created almost every year in gender identification alone.
Therefore, no one ought to be at all shocked or surprised that the United States is actually on the road to becoming two distinct nations. Middle America has now stated as a political fact that they have nothing in common with Coastal America. That is exactly how the electoral college elected Trump. And the Democrats sit there looking at the Russians? How, exactly, did Russia create these divisions? The liberals will certainly keep right on adding to the causes and conditions that will ultimately lead to secession. You can do a lot of things, but you can’t continue to dictate unpopular policies to an entire land mass that, in truth, you will not be able to control if they decide to go their own way. Number one, your two coasts are divided by them. But more importantly, they control the food. They feed much of the world, too. Right, go tell the world they won’t be able to eat until you get Middle America back under control. I bet the UN would be demanding a “two-state solution” before the ink was dry on an executive order out of the White House insisting Middle America stood down.
Read this message, liberals: Middle America is tired of your BS. Trump is probably the only warning you’re going to get. In fact, Trump is too little, too late. Middle America has nothing in common with Coastal America anymore and hasn’t for a long time now. Middle America feeds you and you’re going to sit there and call them “bigots” and slander them? If Middle America decides not to plant corn just one year, let’s see you eat CDs and DVDs coming out of Hollywood. Let’s see how the rest of the world stands with you when their people are starving as a result. You fail to understand the peril that you are in. Middle America could secede tomorrow and eat. Coastal America would have about two weeks (thanks to the “Just-In-Time” supply system in supermarket distribution schemes) before they began to see food riots. What, California agriculture will save you? Last I checked, they’re bulldozing entire groves of fruit trees thanks to a drought. Right, you geniuses would rather the stars up in Hollywood had nice lawns than you had food security. Don’t forget Arizona controls the Colorado River before it gets to you.
I would humbly suggest that Coastal America starts looking at “local agriculture” as more than some hipster, boutique food fashion selling blue potatoes at $7.99 a pound or kale chips for dogs at $8.25 a bag. You guys better start figuring out how you’re going to FEED that oh-so-superior population majority you keep throwing in our face after this election. Because I think Middle America is getting about done with feeding the ungrateful and whiners. Yes, you have a population majority. But let’s see you feed them.
by Al Benson Jr.
When I was a kid around eight or nine years old, there was a popular song out called "Don't fence me in." The first line of that, or the chorus, I can't recall which, said "Give me land, lotsa land under starry skies above. Don't fence me in." At that point in my life I hadn't traveled all that much and so the idea of the song appealed to me. It still does except that, at my age, I've done most of the traveling I'm likely to do, but I still have the memories and a batch of old photos and I do enjoy both. As a kid I always wanted to go west. When I was 21 years old I finally got to go and once I started I kept going until I couldn't go anymore.
It's a good thing I got to go when I did, in those pre-Obama years when the West was still relatively open, because our soon-to-be-f0rmer Marxist president seems hell bent on shutting down as much Western land as he can so ordinary folks can't get to use it or even see it except from a distance.
It would seem that he has eagerly embraced the old Marxist concept of private property being some sort of sin and he'd like to redistribute as much of the property in the West to "the people" (meaning his kind of people and no one else) as he can before he is forced to leave the White House, even though his bosses will force him to remain in Washington as part of their agenda to destabilize a Trump presidency.
Earlier this week I read an article on http://www.mrctv.org written by Brittany M. Hughes and entitled: Obama Seized Enough Land and Water in 8 Years to Cover Texas Three Times. That headline caught my attention. Having been in Texas several times over the years I have come to realize just how big Texas really is and if Obama has taken all that much land in eight years then he has to be one of the greatest land confiscators this country has ever witnessed.
Hughes' article noted: "Last week, in one of his final moves out of the Oval Office, Obama executively designated more than 1.5 million acres of land as national monuments, preserving their untouched facade while closing them to human expansion, development, energy use, ranching or state or local jurisdiction." And Hughes continued: "In a move ignored by the liberal media...last week, Obama unilaterally seized more than 1.3 million acres from Utah to establish the Bears Ears Monument, preserving it at the behest of conservationist groups and Native American tribes who claimed the land was sacred." Utah's state legislature was not overjoyed with this and they opposed it. Some have speculated this is One of Obama's moves to try to limit Trump's efforts to increase domestic energy production, which would not surprise me in the least. But like all good Marxists with an agenda, Obama kills two birds with one stone here. He not only limits a new administration's attempts at new energy production but he also locks up the property to keep ordinary folks off much of it.
He did the same thing in Clark County, Nevada when he took land for the Gold Butte National Monument. This just about shut the whole area down to any uranium mining, and oil drilling, as well as any future natural gas production. Can't have Obama's Muslim buddies in the Middle East losing out on their profits because the United States can take steps to be more energy independent now, can we. The utmost last thing Obama wants is any kind of independence for this country. He has spent two terms in office trying to shut down that kind of thing, whether it's offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico or trying to stop that pipeline that's supposed to cross the country for north to south and provide lots of new jobs in the process. He has to stop that kind of stuff and he works mightily at it. Those that voted this person into office so he could spend eight years trashing our economy while crying alligator tears for the middle class (who he really hates) will at some point, have to answer for their votes--and I'm glad it's them and not me!
Interesting to note is the land he took in Nevada is in Clark County where the big fuss over the Bundy Ranch situation happened. Looks like the feds won't have any opposition in Clark County now--most of it is in jail. Protecting your God-given rights anymore can be costly.
In Nevada the feds already control over 80% of the land, leaving only 20% for private interests and the folks in the state. So what do they need another 300,000 acres on top of all that for? So private citizens can't use it to make a living that might render them somewhat independent that's why. The Ruling Elite wants no independent citizens, only subservient slaves, so any attempts at liberty have to be suppressed--any way they can, any way they have to because, after all, the end (total slavery) justifies the means according to Marxist dogma.
This is the sort of thing Trump was elected to prevent. Let's hope he gets the chance and that Comrade Obama doesn't end up confiscating it all (in the name of the people) before Trump even gets in office.
I've said it before and I will say it again, the folks in the South with their unique heritage and the folks in the West with their unique heritage (both of which are connected) have the same enemies--liberals, socialists, communists, and the ruling CFR/Trilateral Establishment. Both Southerners and Westerners need to realize this and try to help one another out wherever they can. The Ruling Elite, if it can, will willingly destroy both of our cultures.
By Thomas DiLorenzo
Reprinted from Lew Rockwell.com. Dr. DiLorenze is a friend of the Confederate Society.
In his new book Nullification: Reclaiming Consent of the Governed
, Clyde Wilson pinpoints the folly and futility of “presidential politics” – of hoping against hope that some Great Savior will somehow restore American liberty. Only those who are almost completely ignorant of American history could be fooled by such a farce. Unfortunately, that seems to include most Americans.
Early Americans were never so naïve as to believe that national politicians could preserve their freedom; that was their
are the ones who, acting through their state-level political societies, created and gave authority to the Constitution. The government was to act as their agent
and was delegated by them only a few specific powers. Moreover, the government itself could never be the judge of its own powers, for that would lead to “nothing less than a government of unlimited power, a tyranny,” writes Wilson. Of course, that is what Americans have now lived under for generations with the “black-robed deities” of the “supreme” court announcing for all of us what freedoms we shall have.Nullification: Reclaim...
Clyde N. WilsonBest Price: $4.67Buy New $3.48A monopoly or “national” government was always understood to be the greatest threat to liberty by such American statesmen as Thomas Jefferson, author of the Kentucky Resolution of 1798 that enunciated the concept of nullification. (He was invited to author the Resolution by friends in the Kentucky legislature). It was a response to the first totalitarian power grab by the New England, leftist establishment led by John Adams who enforced the Sedition Act, an abominable law that outlawed free political speech in America. “Resolved, That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government,” Jefferson wrote in the Resolve. “[A]nd that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.” Kentucky would not allow the enforcement of the unconstitutional Sedition Act within its borders. James Madison authored the Virginia Resolution of 1798 that said the same thing. If “consent of the governed” were to have any real meaning, that consent would have to be enforced through such political vehicles as nullification and secession.Current Prices on popular forms of Silver Bullion
The leftist New England establishment first invented the lie that Jefferson was not the author of the Kentucky Resolve – until the great man’s grandson produced a copy of it in his grandfather’s own handwriting. They then invented a second lie that Jefferson was only defending free speech and not states’ rights. Jefferson himself denied this all throughout his life, Wilson points out, by insisting that in the American system of government, states’ rights and liberty could not be separated. If Americans were to have a constitution that protected their freedoms, they would have to enforce it through political communities organized at the state and local level.
The central government itself could never be trusted – especially through its “supreme” court — to do so. Jefferson understood that if the day ever came that five government lawyers with lifetime tenure would decide what everyone’s liberties were to be, then the American Revolution would have failed and Americans would live under a tyranny. That day arrived in 1865, when the U.S. government finally destroyed federalism and states’ rights and consolidated political power – including the power of constitutional interpretation – in Washington, D.C.The Problem with Socia...
Thomas DiLorenzoBest Price: $6.49Buy New $11.02
Once empowered by a monopolistic, consolidated, centralized government used to enrich its operators, there would be no logic that could overturn it, said Jefferson, for “you might as well reason and argue with the marble columns” in the Capitol, he said in a letter. He was well aware during his lifetime that the New England “consolidators” wanted a highly centralized government that would subsidize their business enterprises with cheap credit through a bank run by politicians; protect them from international completion with protectionist tariffs, and lavish canal- and road-building corporations with tax dollars. Jefferson’s nemesis Alexander Hamilton, the intellectual leader (of sorts) of the New England/New York/Philadelphia leftist establishment, gave this British-style
mercantilistic corruption scheme the Orwellian label of “The American
As Wilson points out, Hamilton praised the American ideals of federalism and states’ rights in The Federalist Papers
, and then spent the rest of his life doing everything he could to undermine and destroy those ideals. This included inventing a false history of the founding in which he claimed that the citizens of the states, who ratified the Constitution in state political conventions, were never sovereign, and that Americans’ real “original intent” was to create a highly centralized, monopolistic government like the one in England. Hamilton’s theory, Wilson correctly points out, “always rested upon coercion, chutzpah, and lies.” It was also the theory of the American founding that was embraced by Abraham Lincoln who used it to “justify” waging war on his own fellow citizens, killing them off by the hundreds of thousands with the self-proclaimed objective of “saving the union.”
One of the sillier arguments fabricated against true federalism, which includes the rights of nullification and secession, is the slogan that “states don’t have rights, people do!” Duh. As Wilson points out, it was John Taylor of Caroline who actually first said this in the context of explaining the Jeffersonian dictum that “States are instruments
by which the people may assert their rights against usurpers and oppressors” (emphasis added). At least they were in Taylor’s day. Today they are appendages of Washington, D.C.The Real Lincoln: A Ne...
Thomas DiLorenzoBest Price: $3.43Buy New $6.61In a chapter on “The Real Constitution” Wilson states the obvious fact that the fabled “system of checks and balances” has been a complete failure in limiting governmental powers to those delegated to it by the Constitution. In reality, all three branches of the federal government work in tandem
to limit our freedoms.
It is “we the people” who are limited and controlled, thanks to the state’s judicial monopoly of constitutional interpretation. “The real Constitution did not belong to lawyers, who obfuscate for a living,” writes Wilson, who points out that most of the participants at the constitutional convention were not
lawyers, unlike today’s political class. The people do not need lawyers to tell them what “THEIR” constitution says, Wilson proclaims.
The fatal mistake of conservatives and libertarians who call themselves “constitutionalists” is their belief that the federal government can somehow be persuaded to begin enforcing the Constitution and thereby limiting its own power, prestige, remuneration, and perks. “The peoples of the states have not delegated to federal judges the power to decide what their rights are. This is a power they have reserved to themselves.”
By “the people” Wilson, like Jefferson, does not mean a majority of the electorate. “By people, do we mean that if a million Chinese wade ashore in California and outvote everybody else, then they are sovereign? I think not.” If “consent of the governed” has any meaning at all, writes Wilson, then it means what it was always intended to mean: the people of the free, independent, and sovereign states. “The right to self-government rests on the right to withdraw consent from an oppressive government,” says Wilson, and in the real American system that has historically been achieved by the people acting through their state-level political communities. It is how they decided to fight the Revolution; it is how the Revolution ended, with King George III signing a peace treaty with each individual state; it is how the Constitution was ratified; and it is how the Constitution can be amended. This is why, in all the founding documents, “United States” is always in the plural, signifying that the free and independent states are united. It never meant some Leviathan called “the United States government.” That was the lying fabrication of Lincoln in his Gettysburg address in which he invented the strange notion that the founders created a “new nation” instead of a confederacy of free and independent states, as is clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence, among other places.Lincoln Unmasked: What...
Thomas DiLorenzoBest Price: $4.10Buy New $6.53Real federalism or states’ rights is all but nonexistent today, says Wilson, because “it presented the most powerful obstacle to the consolidation of irresponsible power – that consolidation which our forefathers decried as the greatest single threat to liberty. For that reason, states’ rights had to be covered under a blanket of lies and usurpations by those who thought they could rule us better than we can rule ourselves.” After the “Civil War,” writes Wilson, “the American idea of consent of the governed was replaced by the European idea of obedience.”
The destruction of the Jeffersonian, states’ rights tradition, with the elimination of nullification and secession as the essential ingredients of the consent of the governed, allowed the rotten Hamiltonian system of government by crony capitalists, for crony capitalists, and of crony capitalists to become cemented into place. This is what Lincoln and the Republican Party of his day meant when they said they were “saving the union,” Wilson observes. It was NOT the voluntary
union of the states they wanted to preserve; they utterly destroyed
that and replaced it with a Soviet-style, compulsory
union held together by violence, mass murder, mayhem, and plunder. Their “union” was a large, centralized government that would dispense corporate welfare and protect the party’s corporate political supporters from international competition while showering them with cheap credit through a government-controlled banking system. As Wilson himself explains: “With the Lincoln revolution the Hamiltonian program triumphed. Indeed, that was the purpose of the Lincoln revolution. Thus today, all the politicians of both parties rally around so that the taxpayers and posterity can reward the Banksters, Too Big to Jail,
for their evil deeds” (emphasis added).
by Harold Holzer
A century and a half ago, Abraham Lincoln brought forth at Gettysburg a speech universally remembered as one of the greatest ever written, a gem not only of American political oratory, but of American literature.
Tributes have been devoted to it, re-creations staged of it, and books written about it. It is surely fair to say that no other American speech has ever inspired so much writing and so many more speeches. This paper may be the latest, but it certainly will not be the last.
Perhaps what makes the speech especially appealing to modern Americans are the handicaps Lincoln faced in delivering it: a late invitation to appear; a rude reminder that he should deliver no more than “a few appropriate remarks”; the distraction of a sick child at home; an unenviable spot on the program that day—following a stem-winder by the greatest orator of the era; and Lincoln’s deep aversion to public speechmaking of any kind once he became president. We have come to love the Gettysburg Address, in part, because in spite of all these obstacles Lincoln somehow composed a masterpiece.
But we love the Gettysburg Address, too, because we sense that Lincoln wrote it in a burst of passion and genius. And perhaps some Americans learned to love it because they still believe that Lincoln summoned the divine inspiration to write it on a railroad train en route to Gettysburg, at the last possible minute. We love it because we have heard that the press hated it. And maybe, most of all, we love it because we have learned that Lincoln himself thought it was a failure. In fact, we have been taught that most of Lincoln’s contemporaries failed to appreciate it, too, just as they failed to appreciate Lincoln himself until he was gone. It only makes us love the Gettysburg Address the more.
If it is true that all or any of these myths have inspired our affection for Abraham Lincoln’s greatest speech, then we may well love the Gettysburg Address for the wrong reasons.
The fact is, the reputation of no other speech in all American history has ever been so warped by misconception and myth. True enough, Lincoln was invited late, he was told to keep it brief, he did have a challenging spot on the program that day, and he did have a sick child at home whose suffering surely reminded his worried parents of the illness that had taken the life of another son only a year and a half before. But much of the rest of the legend that makes the Gettysburg Address so appealing was conceived in liberties with the truth and dedicated to the proposition that you can fool most of the people most of the time.
Take the myth of its creation on board the train from Washington. The legend originated with newspaperman Ben Perley Poore, who contended that the address was “written in the car on the way from Washington to the battlefield, upon a piece of pasteboard held on his knee.”
Another passenger contended that Lincoln finished the entire manuscript by the time he reached Baltimore. Even more impressive was the claim by a corporal traveling with the President that not until their train reached Hanover—just twelve miles from Gettysburg—did Lincoln stand up after hours of storytelling and declare: “Gentlemen, this is all very pleasant, but the people will expect me to say something to them tomorrow, and I must give the matter some thought.” But the most absurd recollection of all came from Andrew Carnegie, of all people, then a young executive with the B & O Railroad, who claimed that not only did Lincoln write the Gettysburg Address on the train, but that Carnegie had personally handed Lincoln the pencil to do the writing.
The fact is, Lincoln had been “giving the matter some thought” since at least November 8, 1863, eleven days before dedication day at Gettysburg. On the 8th, newspaperman Noah Brooks asked the President if he had written his remarks. “Not yet,” Lincoln replied—quickly adding: “Not finished anyway.” This means that he had already started writing. According to Brooks, Lincoln further explained: “I have written it over, two or three times, and I shall have to give it another lick before I am satisfied.”
In the week and a half that followed, Lincoln anguished over Tad Lincoln’s precarious health, worked on his correspondence, held a Cabinet meeting, watched a parade, met with Italian sea captains, and took time to see a play starring—of all people—John Wilkes Booth. Yet by November 17 he was able to tell his attorney general that fully half his address was in final form. Not long afterward, former Secretary of War Simon Cameron got to see a copy, written, he remembered, “with a lead pencil on commercial notepaper.” Ward Hill Lamon, the Marshall of the District of Columbia who would travel to the event with the President, claimed that Lincoln read him the entire speech before they left together for Gettysburg on the 18th. But the notoriously self-serving Lamon could not help adding froth to the legend by claiming that the President confided: “It does not suit me, but I have not time for any more.” By this time, of course, he had devoted a good deal of time, as well as thought, to his Gettysburg Address.
The idea that Lincoln did not take his Gettysburg opportunity seriously is preposterous. He did not even want to travel to the village on the same day as the ceremony, as originally planned by the War Department, for fear of missing the event, as he put it, “by the slightest accident.” It was Lincoln who insisted on starting out for Gettysburg the day before, to make certain that he was rested and prepared for the ceremonies. This was not a man who left things to the last minute.
Besides, anyone who has seen the autograph copy of his February 11, 1861, farewell address to Springfield, truly written on a train, knows how difficult Lincoln found it to take pen in hand on the rocking, rolling railroad cars of the 1860s. He had agreed on that occasion to write out the farewell remarks he had just given extemporaneously for reporters traveling with him to his inauguration. But midway through the effort, he gave up. The jostling of the cars was transforming his usually precise penmanship into an indecipherable scrawl. Perhaps the effort was making him queasy. So he asked his secretary, John G. Nicolay, to take over the task. The rest of the surviving document is in Nicolay’s handwriting. If Lincoln did write anything en route to Gettysburg it has not survived. But chances are he recalled his Springfield experience and did not even try. Lincoln was too careful when it came to writing speeches in advance, too poor an impromptu speaker—and well aware of his shortcomings in that department—to make plausible the idea that he waited until the last minute to write his Gettysburg Address.
The most stubborn of all the Gettysburg myths is the resilient legend that holds that the speech was poorly received when Lincoln delivered it—that, at best, only a few enthusiasts appreciated it, while most eyewitnesses did not. Such conclusions are inherently suspicious. In truth, eyewitnesses to Gettysburg disagreed about almost everything to do with Lincoln’s appearance there, even the weather.
One spectator remembered November 19, 1863, as “bright and clear.” Yet the Washington Chronicle
reported rain showers. Some said 15,000 people crowded the town for the event. Others counted 100,000. Some went to their deaths insisting that Lincoln took a tour of the battlefield in the early morning hours on dedication day. Others swore that he stayed inside the Wills House until it was time to mount up for the procession to the ceremony.
People even disagreed about the President’s horse. One visitor gushed that Lincoln looked “like Saul of old” that day as he sat astride “the largest . . . Chestnut horse” in the county. Another testified that he rode “a diminutive pony.” And yet another thought the horse was so small that Lincoln’s long legs practically dragged along the ground—inspiring one old local farmer to exclaim at the sight of him: “Say Father Abraham, if she goes to run away with yer . . . just stand up and let her go!” People on the scene did not even agree on the color of the horse. Surviving recollections state with equal certainty that it was “a white horse,” a “chestnut bay,” a “brown charger,” and a “black steed.”
When such wildly diverse recollection becomes the rule—not the exception—how seriously should we take the claims of those who asserted that Lincoln’s speech fell on deaf ears at Gettysburg? This is especially so when it comes to the crucial question: Did the listeners appreciate the address? True, they had just heard a two-hour-long speech from the principal orator of the day, Edward Everett. Drained and likely exhausted, they may not have been ready to focus on another major speech. Then again, they were about to see and hear the President of the United States, some for the first and only time.
Did Lincoln’s speaking style prevent the audience from appreciating the novelty of his appearance and the beauty of his words? Presidential assistant secretary John Hay remembered that Lincoln spoke “in a firm free way.” But a journalist from Cincinnati complained about his “sharp, unmusical, treble voice.”
Then there is the issue of whether Lincoln read from a text or spoke from memory. Private secretary Nicolay maintained he “did not read from a manuscript.” A student in the audience, on the other hand, remembered that Lincoln kept a “hand on each side of the manuscript” while he spoke, though he “looked at it seldom.” And yet another eyewitness recalled that Lincoln “barely took his eyes” off the speech while he read it.
There is the testimony from the Associated Press reporter, Joseph L. Gilbert, who said he was so transfixed by Lincoln’s “intense earnestness and depth of feeling” as he spoke that he stopped taking notes just to gaze “up at him.” He had to borrow Lincoln’s manuscript afterwards to fill in the gaps, inserting several interruptions for “applause” plus “long continued applause” at the conclusion. Did he really remember such outbursts of enthusiasm? Or did he add them charitably to an address that otherwise elicited no reaction at all? Whom do we believe?
Stenographer-correspondents were both imprecise and partisan in the Civil War era. The real Lincoln-Douglas debates, to cite the most famous casualty of their work, are irrevocably lost to us, since all we have left are the Republican-commissioned transcripts that make Lincoln sound perfect and Douglas bombastic; and the Democratic-commissioned transcripts that make Lincoln sound hesitant and Douglas eloquent.
Political stenography had not advanced much toward non-partisanship by 1863. One Chicago shorthand reporter at Gettysburg, for example, heard Lincoln say “our poor attempts
to add or detract,” not “our poor power
” (emphasis added). And three New York papers heard Lincoln dedicate Americans not to “the unfinished work that they have thus far so nobly advanced,” but the “re
finished work” (emphasis added), as if he was a home-remodeling contractor. Another stenographer recorded not “we here highly resolve,” but “we here highly imbibe.” And one Democratic paper claimed that Lincoln could not even count; he had started his speech referring not to the events of “four score and seven years ago,” but to “four score and ten
years ago” (emphasis added).
There was more than sloppy stenography at work here. There was highly partisan stenography as well, just as in the days of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Thus, to no one’s surprise, the Illinois State Journal
, the old pro-Lincoln paper from Springfield, reported that “immense applause” had greeted the President at Gettysburg. But a far less sympathetic observer reported “not a word, not a cheer, not a shout.”
Which version of the audience reaction was correct? We may never know for sure. The truth is buried within the nineteenth-century tradition of partisan journalism. The question boils down to the credibility of the Republican versus the Democratic press.
That is why it seems so foolish that biographers have made so much of the fact that many of the newspapers commenting immediately on the Gettysburg Address failed to realize its greatness. In fact, it was Lamon who fueled this most stubborn of legends by insisting “without fear of contradiction that this famous Gettysburg speech was not regarded by . . . the press . . . as a production of extraordinary merit, nor was it commented on as such until after the death of its author.”
Perhaps Lamon was thinking of one of the most frequently quoted criticisms from the Chicago Times:
The cheek of every American must tinge with shame as he reads the silly flat and dishwatery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States.
On the other hand, the rival Chicago newspaper, the Tribune,
quickly appreciated, and announced, the importance of the speech, countering:
The dedicatory remarks by President Lincoln will live among the annals of the war.
As genuine evidence of Lincoln’s performance at Gettysburg, however, both appraisals were in a sense totally insignificant. Of course, the Tribune
predicted great things for the Gettysburg Address. They had been a pro-Lincoln paper since at least 1858, when they hired the stenographer who recorded the Republican version of the Lincoln-Douglas debates and filled their pages daily with attacks on Douglas and praise of Lincoln. Why would they not cheer the speech at Gettysburg? They had cheered nearly every speech Lincoln ever made.
And of course the Chicago Times
hated it. They hated Lincoln! They hated him when he ran against Douglas, charging that “the Republicans have a candidate for the Senate of whose bad rhetoric and horrible jargon they are ashamed.” And surely the Times
had not grown fonder of Lincoln after his army closed the newspaper down in 1863—the same year as the Gettysburg Address—even if it was Lincoln who later countermanded the order. “Is Mr. Lincoln less refined than a savage?” the Times
taunted in its comment on the address.
Nor is it surprising that the Democratic Party newspaper in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, declared: “We pass over the silly remarks of the President; for the credit of the nation, we are willing that the veil of oblivion shall be dropped over them and that they shall be no more repeated or thought of.” Those lines are probably the most frequently quoted by historians seeking to prove that the press, in general, did not appreciate the Gettysburg Address. Seldom is the paper’s political affiliation mentioned, only its ambiguous name: the Patriot and Union.
And almost never are the first few lines of its review quoted, which seem far more revealing of its motives than a disdain for Lincoln’s literary style. “The President,” it began, “acted without sense and without constraint in a panorama that was gotten up more for the benefit of his party than for the glory of the nation and the honor of the dead.” For the benefit of his party!
There, in a nutshell, is the Harrisburg Democratic Party newspaper’s grievance with the Gettysburg Address: to the Patriot and Union
it represented Republican Party propaganda.
In fact, the address elicited a number of prompt, rave reviews at the time it was delivered. They came from Republican papers like the Providence Journal
, which pointed out: “The hardest thing in the world is to make a five minute’s speech. . . . Could the most elaborate, splendid oration be more beautiful, more touching, more inspiring, than those thrilling words?”
It is true that the London Times
did complain that the ceremony at Gettysburg was “rendered ludicrous by some of the luckless sallies of that poor President Lincoln.” But the London Times
seldom praised Abraham Lincoln. Interestingly, a quote from the same review that several historians have used to illustrate the period press’s foolhardy dismissal of the Gettysburg Address—that it was “dull and commonplace”—has long been quoted inaccurately. The paper actually used those words to criticize not Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, but Edward Everett’s.
As for Everett, his own assessment, sent to Lincoln the day after the ceremonies, conceded: “I should be glad if I could flatter myself that I came as near to the central idea of the occasion in two hours, as you did in two minutes.” Thus, even if we cling to the ultimate Gettysburg legend—that Lincoln himself thought he missed a golden opportunity on November 19—we can at least be satisfied that he knew better by November 20, the day he received Everett’s letter of praise and replied modestly that he was “pleased to know” that what he said “was not entirely a failure.”
We probably owe the legend of Lincoln’s lack of enthusiasm for his own performance at Gettysburg almost entirely to Ward Hill Lamon, one of the most consistently undependable sources in the annals of Lincoln biography. It was Lamon who claimed that when Lincoln took his seat after the address, he confided sadly: “That speech won’t scour! It is a flat failure, and the people are disappointed.” And it was Lamon who added that when they returned to Washington, Lincoln repeated: “I tell you, Hill, that speech fell on the audience like a wet blanket. I am distressed about it. I ought to have prepared it with more care.”
As historians Don E. Fehrenbacher and Virginia Fehrenbacher pointed out, however, the original personal notes from which he adapted this recollection show that it was Lamon who claimed the speech fell on the audience like a “wet blanket.” Lincoln himself never uttered the statement. Later, Lamon simply put his own words in Lincoln’s mouth. In short, we have no authentic, reliable reason to believe that Lincoln ever felt that he failed at Gettysburg.
Of nearly equal importance, even if audience reaction was as disappointing as Lamon claimed, Lincoln knew that he was delivering the Gettysburg Address that day to two audiences: the relatively small crowd at the cemetery, whether it was 15,000 or 100,000, and the millions who would read the text in the press.
For several years Lincoln had perfected the art of delivering state papers and political messages through the newspapers. He made few formal speeches as president. But he made sure that when he greeted special visitors with important remarks, they were quickly printed in the newspapers. Or if he wrote an important letter—like the one to Erastus Corning and other Albany, New York, Democrats defending his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus—they too were published for the benefit of other readers.
The Gettysburg Address would live because Lincoln made certain that it lived: by lending his transcript to the Associated Press; by writing additional copies for souvenir albums and charity auctions; by ensuring that it would be reprinted worldwide and praised at least in the Republican journals.
From the beginning, the Gettysburg Address would be recognized, and applauded, because the brilliant public relations strategist who made certain his remarks were widely read was also a consummate literary craftsman who enjoyed his finest hour during his two minutes at Gettysburg.
It is therefore fitting and proper to here highly resolve that Lincoln did indeed triumph at Gettysburg, not just in history, but on the very spot where he summoned all his great powers to re-consecrate a scene of death into an unforgettable metaphor for birth: a new birth of freedom.
David Wills to Abraham Lincoln, November 2, 1863, Abraham Lincoln Papers, Library of Congress; Harold Holzer, “‘Avoid Saying Foolish Things’: The Legacy of Lincoln’s Impromptu Oratory,” in James M. McPherson, ed., “We Cannot Escape History”: Lincoln and the Last Best Hope of Earth
(Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 1995).
Garry Wills, Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words That Remade America
(New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992), 26.
William E. Barton, Lincoln at Gettysburg
(New York: Peter Smith, 1950), 173.
Louis A. Warren, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Declaration: “A New Birth of Freedom”
(Fort Wayne, IN: Lincoln National Life Foundation, 1964), 61.
Brooks, “Personal Reminiscences of Lincoln,” 565.
Earl Schenck Miers, ed., Lincoln Day By Day: A Chronology, 1809–1865
(3 vols., Washington: Lincoln Sesquicentennial Commission, 1960), 3:218–220; Philip N. Kunhardt, Jr., A New Birth of Freedom: Lincoln at Gettysburg
(Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1983), 65–66; Don E. Fehrenbacher and Virginia Fehrenbacher, eds., Recollected Words of Abraham Lincoln
(Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996), 289.
Roy P. Basler, ed., The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln
(8 vols., New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1953–1955), 7:16.
Warren, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Declaration
, 61. For a reproduction of the autograph copy—in two hands—of Lincoln’s farewell address to Springfield, see Stefan Lorant, Lincoln: A Picture Story of His Life
(New York: W. W. Norton, 1969), 119.
Barton, Lincoln at Gettysburg
Barton, Lincoln at Gettysburg,
75; Warren, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Declaration
, 81–83; R. Gerald McMurtry, “Lincoln Rode Horseback in the Gettysburg Procession,” Lincoln Lore
No. 1425 (November 1956), 4.
Tyler Dennett, ed., Lincoln and the Civil War in the Diaries and Letters of John Hay
(New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1939), 121; Warren, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Declaration
, 122; Harold Holzer, “A Few Appropriate Remarks,” American History Illustrated
(November 1988), 20–22.
Barton, Lincoln at Gettysburg
, 78; Warren, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Declaration
Kunhardt, A New Birth of Freedom
, 215. The AP text is reprinted in Wills, Lincoln at Gettysburg
For a fully annotated version of the various, conflicting texts, see The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln
, 7:19–21; see also Chicago Times
, November 23, 1863.
Kunhardt, A New Birth of Freedom
, 215–216; Benjamin Barondess, Three Lincoln Masterpieces
(Charleston, WV: Education Foundation of West Virginia, 1954), 43.
Barton, Lincoln at Gettysburg,
Herbert Mitgang, ed., Lincoln as They Saw Him
(New York: Rinehart & Co., 1956), 360; Warren, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Declaration
Harold Holzer, ed., The Lincoln-Douglas Debates: The First Complete, Unexpurgated Text
(New York: HarperCollins, 1993), 13; Mitgang, Lincoln as They Saw Him
Barton, Lincoln at Gettysburg
Harold Holzer, “‘Thrilling Words’ or ‘Silly Remarks’: What the Press Said about the Gettysburg Address,” Lincoln Herald
90 (Winter 1988), 144–145.
Mitgang, Lincoln as They Saw Him
Edward Everett to Abraham Lincoln, November 20, 1863, Abraham Lincoln Papers, Library of Congress; The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln
Dorothy Lamon Teillard, ed., Recollections of Abraham Lincoln, 1847
(2nd ed., Washington, DC, 1911), 175.
Fehrenbacher and Fehrenbacher, eds., Recollected Words of Abraham Lincoln,
289.Harold Holzer is the author, co-author, and editor of more than forty books on Abraham Lincoln, including most recently,
Emancipating Lincoln: The Emancipation Proclamation in Text, Context, and Memory (2012)
; Lincoln President-Elect: Abraham Lincoln and the Great Secession Winter 1860–1861 (2008); and
Lincoln at Cooper Union: The Speech That Made Abraham Lincoln President (2004). He is a Hertog Fellow at the New-York Historical Society, Senior Vice President for External Affairs at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and Chairman of the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Foundation.