Civil Rights and Total War

From Rebellion:

Saturday, May 29, 2010


'Civil Rights' and Total War



"Civil Rights" is a holy word in the theology of secular America. But as we have long argued, it's really code for a messianic, all-powerful central government -- in other words, an empire. Here's a powerful confirmation of that argument by William Grigg:





"I was satisfied, and have been all the time, that the problem of war consists in the awful fact that the present class of men who rule the South must be killed outright rather than in the conquest of territory...." ~ William T. Sherman ... to General Philip Sheridan, as quoted in The Soul of Battle by Victor Davis Hanson



William Sherman's march to the sea, writes Victor Davis Hanson approvingly, was a war of "terror" intended to destroy an aristocratic Southern culture he hated because of its impudence in resisting the central government's authority.



Although rarely acknowledged as such, Sherman could be considered America's first "civil rights" crusader. This isn't an endorsement of Sherman; it's an indictment of contemporary "civil rights" ideology



It gets better. Sherman's crimes, followed by the illegal plunder of Reconstruction, set the stage for future conflict between white Southerners and the newly-freed slaves:





The occupied South was where Washington field-tested methods later used to "liberate" and "pacify" the Philippines, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other countries through mass slaughter and military dictatorship.



By January 1877, embattled southerners had managed to gain sufficient political traction to extract an end to the military occupation as the price of supporting a compromise awarding Rutherford B. Hayes the electoral votes he needed to prevail over Samuel Tilden (whose popular vote tally exceeded that of Hayes by roughly 164,000 votes).



Two months after Hayes was inaugurated, federal troops were withdrawn, and the Reconstruction plunderbund dissolved. A little more than a year later, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act forbidding the use of the Army as a domestic law enforcement body.



Jim Crow could be considered – at least to some extent – another example of "blowback" from Reconstruction, which did much more to exacerbate than alleviate racial hostilities in the South.



More than a century later, DC continues to see itself as a noble liberator, when in fact its heavy-handed interventions at home and abroad aggravate existing tensions. Clearly incapable of learning from its mistakes, DC will stop interfering in other people's affairs only when its suicidal policies inevitably cripple it.



posted by Old Rebel @ Saturday, May 29, 2010