Tuesday, May 3, 2011

The Treachery Of Lincoln: Things Your Teacher Never Taught You, Part Four

From Wolves of Liberty:

The Treachery Of Lincoln – Things Your Teacher Never Taught You Part 4




10. Aug, 2010 Comments (3)





By Republicae





G.J. Merits: Below is another elucidation from the pseudonymous Republicae to my post Unchaining Ourselves From The Lincoln Myth – Things Your Teacher Never Taught You Part 3. This time the topic is the catalyst for the War for Southern Independence.



As clearly explained below by Republicae, the treachery of Lincoln all but guaranteed the start of a war that would claim 600,000 American lives. We now have, from the entire series to date of Things Your Teacher Never Taught You, an understanding the war was fought not over slavery or even to hold together the Union – but was solely a fiscal matter. We were introduced to the tyranny of Lincoln, comments from Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji justifying his country’s suppression of Taiwan in 1999 by appealing to the example Lincoln set, as well as comments from Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf and Karl Marx putting to truth the lust for sovereignty and power that gripped the tyrant President. Just as troubling, we learned of Lincoln’s virulent racism, his belief in white supremacy, and the exposure of those views by eminent African American icon Lerone Bennett Jr., former editor of Ebony magazine, whose 20 year study of Lincoln exposed the true man behind the mask. The contributions of many other scholars, dedicated to truth, is readily available on the subject as well.



The conclusion reached easily puts to lie the myth of Lincoln the great emancipator. But in order to achieve his ends, Lincoln needed his war. When it looked like he may not get it, the duplicity he utilized to achieve his desired end that lead to the death of hundreds of thousands of men, the plundering of South, and crimes by the Union army against helpless victims, finally shows the real man – a full fledged tyrant and hypocrite. His contribution to the meme of federal supremacy is unmatched and if we are to crush this false belief, we must destroy once and for all the myth that is Lincoln.



In the end, I would be only too happy to see his countenance removed from Mt. Rushmore and the Lincoln memorial torn to shreds. Never again will I be impressed by any member of the GOP who would utter a phrase most disgusting for me to hear: “We are the party of Lincoln”. The next part of the series concentrates on the ratification of the 14th amendment and its clear message: the war had nothing to do with holding the Union together. Crimes committed by Union soldiers against the South cover the next few installments, with the remainder of the series concentrating on how the meme of federal supremacy became so integrated into the modern culture it is hardly recognizable as duplicitous. As Republicae stated in Nullification & The States (emphasis mine):





So, what shall be done to redeem ourselves, to restore that which has been taken by both deceptive methods and by force of arbitrary laws that have resulted in a state of peonage for the People, a huge productive Vassal State for the federal government? The question is of the gravest sort, the answer most solemn for if we are simply continue in our present state, waiting for this government to reform itself and return to some sense of justice then our wait will obviously be in vain and any hope can no longer be indulged. The sensibilities of the People have long ago been numbed, their estimation of their Rights lowered and they have been gradually taught to find comfort in their chains as though they were actually free.



The People, for most part, have resigned themselves to their condition and allow the voluntary relinquishment of the prospects of actual freedom to a class of politically advantaged, pecuniary benefits are secured to those who are politically connected by various laws and policies that favor them over the vast majority of the People and indeed over the general welfare of the Country itself. The political and corporate classes have joined forces to enrich themselves under the operation of laws, which are always crafted in the name of the public good.



We have seen Lincoln the racist, Lincoln the tyrant, and Lincoln the usurper of state’s rights. Now let us meet Lincoln the architect of war:

_________________________



It is a commonly held view that the “Civil War” began when the State of South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter, and why not, that is what is taught in the history books. However, when delving into the records, we find that it did not begin on that fateful day of April 10, 1861.



In December, 1864, Abraham Lincoln gave a speech before Congress and made a statement, that on the surface appears to be completely veracious in content: “I simply mean to say that the war will cease, on the part of the Government, whenever it shall cease on the part of those who began it.” That is the accepted view of history and in many minds it is completely true, but when viewed from actually historical facts the veracity of the statement becomes very questionable.



This next statement flies directly in the face of accepted history and yet the facts clearly and irrefutably support the statement: The United States and Abraham Lincoln started the war by committing at least four acts of war against two of the most strategically vital points in the South. These acts of war were perpetrated, on the orders of Lincoln, weeks prior to the South’s defensive attack on Fort Sumter. In fact, had the secret orders of Lincoln actually been obeyed, the war would have begun almost 500 miles away from Charleston and Fort Sumter.



On December 6th, 1860, in recognition of the Sovereignty of the States of the South, the United States Government entered into a solemn Armistice with the officials of the State of South Carolina and on January 29th, 1861, the United States Government then entered into yet another solemn Armistice with the officials of the State of Florida. Both of these agreements were officially filed with the United States War and Navy Departments. In these agreements, the United States agreed not to attempt any reinforcement of Fort Sumter, Fort Pickens, the entire State of South Carolina and Florida. In return, the Confederate authorities agreed that there would be no attack on the Forts occupied by Union Forces as long as the agreements were observed to the letter. It was also understood by these agreements that any violation would be considered an act of war between the Confederacy and the United States. Additionally, it was understood by these agreements that any person visiting these fortifications, or areas covered by these agreements, with the intent to advise, plans, supply, reinforce or strengthen the fortifications that it too would be considered an act of war under the officially recognized and signed agreements.



It is indeed unfortunate that history doesn’t always tell the truth but ofttimes struggles against it and falsehoods are usually enlarged by accepted opinion.



Within eight days of the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln, the United States Government, upon Lincoln’s orders violated the Armistices by attempting to reinforce Fort Pickens, thus from that point a state of war existed between the Confederate States of America and the United States. In January 1861, on the U.S.S. Brooklyn, Captain Vogdes, along with an armed force, was sent to reinforce Fort Pickens. However, Vogdes remained on the U.S.S. Brooklyn temporarily estoppeled by the Armistice. However, according to the terms of the Armistice, from that moment of preparation, a legal state of war existed between The Confederate States of America and the United States of America.



On March 12th, 1861, by the order of the President, Lieutenant General Scott the following message was addressed to “Captain I. Vogdes, First Artillery, and U.S. Army, on board Ship of War Brooklyn, off Fort Pickens, Pensacola, Fla.”:



“At the first favorable opportunity, you will land your company, reinforce Fort Pickens, and hold the same till further orders”



On March 31st, 1861, the orders were received by Captain Vogdes and sent the following message to Captain H.A. Adams:



“Hereby I send you a copy of an order received by me last night. You will see by it that I am directed to land my company at the earliest opportunity. I have therefore to request that you place at my disposal such boats and other means as will enable me to carry into effect the enclosed order. I. Vogdes”



The interesting thing is that Captain Adams refused to obey the orders, later in his report to the Secretary of the Navy he stated: “It would be considered not only a declaration, but an act of war; and would be resisted to the utmost. Both sides are faithfully observing the Armistice entered into by the United States Government…, which binds us not to reinforce Fort Pickens unless we shall be attacked or threatened. It binds them not to attack it unless we should attempt to reinforce it.”



On April 6th, 1861, Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy sent the following to Captain Adams:



“Your dispatch of April 1st is received. The Department regrets that you did not comply with the request of Capt. Vogdes. You will immediately on the first favorable opportunity after receipt of this order, afford every facility to Capt. Vogdes to enable him to land the t, troops under his command, it being the wish and intention of the Navy Department to co-operate with the War Department, in that object.”



Now, an interesting fact is that the order was sent by special messenger, Lieutenant J. L. Worden by rail via Richmond through Augusta to Atlanta. When Worden arrived in Atlanta, he committed his orders to memory and destroyed the orders. On April 11, 1861, Worden met with General Bragg and stated that he only had a verbal message of a peaceful nature to deliver to Captain Adams. Worden’s actions and behavior aroused suspicions and he was arrested in Montgomery.



Captain Adams landed Vogdes and reinforcements around 9p.m. on the night of April 11th, 1861. The next day, under similar circumstances, the Confederate forces fired upon Fort Sumter without knowledge of the events that occurred the night before at Fort Pickens. During this time, the Confederate Peace Commission had been kept waiting by Lincoln and Seward. After the attack, Seward continues to reassure the Confederate Peace Commission by stating that Sumter would be evacuated in ten days and there would be no further attempt to reinforce Fort Sumter. Seward also assured the Commission that he would give them notice if there were “any design to alter the existing status there.” Of course, Seward was well aware that all of this had already taken place.



Thus the Confederacy had sent the Commission openly with peaceful intent and good faith, all the while Lincoln has not only secretly conspired to avert peace, but start a war. Again, to give evidence at the treachery of Lincoln we find that on March 29th, 1861, Lincoln sent a memorandum to the Secretary of the Navy that ordered three ships of war, The Pocahontas, The Pawnee and The Harriet Lane, along with 300 seamen with a month’s stores.



On April 1st, 1861, Winfield Scott sent the following order of the President to the Head Quarters of the Army: “ You have been designated to take command of an expedition to reinforce and hold Fort Pickens in the harbor of Pensacola. You will proceed to New York when steam transportation for four companies will be engaged; and putting on board such supplies as you can ship without delay proceed at once to your destination. The object and destination of this expedition will be communicated to no one to whom it is not already known.” This order was accompanied by this following codicil the next day:



“To Brevet Colonel Harvey Brown, U. S. Army. Approved April 2, 1861.” Signed: Abraham Lincoln.



Also on April 1, 1861, Lincoln sent the following order: “All officers of the Army and Navy, to whom this order may be exhibited will aid by every means in their power the expedition under the command of Colonel Brown; supply him with men and material, and co-operating with him as he may desire.” Abraham Lincoln.



Yet, on that same day, Seward had given his solemn assurances to the official envoys of the Confederacy that there would be no changes to the status of Fort Pickens and there was no design to reinforce Fort Sumter. So, while Lincoln’s Secretary of State was giving assurances to the Confederate Peace Commission that the Armistices would be honored, the secret war conspiracy was in the works.



Prior to these devious events and conspiratorial actions, Senator Stephen Douglas had introduced a bill in the U. S. Senate on December 20th, 1860. The bill would protect the States in their Constitutional rights by proposing to punish anyone guilty of inter-State insurrection or invasions. In a speech at Cooper Union, Lincoln denounced the bill and called it seditious. It is interesting, that an elected President would object to such a bill prior to his inauguration, particularly since the bill appeared to be protective both in intent and execution, as well as Constitutional. Of course, such a bill would have prohibited Lincoln’s actions; therefore the question is when did Lincoln actually decide to invade the South?



It is also interesting that five days prior to Lincoln’s inauguration, Congress passed the bill introduced by Douglas; to avoid any obstruction that the bill might cause, Lincoln did not convene Congress until after the war was assured by his actions at Fort Pickens and Fort Sumter. Thus while the Confederacy extended her hand in peace openly, Lincoln secretly extended the sword of war.



Had Lincoln truly desired peace and indeed union, why did he refuse to discuss peace with the Confederate Peace Commission, instead he set on a deliberate course of deception and subterfuge. Why would he not convene Congress to take up the issues of war as demanded by the Constitution?



On February 13th, 1861, The State of Virginia, in Convention voted down every resolution calling for Secession waiting for President Lincoln to make his words of “peace and union” good. Yet, a mere two weeks later, on April 2, 1861, Lincoln approved the secret act of war against the South.



Lincoln, fearful of the decision of the Virginia Convention sought to dissolve the Convention and sent Allan B. Magruder to Richmond in an attempt to convince members of the Convention to delay any action and inviting, at Lincoln’s behest, the leading union member of the Virginia Convention, Judge George Summers, to Washington to confer with Lincoln. Summers, unable to attend the meeting, sent John Baldwin in his stead. On April 4, 1861, Baldwin met with Lincoln and urged the President to call for a Conference of States to issue a “Peaceful Union Proclamation”. Remember, two days earlier, Lincoln has already sent orders to violate the Armistice, yet he played the role of a peace-maker despite the deception of his secret conspiracy. Lincoln responded to Baldwin’s plea with the words: “I fear you are too late”, of course he was, Lincoln has already committed an act of war against the South by breaking the articles of agreement found within the officially signed Armistice.



While Lincoln was meeting with Baldwin, the following order was issued on April 4, 1861:



“This will be handed to you by Capital G. V. Fox, an ex-officer of the Navy. He is charged by authority here, with the command of an expedition (under cover of certain ships of war) whose object is, to reinforce Fort Sumter. To embark with Captain Fox, you will cause a detachment of recruits, say about 200, to be immediately organized at Fort Columbus, with competent number of officers, arms, ammunition, and subsistence, with other necessaries needed for the augmented garrison at Fort Sumter”…Winfield Scott.



Based on the legal requirements of the official Armistice agreements, each of Lincoln’s expeditions were acts of war. With the three illegal expeditions being executed, Lincoln directly ordered yet another, this expedition would be headed by Lieutenant D. D. Porter of the Navy.



“Executive Mansion, April 1, 1861 – Sir: You will proceed to New York and with least possible delay assume command of any steamer available. Proceed to Pensacola Harbor, and, at any cost or risk, prevent any expedition (Confederate) from the main land reaching Fort Pickens, or Santa Rosa. You will exhibit this order to any Naval Officer at Pensacola if you deem it necessary, after you have established yourself within the harbor. This order, its object, and your destination will be communicated to no person whatever, until you reach the harbor of Pensacola.”… Abraham Lincoln.



Another secret and extremely interesting order Lincoln issued, again on April 1, 1861:



“You will fit out the Powhatan without delay. Lieutenant Porter will receive Captain Mercer in command of her. She is bound on secret service; and you will under no circumstances communicate to the Navy Department the fact that she is fitting out.” Abraham Lincoln.



Lieutenant Porter, in his official Report on the expedition states:



“I had disguised the ship, so that she deceived those who had known her, and was standing in unnoticed, when the Wyandotte (a steamer) commenced making signals, which I did not answer, but stood on. The steamer then put herself in my way and Captain Meigs, who was aboard, hailed me and I stopped. In twenty minutes more I should have been inside Pensacola harbor or sunk.”



There had been a special report issued by Captain Barron, U.S. Navy, on the good faith that was being observed by both parties to the Armistice, in this report, he stated that the Powhatan had attempted, by force, to enter Pensacola harbor in disguise and flying English Colors, in other words the British Union Jack.



Honest Abe has used every possible deceptive practice to subvert the Armistice agreements and force war on the South.



With the above order in mind, yet another interesting order was issued by Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy, in apparent ignorance of Lincoln’s order issued that the Powhatan sail to Charleston instead. However, Lieutenant Porter sailed to Pensacola on orders of the President. Seward; sent a dispatch boat to intercept the Powhatan ordering Lieutenant Porter to give the Powhatan up to Captain Mercer. On April 6, Porter sent the following message to Seward: “I received my orders from the President, and shall proceed and execute them.”



During the conference with Baldwin, Lincoln demanded: “Why don’t you adjourn the Convention…It is a standing menace to me”. Baldwin refused Lincoln’s demands and warned Lincoln that: “If a gun is fired, Virginia will secede in 48 hours.” Of course, President Lincoln insured that war was inevitable and was perfectly aware of what he was doing prior to the meeting.



The Confederacy, officially recognized, though not publicly, by the United States Government as a Sovereign country entered into an Armistice agreement and extended every possible means to both establish and maintain peace with the United States. The fact that the Confederacy was so recognized raises extremely serious questions regarding the commonly held view that the Southern States were in rebellion or that the war was a Civil War, neither of which is the case.



The facts point to the mentality of a man, the ideology of a very Radical Republican Party and the desire for power. The United States Government, under the orders of Abraham Lincoln used treachery and deception, not only with the Confederate leadership, but with the American People, and Congress in order to ensure Lincoln’s secret scheme would succeed and war would be forced upon the South.



Shortly after the election of Lincoln, the Radical Republican Thaddeus Stevens stated, unbelievably, that the election of 1860 empowered Lincoln’s Party to enforce their political theories over the entire country regardless of the Constitutional validity of those theories, the rights of the Sovereign States or even the decisions of the Supreme Court.



On July 10, 1861, Congress, in a Joint Resolution was introduced in the Senate to legalize all of Lincoln’s Un-Constitutional acts. Congress had bought Lincoln’s ruse that the South had declared war on the United States of America. Though under the guise of Constitutional acceptability, there was, from that moment, no Government of the United States that was Constitutionally administered, and since that time the guise of Constitutionality continues to allow the government to operate completely outside the delegated authority of the Constitution.



Here is the absolution of Lincoln’s crimes as presented in the Joint Resolution, it is evident by the words themselves that both the House and Senate were well aware that Lincoln’s actions were Un-Constitutional, yet they proceeded to “legalize’ those actions: “Be it resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled, That all the extraordinary acts, proclamations, and orders hereinbefore mentioned be and the same are hereby approved, and DECLARED TO BE IN ALL RESPECTS LEGAL AND VALID, to the same, and with the same effect as if they had been issued and done under the previous express authority, and direction, of the Congress of the United States.”



It should be relatively easy to discern that by enacting such a resolution, Congress, in fact admitted that all of Lincoln’s actions, orders and proclamations were Un-Constitutional, illegal and utterly invalid!



In 1861, Lincoln ordered the writ of Habeas Corpus be suspended in Pennsylvania and Maryland. When John Merryman was arrested he sued out a writ of Habeas Corpus to be released, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney ordered the parties to appear before him in Baltimore, Maryland. The Chief Justice’s order was not heeded and the military officer which appeared before the Justice refused to supply the Court with a copy of the arrest warrant and also refused to obey the writ of Habeas Corpus because he was “authorized by the President to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus at his discretion, and, he suspends it in this case”.



Justice Taney heard the case, ex parte, and rendered the decision of the Court pronouncing the order of the President Un-Constitutional, null and void. He denied, and rightly so, that the President had any Constitutional authority whatsoever, to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus under any circumstances and additionally there was no authority within the Executive to delegate such authority to the discretion of a military officer to exercise such powers.



Lincoln’s response was to issue a warrant for the arrest of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; Taney should have expected nothing less from a man like Lincoln.



When Lincoln began to enforce conscription in 1863, one of the leading opponents was C. L. Vallandingham. Vallandingham was arrested, without the Constitutional Right afforded him by the writ of Habeas Corpus; he was later banished by Lincoln and escorted to the Confederate lines. A group of very prominent leaders in Ohio, Vallandingham’s State, petitioned Lincoln to release and Lincoln, seeking validation for his actions, offered to remit the sentence of Vallandingham if and only if those Ohio leaders would sign a statement that rebellion existed and that Constitutional measures were taken when the Army and Navy were used to suppress the rebellion. The Ohio leaders refused to sign the statement.



The bravery and Patriotism of Vallandingham became apparent when he later defied his banishment and returned to Ohio to become the leader of the Democratic Convention. Tens of thousands of innocent people were caught up in the dragnet of Martial Law, hundreds of newspapers were shut down or restricted in their publications; the true scope of abuses by Lincoln are astounding.



As horrifying as it must have been to live under such tyranny, it was terrifying to live in the path of the invading Union Army. The war crimes of Lincoln become apparent when reading the papers of General Sherman. In those papers were a complete strategy for terrorism, a war directed and waged against Southern women and children. Detailed instructions, along with illustrations for Union soldiers are among the papers of Sherman. Homes were first to be pillaged, and then burned along with all outbuildings, tools, supplies and all standing crops with all harvested crops confiscated for Army use. All livestock was to be slaughtered and confiscated or burned. In these disgusting and dishonorable papers, a particular interest was placed on the destruction of all family heirlooms, including bibles, pictures, clothes, wedding dresses and pianos.



Sherman had issued orders to “make the damned traitorous rebel women and children howl.” The war crimes against the Southern civilian population could fill volumes and the shame of those atrocities should cause anyone with a conscience to wonder the value of this Union when paid in such high costs. The official record is gripping, and surprisingly open concerning the crimes of the Union.



Lincoln’s actions, as always, contradicted his words. Lincoln’s extension of peace was always only lip service which concealed the true intent of the man and that intend was the absolute submission of the Free, Independent and Sovereign States, not only of the South, but of the entire country. Lincoln was a nationalist and a consolidationist who believed that the States were nothing more than provinces of the Central Government.



Indeed, the Radical Republicans had a long history of conspiring for the subjugation of the South. Their political theories were openly pronounced as anti-Constitutional. The Radical Republicans were heavy supporters of Legal Tender because they believed it was necessary for the subjugation of the Southern People by providing the federal government control over the source and type of currency used in the country. Prior to the inauguration of Lincoln, Congress passed a resolution denouncing the political theories of the Radical Republicans as violations of Constitutional principles; unfortunately it did little to stop the advance of the Radical influences in Congress.



The Radical influences were far greater and much more insidious than we understand. In the failed Revolution of 1848, Marxists from Germany sought refuge in the United States and oddly enough, their influences on the Radical Republican Party became very evident during the Lincoln Administration. During the election of 1860, the 1848 Revolutionaries were Lincoln Zealots and many were rewarded for their support of Lincoln’s campaign by instantly being appointed by Lincoln to very high military and government positions.



One such 1848 Marxist Revolutionary was Union General Fraz Sigel. When in Germany, he was a leader of the 1848 Revolution, of which the primary goal was to bring both Germany and France under the control, by force of arms, of a strong centralized socialist government.



Another appointment was Carl Schurz, he too was a Forty-Eighter and was credited for delivering over 300,000 German votes to Lincoln in 1860. Others were Louis Blenker, August Willich, Alexander Schimmelpfennig, Lorenz Brentano, Friedrich Hecker, Gustav von Struve, Wilhelm Weitling and Joseph Weydemeyer.



Most of these Marxist Revolutionaries, like Joseph Weydemeyer, refused to swear oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Due to these influences, it should be apparent that there was much more to the story of Lincoln. Indeed, if you look at many of the political theories of the Radical Republicans and the policies of Lincoln himself, you will find an eerie correlation between such political theories and Marxism, particular the Communist Manifesto.

Unchaining Ourselves From The Lincoln Myth: Things Your Teacher Never Taught You, Part Three

From Wolves of Liberty:

Unchaining Ourselves From The Lincoln Myth – Things Your Teacher Never Taught You Part 3




26. Jul, 2010 Comments (13)





By GJ Merits





“Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils. The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.”…Charles Dickens on the real catalyst for the Civil War



“The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty.”…Karl Marx



“Abraham Lincoln had one consuming passion during that time of crisis, and this was to preserve the Union … Towards that end, he broke laws, he violated the Constitution, he usurped arbitrary power, he trampled individual liberties.”…Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf during a national televised address on his justification to suspend his nation’s constitution and declare martial law.



“Lincoln, in order to maintain the unity of the United States … resorted to the use of force … so, I think Abraham Lincoln, president, is a model, is an example.”…1999 quote by Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji justifying his country’s suppression of Taiwan to President Bill Clinton.



“The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence . . . by the Articles of Confederation in 1778 . . . and establishing the Constitution. . . . It follows from these views that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union.”…Abraham Lincoln During His First Inaugural Address in 1861.



“The individual states of the American Union . . . could not have possessed any state sovereignty of their own. For it was not these states that formed the Union, on the contrary it was the Union which formed a great part of such so-called states.”…Adolf Hitler writing in Mein Kampf. Quote is found on page 566 of the 1999 Mariner/Houghton Mifflin edition.



The above quotations are the first shots in a salvo that places to rest the naive notion that Abraham Lincoln fought the Civil War to free the slaves or to preserve the Union. The case that Lincoln was a virulent racist has already been made here and here, and will continue to be made. That the President whose likeness sits among three great men in our nations history, namely George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Theodore Roosevelt should make everyone question the very process that encourages the inculcation of a mythology instead of historical accuracy. This and a memorial in DC is a testament not to Lincoln’s greatness but to a thorough and effective campaign of historical revisionism. Thankfully, this false rendering is exposed by many great historians and authors such as Thomas J. DiLorenzo and the African American icon Lerone Bennett, Jr., long-time editor of Ebony magazine, whose questioning of Honest Abe’s moniker as the “Great Emancipator” is based on twenty years of painstaking research and culminated in the book Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream.:





Lincoln is theology, not historiology. He is a faith, he is a church, he is a religion, and he has his own priests and acolytes, most of whom have a vested interest in [him] and who are passionately opposed to anybody telling the truth about him.



Lincoln’s abuse of the Constitution to usurp state power is well documented and the fact of state supremacy over federal powers is proven not only in this blog, but in many contemporary works and historical treatises and resolutions with lineages reaching back to the times of Founders such as Thomas Jefferson, and grudgingly admitted by Federalists as pointed out in Thomas E. Woods excellent work Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century.



While more will be said in future posts concerning state sovereignty, one excellent treatment of the subject can be found in the article by Brian McCandliss: Were the States Sovereign Nations?. Suffice to say the subject in my mind is put to rest. As a previous acolyte to the Lincoln myth, the immense difficulty for me to accept objective evidence and see the Lincoln behind the mask – a tyrant and racist whose contribution to American history put to truth the lie of federal supremacy over states – troubles me to this very day. That this task met with such difficulty is proof positive of the strength of propaganda spoon fed to young minds in classrooms across the nation, often by teachers who themselves did not think to question for a moment the falsehoods or airbrushed version of history they unwittingly communicated to their students. While it is certainly agreed that slavery was a blight upon the history of this country, that the freeing of the slaves could be accomplished without necessitating a war that cost the lives of over 600,000 Americans is discussed by Donald W. Miller, Jr. in his piece concerning the War for Southern Independence.



While Civil War is the accepted labeling of the hell unleashed by Lincoln upon the nation, as the intent of the war from the Confederate perspective was not to decide which side was to dominate the other under a single government, but rather a war for independence by the Confederate states from the Union, the labeling of such action as a Civil War is improper and misleading. The war itself was a War for Southern Independences and I utilize this terminology unless any referenced material uses the preferred moniker of current texts.



Donald W. Miller, Jr. titles his article A Jeffersonian View of the Civil War. By “Jeffersonian view” the author is referring to an comprehension of how those who understand the constitutional supremacy of states over the federal powers would view the War for Southern Independence. State supremacy and its transformation over the intervening years from the Constitution’s ratification to modern times to more resemble the British style of sovereignty (centralized power in the Parliament) is described succinctly and engagingly in Kevin Gutzman’s The Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to the Constitution (Politically Incorrect Guides).



Before continuing, I feel compelled to put a human face on the suffering caused by Lincoln, often described as the protector of liberty. It is widely known the President suspended the writ of habeas corpus, allowing him to imprison without trial those who disagreed with him. Many were held indefinitely, without knowledge of what charges, if any, were leveled upon them. Estimates of Lincoln’s political prisoners number as high as forty thousand, and many families were often unaware of the location of their loved ones. Such was the fate of one Captain Robert Tansill, U.S. Marine Corps, who served aboard the USS Congress. While on this ship, Captain Tansill read Lincoln’s inaugural address in 1861 and subsequently offered his resignation to the Secretary of the Navy Fideon Welles who refused it stating the Captain could not quit, instead firing the Captain and dismissing him on the spot. That evening Captain Tansill was arrested at Fort Lafayette. Repeated letters to the President asking for details of the charges went unanswered. It was then Captain Tansill’s wife asked for an interview with the President and received an audience. Her account of that meeting is informative and disturbing:





He spoke, still looking me full in the face, “I did receive that letter and it has got all the answer it will have.” Mr. President, I said, you are aware of the circumstances under which my husband was arrested – of his having just returned from sea after an absence of two years from his family and his being hurried of like a common felon to prison, without giving him any reason for it. Was it, I asked Sir, for any other reason than his having resigned? His face then turned perfectly livid. He jumped up from the table at which he as sitting and brought his clenched hand down hard upon it with an oath….He began to walk the room in violent excitement, stamping his feet, and averting his head from me….Mr. Lincoln, you understand, I hope that the only object of my call upon you was to ask if my husband’s letter had reached you, and I have received my answer! “You have most positively!” was his reply, with head turned from me. I took my little son by the hand, and closed the door, and thus shut away from my sight, I trust for evermore, the greatest despot and tyrant that ever ruled a nation.



Dresden James once stated, “The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves.” In order to ensure we do not willingly and in ignorance create the very web which is to entrap us, it is important we understand how we traversed the distance from liberty to serfdom. While the reasons are legion, many of which are covered on this blog, many at the Tenth Amendment Center and other organizations, and many by the books referenced above from Kevin Gutzman and Thomas Woods, the reason I wish to concentrate on for the remainder of this post is how the War for Southern Independence did much to usurp state power and displace it to the center, paving the way for a few despots in DC to force upon an unwilling populace the disaster that is ObamaCare. To be sure, other egregious legislation awaits us in the coming months, particularly during the lame duck session of Congress – rest assured – but laying the groundwork for nullification of unconstitutional laws relies on an understanding not only of the roles of states in the power structure of the Republic and the lack of utility of any other approach to solving the issues which face us, but an understanding of our founder’s intent as to what constitutes constitutional governance. This requires an understanding of how we have moved so far away from that vision, which leads us back once again to Lincoln. In the end, the truth of Lincoln leaves a bad taste in one’s mouth. Never again will I utter the words that, as a Republican, I am “from the party of Lincoln”. Such an utterance given the facts I am now only too aware of would put such a feeling of shame upon me that I should never recover.



Let us now visit the Jeffersonian view of the War for Southern Independence. From the article reference above by Donald W. Miller, Jr. (emphasis mine):





…In the standard account, the Civil War was an outcome of our Founding Fathers failure to address the institution of slavery in a republic that proclaimed in its Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal.” But was it really necessary to wage a four-year war to abolish slavery in the United States, one that ravaged half of the country and destroyed a generation of American men? Only the United States and Haiti freed their slaves by war. Every other country in the New World that had slaves, such as Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela, freed them in the 19th century peacefully.



The war did enable Lincoln to “save” the Union, but only in a geographic sense. The country ceased being a Union, as it was originally conceived, of separate and sovereign states. Instead, America became a “nation” with a powerful federal government. Although the war freed four million slaves into poverty, it did not bring about a new birth of freedom, as Lincoln and historians such as James McPherson and Henry Jaffa say. For the nation as a whole the war did just the opposite: It initiated a process of centralization of government that has substantially restricted liberty and freedom in America…



…The term Civil War is a misnomer. The South did not instigate a rebellion. Thirteen southern states in 1860-61 simply chose to secede from the Union and go their own way, like the thirteen colonies did when they seceded from Britain. A more accurate name for the war that took place between the northern and southern American states is the War for Southern Independence. Mainstream historiography presents the victors’ view, an account that focuses on the issue of slavery and downplays other considerations…



…Britain heralded the end of slavery, in the Western world at least, with its Bill of Abolition, passed in 1807. This Bill made the African slave trade (but not slaveholding) illegal. Later that year the United States adopted a similar bill, called the Act to Prohibit the Importation of Slaves, which prohibited bringing slaves into any port in the country, including into the southern slaveholding states. Congress strengthened this prohibition in 1819 when it decreed the slave trade to be a form of piracy, punishable by death. In 1833, Britain enacted an Emancipation Law, ending slavery throughout the British Empire, and Parliament allocated twenty million pounds to buy slaves’ freedom from their owners. The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer rightly described this action as one of the greatest acts of collective compassion in the history of humankind. This happened peacefully and without any serious slave uprisings or attacks on their former owners, even in Jamaica where a population of 30,000 whites owned 250,000 slaves.



The Constitution of the Confederate States of America prohibited the importation of slaves (Article I, Section 9). With no fugitive slave laws in neighboring states that would return fugitive slaves to their owners, the value of slaves as property drops owing to increased costs incurred to guard against their escape. With slaves having a place to escape to in the North and with the supply of new slaves restricted by its Constitution, slavery in the Confederate states would have ended without war. A slave’s decreasing property value, alone, would have soon made the institution unsustainable, irrespective of more moral and humanitarian considerations.



Here I would urge the reader to read The Untold History of Nullification: Resisting Slavery, just one example among many of how states used nullification and state supremacy to nullify fugitive slave laws. The irony should not be lost – that state supremacy and the use of nullification would have ended slavery without a costly war and the centralization of power away from the states and towards the federal government. Lincoln’s solution was to ignore the proper role of states and disabuse them of their rightful powers at a cost of over 600,000 lives and the death of liberty as envisioned by our founders. We see the result of such tyrannical thinking to this very day.





The rallying call in the North at the beginning of the war was “preserve the Union,” not “free the slaves.” Although certainly a contentious political issue and detested by abolitionists, in 1861 slavery nevertheless was not a major public issue. Protestant Americans in the North were more concerned about the growing number of Catholic immigrants than they were about slavery. In his First Inaugural Address, given five weeks before the war began, Lincoln reassured slaveholders that he would continue to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.



The Fugitive Slave Act required citizens of all states to assist federal officials with the apprehension of suspected runaway slaves and included large fines for anyone who aided a slave in their escape. The act also suspended habeas corpus and the right to a trial by jury for suspected slaves, and made their testimony non-admissible in court.





After 17 months of war things were not going well for the North, especially in its closely watched Eastern Theater. In the five great battles fought there from July 1861 through September 17, 1862, the changing cast of Union generals failed to win a single victory. The Confederate army won three: First Bull Run (or First Manassas) on July 21,1861; Seven Days – six major battles fought from June 25-July 1, 1862 during the Union army’s Peninsular Campaign that, in sum, amounted to a strategic Confederate victory when McClellan withdrew his army from the peninsula; and Second Bull Run (or Second Manassas) on August 29-30, 1862. Two battles were indecisive: Seven Pines (or Fair Oaks) on May 31-June 1, 1862, and Antietam (or Sharpsburg) on September 17, 1862. In the West, Grant took Fort Donelson on February 14, 1862 and captured 14,000 Confederate soldiers. But then he was caught by surprise in the battle of Shiloh (or Pittsburg Landing) on April 6-7, 1862 and lost 13,000 out of a total of 51,000 men that fought in this two-day battle. Sickened by the carnage, people in the North did not appreciate at the time that this battle was a strategic victory for the North. Then came Antietam on September 17, the bloodiest day in the entire war; the Union army lost more than 12,000 of its 60,000 troops engaged in the battle.



Did saving the Union justify the slaughter of such a large number of young men? The Confederates posed no military threat to the North. Perhaps it would be better to let the southern states go, along with their 4 million slaves. If it was going to win, the North needed a more compelling reason to continue the war than to preserve the Union. The North needed a cause for continuing the war, as Lincoln put the matter in his Second Inaugural Address, that was willed by God, where “the judgments of the Lord” determined the losses sustained and its outcome.



Five days after the Battle of Antietam, on September 22, 1862, Abraham Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation.



The Emancipation Proclamation was a “war measure,” as Lincoln put it. Foreign correspondents covering the war recognized it as a brilliant propaganda coup. Emancipation would take place only in rebel states not under Union control, their state sovereignty in the matter of slavery arguably forfeited as a result of their having seceded from the Union. The president could not abolish slavery; if not done at the state level, abolition would require a constitutional amendment. Slaveholders and their slaves in Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, Tennessee, and parts of Virginia and Louisiana occupied by Union troops were exempt from the edict. Slaves in the Confederacy would be “forever free” on January 1, 1863 – one hundred days after the Proclamation was issued – but only if a state remained in “rebellion” after that date. Rebel states that rejoined the Union and sent elected representatives to Congress before January 1, 1863 could keep their slaves. Such states would no longer be considered in rebellion and so their sovereignty regarding the peculiar institution would be restored. As the London Spectator put it, in its October 11, 1862 issue: “The principle [of the Proclamation] is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States.”



Regarding slaves in states loyal to the government or occupied by Union troops, Lincoln proposed three constitutional amendments in his December 1862 State of the Union message to Congress. The first was that slaves not freed by the Emancipation Proclamation be freed gradually over a 37-year period, to be completed by January 1, 1900. The second provided compensation to owners for the loss of their slave property. The third was that the government transport freed Blacks, at government expense, out of the country and relocate them in Latin America and Africa. Lincoln wrote that freed blacks need “new homes [to] be found for them, in congenial climes, and with people of their own blood and race.” For Lincoln, emancipation and deportation were inseparably connected. Secretary of the Navy Gideon Wells wrote in his diary that Lincoln “thought it essential to provide an asylum for a race which he had emancipated, but which could never be recognized or admitted to be our equals.” As historian Leone Bennett Jr. puts it in his book Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream (2000), “It was an article of faith to him [Lincoln] that emancipation and deportation went together like firecrackers and July Fourth, and that you couldn’t have one without the other.”…



…Black and White Americans sustained racial and political wounds from the war and the subsequent Reconstruction that proved deep and long lasting. Northern abolitionists wanted southern Black slaves to be freed, but certainly did not want them to move north and live alongside them. Indiana and Illinois, in particular, had laws that barred African-Americans from settling. The military occupation and “Reconstruction” the South was forced to endure after the war also slowed healing of the wounds. At a gathering of ex-confederate soldiers shortly before he died in 1870, Robert E. Lee said,





If I had foreseen the use those people [Yankees] designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in my right hand.



Why were business and political leaders in the North so intent on keeping the southern states in the Union? It was, to paraphrase Charles Dickens, solely a fiscal matter. The principal source of tax revenue for the federal government before the Civil War was a tariff on imports. There was no income tax, except for one declared unconstitutional after its enactment during the Civil War. Tariffs imposed by the federal government not only accounted for most of the federal budget, they also raised the price of imported goods to a level where the less-efficient manufacturers of the northeast could be competitive. The former Vice-President John C. Calhoun put it this way:





The North had adopted a system of revenue and disbursements in which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation has been imposed upon the South, and an undue proportion of its proceeds appropriated to the North… the South, as the great exporting portion of the Union, has in reality paid vastly more than her due proportion of the revenue.



In March 1861, the New York Evening Post editorialized on this point:



That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the port must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe. There will be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our navy afloat; nothing to pay the salaries of public officers; the present order of things must come to a dead stop.



Given the serious financial difficulties the Union would face if the Southern states were a separate republic on its border engaging in duty-free trade with Britain, the Post urged the Union to hold on to its custom houses in the Southern ports and have them continue to collect duty. The Post goes on to say that incoming ships to the “rebel states” that try to evade the North’s custom houses should be considered as carrying contraband and be intercepted.



Money. The real reason for 600,000 deaths, for tyranny, for absconding with state’s rights and trampling on liberty. Keeping the Union together meant saving it from bankruptcy. To this end, Lincoln assured the first shot was fired at Fort Sumter. By God, he would have his war:





Lincoln coerced the South to fire the first shots when, against the initial advice of most of his cabinet, he dispatched ships carrying troops and munitions to resupply Fort Sumter, site of the customs house at Charleston. Charleston militia took the bait and bombarded the fort on April 12, 1861. After those first shots were fired the pro-Union press branded Southern secession an “armed rebellion” and called for Lincoln to suppress it.



The rest, as they say, is history. Except not the history you and I were taught.



When I turned eighteen I received my American citizenship. I lived in Oklahoma at the time and that day forever lives in memory. A man gave a speech just prior to the oath swearing ceremony. He chocked up during that speech, and almost was unable to finish. A legal immigrant moved to tears that finally he and his family lived in the most free country under God’s blue skies. As a Canadian, I spent my years eating up American history and still recall many a teacher’s reverent testament of “Honest Abe”.



It has taken over twenty-five years for me to break this spell. With the rise to power of Obama and the liberals in Congress I see first hand the scars of tyranny. I see the futility of the usual approaches to taking back our country – federal elections, appealing to federal courts, hoping that somebody will just listen to us. As every cloud has a silver lining, for me this was the realization over many months that our power structure is upside down. Many of the posts on this site are dedicated to this theme.



I am now aware of nullification and what it means. I know, beyond a doubt, that our only remedy against federal expansion is to return this country back to its original foundations, that it is for us to realize that nullification is the pathway back to constitutional governance as envisioned by our Founders. Those that resist this truism do not see the irony of their position. They say that nullification is a fringe movement. Is it fringe to recognize our shirking influence under the thumb of tyranny? If it is fringe, it is not in spirit that it is so, but only in numbers. If it is fringe, it is from lack of knowledge and historical context, not because the concept itself is widely known and rejected. What the detractors don’t realize is that nullification is the only tactic that historically worked! Never in history has government shrank due to elections – never. Never has a group of lawyers consistently freed us from the grip of federal power. While the Supreme Court sometimes rules in our favor, it does not do so consistently and often does so for the wrong reasons, even if the result is desirable. We cannot rely of federal powers to limit themselves. One may as well kiss their own lips or touch the tip of their right index finger with the tip of their right index finger. The logic itself is circuitous and relies on a faith in human nature that just is not there.



Those in power do not willingly give up that power. If such a man or woman exists, they are the exception to the rule that power corrupts. Statism is destroyed when states band together and throw off the shackles they themselves allowed in the first place. Statism only works then the people are complicit in its execution. When the population awakens to a new reality, the Statists cannot maintain their illusion, for it is our belief in the federal supremacy meme that is the fuel of tyranny. Take away the fuel and the car rushing towards the cliff of fiscal doom quickly runs out of its source of power. Those who decry the use of nullification say it is the tool of those who wish to bring back the institution of slavery, or that nullification is the same as secession. Nothing could be more – to put it bluntly – idiotic and further from the truth and such nonsense is dealt with conclusively in the work of Thomas Woods.



So go ahead and vote in November as it will slow down the march to doom if Republicans win back a majority in the House and Senate, but do not be fooled this action will reverse the growth of government. No party will ever accomplish this. It is we the people whose self-reliance and use of the powers granted to us under the Constitution who must prevail. It is up to us to execute the task that many claim is impossible. Do not listen to them. This is America, and our lasting testament to the world is that, for this great country, nothing is impossible.



Attempting to slow down the growth of government, to arrest tyranny, and to gain liberty by appealing to federal powers to restrict themselves is as fruitless as attempting to drink the ocean with a fork. You’ll be at it until the day you die.



I prefer to live in freedom.



Knowledge is the enemy of tyranny. Therefore, I urge the reader to look into the Nullify Now tour by the Tenth Amendment Center. Thomas Woods and others will be speaking about how to use nullification to take back our country from the despots in DC. Find an area near you. If you cannot make it, forward information about the event to your friends and family. It starts now. This is the hill we live or die on. Please note I am not affiliated with the Tenth Amendment Center. While some of my posts have appeared on the website for the Texas chapter, I receive no money or other form of compensation. I truly believe in what the TAC stands for. They are the future of this Republic and their knowledge will be priceless in the coming months and years. Nullification – it’s about redistribution of power – not wealth.



Postscript: This post, having already reached a much greater length than anticipated, will be continued at a later date. While what remains to be discussed will take a much smaller amount of space, I feel additional evidence that puts to rest the lie that President Lincoln fought his war to preserve the Union for the sake of preservation only can wait for another time. I do encourage everyone to read in its entirety A Jeffersonian View of the Civil War.

Revisiting Lincoln: Things Your Teacher Never Told You, Part Two

From Wolves of Liberty:

Revisiting Lincoln – Things Your Teacher Never Told You Part 2




10. May, 2010 Comments (9)





By GJ Merits





It is interesting to note how entrenched the mythology of Lincoln is. After my previous post, a moderator at one site where I often cross-post threatened to remove any further posts concerning Lincoln. He accused me of being on an anti-Lincoln crusade. It was quite obvious from the remark the moderator never took the time to even read the post. The immediate knee-jerk reaction from a supposed educated man is quite telling. Here, I back up even further my statements in the previous post. A follow up article will finish my thoughts on Lincoln as we continue our journey by going back to the beginning to events leading up to and including the ratification of our Constitution. There are many other places to visit as well. Myths abound and lurk in every nook and cranny of our so-called education system, infecting even conservative sites with propaganda and a twisted sense of political correctness.



Is this an anti-Lincoln crusade? Hardly. It is, rather, a truth crusade. A quick Google search of the moderator in question turned up an interesting amount of information that lead me to the conclusion the moderator dominates others to the same extent that power dominates him – lending credence to the old idiom that power corrupts. Why Lincoln? Because he is pivotal to the transference of state powers to the federal government – something anathema to the Constitution itself. Putting Lincoln in perspective is the first step towards unraveling the political myth the left uses in classrooms across the country today. A few interesting pieces – one by the African American icon Lerone Bennett, Jr, longtime managing editor of Ebony magazine and author of a biography of Martin Luther King, Jr., What Manner of Man and another referenced below seal the case.



MLK’s passive-aggressive non-violent civil disobedience campaign greatly interests me, as does the man himself. It was Gandhi and MLK that made an art of non-violence and its use in achieving political ends. Anyone who knows me recognizes my affinity for using this approach to achieve our own political goals of taking back power from the Statists and placing it back in the hands of people.



Before continuing with Mr. Bennett’s insightful analysis, I would like to turn the reader’s attention to the following article that clarifies the importance of education in shaping a political mythology. Any website that is serious about taking this country back recognizes that it starts with the mind, that liberal control of education is primary in shaping future trends in propagating political myths:





Every time I make some passing reference in print to the tyrant Lincoln, as I did a few weeks ago, a fair number of readers insist on proving the dangers of letting unionized government functionaries “educate” our children.



I believe we can confidently presume most who rail “Such a bizarre and outlandish statement proves what dangerous wackos Suprynowicz and his conservative pals are!” (I’m a libertarian; I’ve never claimed to be a “conservative”) are government-school ex-inmates.



I dare say they have read no legitimate scholarship on “Honest Abe” since hearing him praised decades ago in a room smelling of poster paints and waxed sawdust floor-sweeping compound as a “strong leader who saved the nation and ended slavery” by a government employee with a vested interest in seeing the state continue to tax our parents (and now us) within an inch of our lives to fund today’s largest remaining American institution of compulsion, incarceration, and propaganda – the “public schools.”



So why threaten to censure this? While the moderator and owner of the site in question have every right to control the content of their site, I also have every right to question any decision that aids the propagation of mythologies so powerful they have shaped this country into what it is today and will continue to do so. As long as these myths are allowed to propagate, no amount of good deeds will bring back Constitutional governance until we remove the cancer – liberal control of education – from the dying patient.



From the Lew Rockwell article about Lerone Bennett, Jr. (emphasis mine):





The gigantic collection of myths, lies, and distortions that comprise The Legend of Abraham Lincoln is the ideological cornerstone of the American warfare/welfare state. It has been invoked for generations to make the argument that if the policies of the U.S. government are not “the will of God,” then at least they are the will of “Father Abraham.” Moreover, this legend – this false history of America – did not arise spontaneously. It was invented and nurtured by an intergenerational army of court historians who, as Murray Rothbard once said, are absolutely indispensable to any government empire. All states, said Rothbard, depend for their existence on a series of myths about their benevolence, heroism, greatness, or even divinity.



Since very few Americans have spent much time educating themselves about Lincoln and nineteenth-century American history (much of which has been falsified anyway), it is easy for members of what I call the Lincoln Cult to dismiss all literary criticisms of Lincoln as the work of “neo-Confederates,” their code-word for “defenders of slavery” (as though anyone in America today would defend slavery), or “racist.” Although they label themselves “Lincoln scholars,” the last thing they want is honest scholarship when it comes to the subject of Lincoln and his war. They are, at best, cover-up artists and pandering court historians who feed at the government grant trough, “consuming” tax dollars to support their “research” and their overblown university positions.



But they’ve got a big problem (more than one, actually). The big problem is the publication of a 662-page book by the distinguished African-American author Lerone Bennett, Jr. entitled Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream. The book was originally published in 1999 and was recently released in paperback. Bennett was a longtime managing editor of Ebony magazine and, among other things, the author of a biography of Martin Luther King, Jr., What Manner of Man. Although several “Civil War” publications have labeled yours truly as the preeminent Lincoln critic of our day, Forced into Glory is a much more powerful critique of Dishonest Abe than anything I have ever written. The Lincoln Cult, which would not dare to personally attack a serious African-American scholar like Bennett, has largely ignored the book instead.



When they are not ignoring the book and hoping that it (and the author) would just go away, they “have responded by recycling the traditional Lincoln apologies,” writes Bennett. (Being a “Lincoln scholar” means taking some of Lincoln’s unsavory words and deeds, such as his lifelong support for the policy of “colonization” or deportation of all black people in America, and dreaming up excuses for why he was supposedly “forced” into taking that position).



Bennett argues that “academics and [the] media had been hiding the truth for 135 years and that Lincoln was not the great emancipator or the small emancipator or the economy-sized emancipator.” He presents chapter and verse of how the Emancipation Proclamation freed no one, since it only applied to “rebel territory,” and specifically exempted all the slave-owning/Union-controlled border states and other areas that were occupied by the U.S. army at the time. He quotes James Randall, who has been called the “greatest Lincoln scholar of all time,” as writing, “the Proclamation itself did not free a single slave.” It was the Thirteenth Amendment that finally ended slavery, he correctly notes, and Lincoln was dragged into accepting it kicking and screaming all the way…



… Why, one would ask, is such a distinguished African-American journalist so incensed over the Lincoln myth? It is because of his twenty years of painstaking research, resulting in this book, that proves, among other things, what a vulgar racist Lincoln was. Bennett provides quote after quote of Lincoln’s own words, habitually using the N-word so much that people in Washington thought he was weirdly consumed by his racism. Bennett tells of first-hand accounts by some of Lincoln’s generals of how they left a meeting with him during a crisis in the war in which the president spent most of his time in the meeting telling off-color “darkie” jokes (Lincoln’s language). General James Wadsworth, for example, was “shocked by the racism in the Lincoln White House.”



I will not repeat any of this language here; suffice it to say that Bennett has scoured Lincoln’s Collected Works and demonstrates that he used the N-word about as frequently as your modern-day “gangster rapper” does. Bennett also describes how this has all been covered up by the Lincoln Cult. Despite the hundreds of examples that are right there in black and white in Lincoln’s own speeches, “Carl Sandburg, who spent decades researching Lincoln’s life, denied that Lincoln used the N-word.” And “Harold Holzer, who edited a collection of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, was surprised that Lincoln used the N-word twice in the first Lincoln-Douglas debate.” (Lincoln personally edited the transcripts of the debates, so there is no question that he said these things).



Read the entire article.



This is truth – not an anti-Lincoln crusade. Anyone who believes this information does not have a place in public discourse needs to have their head examined. We are talking about a serial pattern of abuse whereby our children and young adults are indoctrinated into thinking in a certain way. Mr. Bennett understands the need for truth.



Unless one wants to accuse Mr. Bennett of being on an anti-Lincoln crusade as well. Any takers?

Lincoln The Racist: What Your Teacher Never Told You, Part One

From Wolves of Liberty:

Lincoln The Racist: What Your Teacher Never Told You Part I




07. May, 2010 Comments (17)





By GJ Merits







“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”…Abraham Lincoln.



Source: Why the Civil War Came



Education is the cornerstone of any well rounded individual and in the aggregate sets the stage for understanding our past, learning from our mistakes, and being able to recognize patterns in contemporary events. When education is turned into a propaganda tool, we all lose – at least those who resist tyranny.



“To the victors go the spoils” is an idiom of great wisdom about cultural dominance and the evolution of political systems, but also the revisionism required to keep up appearances and buttress the prevailing ideology. Such is the history of our country. Statism exists today due to a long train of abuses from the early days of our Republic, through the Marshall court and subsequent Supreme Courts, the tyrannical rule of Abraham Lincoln, the New Deal of President Franklin Roosevelt, progressive politics, and the so-called “compassionate conservatism” of George W. Bush. Truth be told, the government grew – even under Ronald Reagan.



Today we are taught a history so chalked full of half-truths and outright obfuscations it is no wonder the federal government’s growth into a power behemoth continues unchallenged. Many of us are completely unaware that the Constitution as intended by our founders defines state’s rights in such a way as to trump federal powers. In other words, the final arbiter of the constitution is not the Supreme Court, but the states. Even secession is legal and the Civil War, inaptly named as it did not involve two factions attempting to take over the government of an entire country but rather was a War for Southern Independence where the South wanted to be its own country, did not settle the matter. More on that in future posts. So prevalent is the myth that secession is illegal that Justice Scalia, one of the more conservative voices on the Supreme Court today, repeats this myth. However, I do not advocate secession and will deal with the subject from a strictly legal perspective in a later article in this series.



What your teacher never told you will cover a lot of ground in the coming months. It is meant to expose real American history and combat the progressive revisionism required to keep the Statist agenda and ideological myth alive and well. The first topic will be Abraham Lincoln himself. Everything I state in this post is factual and I challenge anyone, historian or scholar, to refute it. Future posts on Abraham Lincoln will out the President as a tyrant admired by Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf and expose the War for Southern Independence as a war not to free the slaves but rather as an economic and cultural war designed to destroy the Southern culture and consolidate power. The second case is partially made in this post, but a great deal more data exists that will be covered in future writings in this series. So let’s start with the fact that Abraham Lincoln – or Honest Abe as we have been taught to call him – was actually a white supremacist. If this shocks you, it should – I certainly was. However, facts are facts. What you are about to read will make you very uncomfortable and start you on a path to challenge everything you have been taught. I hope you will check the facts and convince yourself – don’t take my word for it. That is how the progressives operate, not me. I don’t want to control you, but empower you, so check out everything I write. Free your mind.



Every political system is maintained by a myth that justifies its existence. Without such a myth, submission to the power of the state by its subjects could not be accomplished. As long as one believes in the evolution of the dictatorship of the proletariat, a Marxist system is able to justify its repression without regards to the level of cruelty, suffering, and loss of human life. The metric used against any argument that justifies the existence of the state is the dominant myth that expresses the entrenched beliefs of the society to which it belongs. In short, the myth must be propagandized. Today in this country, this propaganda is carried out by primarily by liberal media and our system of education.



Vigilance is required to keep the imperial power from pacifying the population. The imperial power in this case is the Union as defined in the War for Southern Independence. In classrooms across this country, students are convinced in the righteousness of the Northern cause, that the South is better off because it lost the war, and a sense of shame is instilled in students in Southern schools that carry on into their adulthood, forever destroying any sense of cultural identity. Slavery is wrong – of that most of us will agree – but President Lincoln’s attitude towards slavery changes as it fits his needs. Deeds and words before the war vs. during the war differ greatly and were tied to strategies to win the war by redefining a war of conquest and control as a moral war against slavery. Therefore, his statements concerning black men and women are critical in understanding his true intentions. As will be demonstrated below, these views were blatantly racist – not bordering on it – but full-fledged and in your face. If children were taught real history, and in particular, were introduced to the real Lincoln, many would begin to seriously question why a memorial exists for an tyrant and racist in DC and why his face is carved on Mt. Rushmore. It would become apparent just how well the victors propagandized the myth.



Lest the reader think I am alleging a well coordinated conspiracy of grand proportions – an argument often used by detractors wishing to keep your attention focused on the myth and away from truth – I’ll cut them off at the knees right now. Once a society accepts a myth, it propagates itself. It is the propaganda weapon par excellence as it requires no defense. Challenge the myth and you are easily dismissed as racist, heartless, against the little guy, for big business, or insert your favorite liberal talking point here. I would now like to introduce to you President Abraham Lincoln, white supremacist and racist.



I’ll let Lincoln’s words and actions speak for themselves. One cannot do better than allow the communication and deeds of the subject under scrutiny to define and elucidate their true nature. It then is up to the establishment myth makers to attempt their Cirque du Soleil intellectual contortions that usually start with the context argument. The gauntlet I throw down to such rebuttals is simple – put it in context then. The result – they can’t and will often bury their argument deeper and deeper, becoming unwilling assistants to destroying the prevailing myth and buttressing the original point at the expense of any counterpoints. Truth wins, they lose – a rather simple formula. In Lincoln’s own words:



During a speech to Charleston, Illinois in 1858, Lincoln said:





I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man.



If you are sitting there with you mouth open, you are not alone. Let’s continue:



In a letter to James C. Conkling dated August 26, 1863 Lincoln wrote:





I thought that in your struggle for the Union, to whatever extent the negroes should cease helping the enemy, to that extent it weakened the enemy in his resistance to you. Do you think differently? I thought that whatever negroes can be got to do as soldiers, leaves just so much less for white soldiers to do, in saving the Union. Does it appear otherwise to you? But negroes, like other people, act upon motives. Why should they do any thing for us, if we will do nothing for them? If they stake their lives for us, they must be prompted by the strongest motive—even the promise of freedom. And the promise being made, must be kept.



Translation: Provide a carrot to the slaves that will motivate them to fight and die for you to meet your own ends. They are the means to your goal of dominance. Manipulate them, use them, do whatever is necessary, but get the slaves to fight for you. And this is just the tip of the tyrannical iceberg, so to speak. No wonder Hitler talks admirably about Lincoln in Mein Kampf.



Lincoln’s 1836 vote against black suffrage and his refusal to sign a petition to allow black testimony in courts are just two examples of a trend of behavior pointing strongly to racism. He was also a strong supporter of colonizing freed slaves, believing they could never assimilate into American society. And here is a doozy – President Lincoln actually favored an amendment to the constitution allowing the purchase and deportation of slaves and ordered the State Department to look into possible locations for settlement such as Haita, Ecuador, and the Amazon.



In August 14th, 1862 Lincoln addressed a black audience:





But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or the other. Nevertheless, I repeat, without the institution of Slavery and the colored race as a basis, the war could not have an existence [blame the victim].



It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated. …I suppose one of the principal difficulties in the way of colonization is that the free colored man cannot see that his comfort would be advanced by it. You may believe you can live in Washington or elsewhere in the United States the remainder of your life, perhaps more so than in any foreign country, and hence you have come to the conclusion that you have nothing to do with the idea of going to a foreign country. This is (I speak in no unkind sense) an extremely selfish view of the case.



Also a little known fact is that the Emancipation Proclamation did not free all slaves, but only slaves not under Union control. By the end of the war, over 500,000 slaves had escaped to the North and 200,000 of them joined and fought with the Union. This single act alone helped the Union win the war and provided an extra added benefit. It helped turn the war from an act of aggression by the Union for control over the Southern states and its economy into a moral crusade and re-defined the war as a war about slavery. This, along with other reasons related to cotton trade with Britain and France, lead to those countries throwing their support behind the Union. By the end of the war, the Thirteenth Amendment freed all the slaves and became the carrot referenced above.



Today we have a memorial – to a racist and a white supremacist. His face sits on Mt. Rushmore as one of the great figures in American history. The mythology continues to be taught in our schools and many of us, myself until recently, believed that narrative. However, now that America is waking up, perhaps it is time to revisit our history, to ensure our children are taught the truth and that we ourselves are armed with knowledge. Once the myths are exposed, the entire edifice collapses.



Our march to freedom from the Statist ideology starts with an understanding of what the constitution really says in the absence of not just progressive revisionism, but that of so-called right leaning revisionists who sit in positions of federal power and continue to propagate the myth that national power trumps state power. We have been lead to believe in this falsehood, resulting in a growing federal government under both parties at the expense of our own self-power and right to self-governance. Once we begin to peel back the onion, only then will we see that putting our hopes for a future of liberty into the hands of federal judges, politicians, and a few lawyers is a recipe for disaster. Only when we realize the myth tells us that our type of leader will make a difference – that they won’t be corrupted by the Beltway culture when every piece of objective evidence screams to the contrary – only then will we realize that non-violent passive-aggressive civil disobedience, nullification, and other tools will be required to truly win this country back. The longer we wait, the more time we waste and the less chance we have. History has provided us with an opportunity and the window to snatch back liberty is short and closing. Time is our enemy, for we do forget, and like cattle being lead to the slaughter, we will fall in line because we know of no other way. The myth will become our reality. The Republic will fall.



When in doubt, check your premise against the myth. If it fits, you are probably doing something wrong. If you resort to making excuses or detracting from effective tactics then stop and think. Somebody else does not write our rules of engagement – we do – and if we write them in such a way as to cutoff a perfectly good strategy such as nullification or non-violent civil disobedience we have nobody but ourselves to blame when we lose.



Read part 2 of the series here. The amount of information on Lincoln’s racist attitudes is stunning and the follow-on piece discusses Lerone Bennett Jr.’s 20 year study of Lincoln. Lerone Bennett Jr. was editor of Ebony magazine for many years and is a well respected icon in the African American community. His expose of Lincoln is scathing and very effective. To liberals Mr. Bennett is beyond reproach, which puts them in a very uncomfortable and untenable position when attempting any defense of their revisionist history.



Sources and books of interests:





◦The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War







◦Lincoln Reconsidered: Essays on the Civil War Era







◦Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe







◦The Politically Incorrect Guide To American History



The Sesquicentennial Is Upon Us

From Lew Rockwell.com:

The Sesquicentennial Is Upon Us




by Kirkpatrick Sale



Recently by Kirkpatrick Sale: Getting Back to the ‘Real’ Constitution – Fagettaboutit











As an editor at large, I get to be considerably at large and so I am in fact living these days across the Cooper River from Charleston, South Carolina. That was the place, as you may remember, where the phenomenon erroneously called the “Civil War” began some 150 years ago, and where some folks now are determined to remember what went on and some others are determined to protest whatever went on then and is going on now.



It seems to have become something of a national issue, and being in a good position to take a look at the events this spring commemorating the sesquicentennial of what they like to call “the late unpleasantness,” I thought I’d try to shed a little light amid the considerable murkiness of ignorance all around.



But first I think it’s important to remember that the secession that took place 150 years ago was in a grand old American tradition. The American “Revolution” was, in fact, a war of secession – 13 colonies breaking away from the British Empire – not a war of conquest, and most of the Founding Fathers understood that to be a given right when they created the Articles and then the Constitution. The creation of the Republic of Vermont in 1777 was another act of secession, from both New Hampshire and New York. And just 25 years after the new nation was born, representatives from all New England states (only one from Vermont) met at a convention in Hartford to consider secession from the United States if their grievances against President Madison’s conduct of the war of 1812 and limitations on Atlantic trade were not satisfied; in the event, they did not vote for secession, but its spirit was in the air.





So in that context, let’s make clear that what began 150 years ago this April was not a true civil war, except in the sense that there were two sides in one country, because there was no attempt by one side to take over the other, as in the more familiar English civil war between Parliament and Charles I. The South did not want to run the Union, it wanted out of the Union. That makes it a war of secession (similar to the war of 1775-1783) or, as various forms have it, the War of Southern Secession, the War Between the States, the War of Northern Aggression, or the War to Prevent Southern Independence – all more accurate than “Civil War.”



Next, let’s see who really began it. The first conflict had to do with Washington’s unwillingness to give up Federal forts and bases in states that had declared their independence, or even to negotiate some kind of settlement. After declaring independence in December 1860, South Carolina sent two delegations to Washington with the express purpose of working out terms, including monetary compensation, for the turning over of Federal outposts in Charleston Harbor, including Fort Sumter. Refusing to negotiate, President Buchanan in January sent ships with 200 troops intending to restock and reinforce Fort Sumter, an island only four miles from downtown Charleston. The first one was fired on and forced to turn back, and the South looked for some reconciliation. But when Lincoln took office two months later he still refused to negotiate and, a month after saying he had no intention of invading the South, accomplished that in effect by ordering a second flotilla of armed supply ships to force its way into the harbor.



Upon learning of the second fleet, in what seemed a clear and deliberate act of war, the government of South Carolina repeatedly demanded that the Unionists in the fort surrender. When they refused, the Carolina battalions gave warning on April 12, and after an hour began firing. The fort, low on munitions as well as provisions, finally surrendered the next day, the soldiers were transported by Confederate steamers to Union ships outside the harbor, and the only casualties were two Union soldiers that blew themselves up by accident during a cannon salute during the lowering of the U.S. flag.







Exactly what Lincoln wanted. It mattered not who committed the first act of war, which was the North, but who fired the first shot; that would work in the Union propaganda machines sufficiently to have it understood not only in the North but in the Border States and territories that the South had started the war. A Union invasion of a revolutionary Confederacy that fired first seemed only a fit and proper response.





Which in turn brings up the next nettlesome issue that always surrounds this issue: slavery, and the motive for Northern invasion.



In fact, after the fall of Fort Sumter the Union armies descended on the South in 1861, or tried to, in order to put down what Lincoln held to be a revolution by a federation of states that had illegally left the Federal compact. They did not, nor would their generals or soldiers have even so formulated it, invade the South to eliminate slavery, in the cause of abolition, or for the liberation of Negroes. It was not formally or informally, in the minds of either the Union armies or their civilian instigators, a war about slavery.



The great myth that the Union was fighting for a high moral cause, the elimination of chattel slavery and freedom for four million oppressed people torn from Africa, was ultimately a very convenient falsehood that served Northern ends later on in the war, particularly in distorting world opinion so that neither England nor France, though they might have had some allegiance to the cause of independence, were able to take the side of the Confederacy. But even then, the ultimate welfare of black Americans and their peaceful economic and social integration into white American society was never, but to a tiny few – and certainly not to Lincoln or his government – a moral (or even political) principle even thought much less expressed. The deep racism of the American North, though the victors would try to go on to forget it, was as dark a stigma against the Union as anything it would project on the South.





And the Emancipation Proclamation? Well, in the first place, it had nothing to do with slavery, per se. It did not abolish slavery. It decreed that slaves in the Confederacy only were to be free, but not those elsewhere in the Union or the territories (Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri all had slavery, as well as Washington, D.C., until 1862). It was at bottom a military ploy, hoping to create rebellion and civil unrest on the South’s plantations at a time when the war was not going all that well for the Union. (“It has no constitutional or legal justification, except as a military measure,” its creator acknowledged.) It had no particular moral implications, and it made no provision for how the liberation was to be effected, what would happen to the slaves after they were emancipated, what the slaves would in fact do for a living, or even where they were to go if they left the plantations that had been their home for generations. (They could not, incidentally, go north, because no state there would welcome them and a good many, including Lincoln’s own Illinois, had laws forbidding immigration and settlement of Negroes.) Unlike a number of serious schemes that had been proposed, North and South, before the war, the Proclamation did not deal with necessary issues of compensation for deprived slave-owners, integration of ex-slaves politically or economically into white societies, or even for their deportation to Africa, an idea that Lincoln in particular had favored. It was, in short, a military ploy without moral or humanitarian foundation.





Finally, we should understand that the issue of slavery, strictly, was not the cause of Southern secession or the reason for the war on the Confederate side. The South did not want to protect slavery from a Northern attempt to abolish it, because no such attempt was ever intended or expressed by any serious party, and indeed Congress in 1861 had explicitly defended the continuance of the institution in the South. Nor did the South want to extend slavery into the Western territories, because it was clear it was neither a useful nor a welcome practice there, and besides when it formed the Confederacy it no longer had any constitutional claim to influence in those sections.



What the South wanted was to continue an economic system that it had inherited for 200 years, that had been fostered and maintained by Northern interests (particularly New England shippers and textile barons) that entire time, that had been the foundation of the United States economy both North and South from the beginning of the nation, and that was a way of life now so entrenched no one knew how to alter or ameliorate it even if, like quite a few, they wished to do so. And the South wanted to be free of Northern interference: the continued attempts by abolitionists (as John Brown in 1859) to foster slave rebellions and terrorism in the South, the refusal of Northern states to return illegal runaway slaves (or to return Brown’s companions who had fled North), the threat of increased tariffs on Southern goods, the stated purpose of the new Republican party to expand federal power in the interest of Northern industrialists, and the clear perception that Lincoln had come into office with a hidden agenda of limiting if not eliminating Southern influence on the national scene (he was elected with not a single Southern electoral vote).



So, is all that clear? Now we can go on with four more years of sesquicentennial commemorations without all the myths and misunderstandings. Maybe.





Reprinted from Vermont Commons.















April 19, 2011



Kirkpatrick Sale [send him mail], scholar and prolific writer, heads the Middlebury Institute.







Thursday, April 21, 2011

Modern Day Slavery, 150 Years Later

From America's Right:

Modern Day Slavery, 150 Years Later








April 12, 2011 by Jeff Schreiber

Filed under News & Views





I’ve heard it described as “The War Between the States,” “The War for States Rights,” “The War for Southern Independence,” and even “The War of Northern Aggression,” but until last night–the eve of the 150th anniversary of the first shots being fired–I have never, ever, ever heard the Civil War referred to as “The War of White Supremacy.”



But that’s exactly what the Rev. Nelson B. Rivers, III, vice president for stakeholder relations for the NAACP, called it during a press conference yesterday afternoon as he and his associates voiced their discontent over the upcoming sesquicentennial celebration. See the report from our local CBS affiliate here in Charleston:

http://www.live5news.com/category/195958/video-landing-page?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=5743754





“Of course, the NAACP’s view is not that the war was about states’ rights, but rather that it was about states’ wrongs,” Rivers said. “Where would we be if the South had won the War of White Supremacy to maintain slavery?”



I attended elementary, middle and high school in the suburbs of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and, while I was fortunate enough to have benefited from an absolutely fantastic public school district in Radnor Township, the very concept of states rights figured into my education about the Civil War then about as much as alfalfa sprouts figure in to my diet today. Growing up and attending school there in a blue end of a perfectly purple state–Pennsylvania is essentially Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between–the history books pinned the cause of the war and the passion of the confederacy squarely on the issue of perpetuating slavery.



Yes, slavery was indeed an issue during that time, but the Emancipation Proclamation was not delivered until approximately two years into the conflict, by a president that would have left the issue of slavery well enough alone if he could have kept the union together without touching upon it — instead, Lincoln found himself in a situation in which the moral outrage was needed in order to gin up support for the Union cause. Before that, in the years leading up to the war and during the first two years of bloody conflict, the issue of slavery was merely one issue which provided context for the bigger issue of the state sovereignty and the states’ nullification of federal law.



Nevertheless, as you know, history books are written by the winners, and so it should be no surprise that the soundbite leading the evening news on the eve of the anniversary of the start of the Civil War here in Charleston chastised the modern day South for “celebrating” the “horrors of the Civil War” and the “barbaric enslavement of human beings that led to the war.”



Nor should it be surprising that the organization responsible for said soundbite is the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, an organization which traditionally sits square in the corner of big government liberals and progressives and, by extension, advocates in favor of politics and policies that stifle the growth and potential of the very people they purport to advance. In discounting the importance of states’ rights, not only for its role in bringing about the Civil War but for its relevance in the context of today’s political debate, the NAACP is once again taking the side of the federal government, an institution that continues to enslave African-Americans to this day through forced dependence upon entitlement programs indigenous to our growing welfare state.



Volumes and volumes of books have been written about where this nation would be had the result of the War Between the States been different, and I cannot get into every postulation and theory in the limited space here. Suffice it to say that the practice of slavery, once a terrible reality of our fledgling mercantilist economy, would likely have ended as a natural consequence of technological innovation and enhanced economic growth. Recall, of course, that many of our founders–including those who owned slaves–acknowledged the sad reality of the practice at that time and set forth the mechanism by which the practice could be eliminated. I can only imagine whether a Confederate States of America would have gone down the same road as the United States of America has, with regard to everything from the Civil Rights Movement to the War on Poverty. I can only imagine how–or whether–all people, black and white and everywhere in between, could have flourished had the balance of power remained closer to the people at the time when the Progressive Movement came into the picture in American politics.



I look at the opportunities out there for black Americans at this point in time–we have a black American in the Oval Office, remember?–and cannot help but wonder whether more people in this country and in that community would understand that achievement and potential are there for the taking if they did not first have to break free of the shackles of the policies brought forth by the very people the NAACP claims to support.



Thinking about how the politics and policies perpetuated by the very people with whom the NAACP is aligned have hurt and hindered the black community in America, I am reminded of African American author Star Parker’s book, Uncle Sam’s Plantation, and what she wrote back in February 2009 to commemorate its sixth year of publication:





I said in that book that indeed there are two Americas. A poor America on socialism and a wealthy America on capitalism.



I talked about government programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS), Emergency Assistance to Needy Families with Children (EANF), Section 8 Housing and Food Stamps.



A vast sea of perhaps well-intentioned government programs, all initially set into motion in the 1960s, that were going to lift the nation’s poor out of poverty.



A benevolent Uncle Sam welcomed mostly poor black Americans onto the government plantation. Those who accepted the invitation switched mindsets from “How do I take care of myself?” to “What do I have to do to stay on the plantation?”



Instead of solving economic problems, government welfare socialism created monstrous moral and spiritual problems – the kind of problems that are inevitable when individuals turn responsibility for their lives over to others.



The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools and broken black families.



And then, I consider those words from the Preamble to the Confederate Constitution:





…each State acting in its sovereign and independent character…



Would the nation have been better off had the South reigned victorious in Rev. Rivers’ “War of White Supremacy”? I don’t know. I really don’t. What I do know, however, is that our current federal government places such restraints on descendants of those emancipated that their potential is mired down in bureaucracy and a system in which continued dependence is inextricably intertwined with the lust for power in perpetuity exhibited by those inside the Beltway.





While it may have looked peaceful on the horizon across Charleston Harbor this morning, 150 years ago today Fort Sumter was anything but. (Photo by Jeff Schreiber.)







150 years ago today, when those first shots were fired upon Fort Sumter a few hundred yards away in Charleston Harbor, I cannot know whether anyone would have imagined that we’d be where we are today. What is apparent, however, is that American blacks will never truly be freed from the bonds and horrors of enslavement until the mantle of victimhood is permanently dispelled, and until black America understands that liberty and personal responsibility are not mutually exclusive.



The terrible realities of slavery aside, Rev. Rivers and the NAACP should embrace, rather than reject, those core values for which so many southerners fought and bled and died. The Confederate Army fought for sovereignty at the state level — shouldn’t the NAACP be advocating in favor of sovereignty at the personal level?

Saturday, April 16, 2011

Re-Enactment: South Carolina Fires On Fort Sumter!

From SCV:




SOUTH CAROLINA FIRES ON FORT SUMTER!















(Atlanta - April 14, 2011) Today marks the 150th Anniversary of the surrender of Fort Sumter to South Carolina and the Confederate States of America. In commemoration of this event, the Georgia Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans is announcing a number of activities, including living history presentations and monument dedications, across the state of Georgia for the remainder of this calendar year.



It was on the afternoon of April 14, 1861 that federal forces under the command of Major Robert Anderson surrendered Fort Sumter to General P.T. Beauregard and the Confederate forces in Charleston, South Carolina. Governor Pickens of South Carolina had ordered Gen. Beauregard to begin bombardment of the fort early on the morning of April 12 unless Maj. Anderson surrendered and agreed to evacuate the fort, but no surrender was forthcoming until two consecutive days of bombardment convinced Anderson that it was futile to attempt to hold the fort. Although Lincoln used the firing on Fort Sumter as his pretext for raising 75,000 troops to invade the Southern states, what is not so well-known is that the Lincoln administration had promised a peace delegation from the South that there would be no attempt to supply or further garrison Fort Sumter; unbeknownst to the peace delegation, Lincoln's secretary of war had already secretly launched a fleet of ships to do that very thing. South Carolina's decision to fire on the fort was made only after the supply ships arrived in Charleston harbor, and it became evident that Lincoln had lied to the Southern peace commission. There were no deaths on either side during the engagement, and all federal prisoners were allowed to freely return north after their surrender. The bombardment of Fort Sumter was an act of South Carolina to preserve her interests as a sovereign state that became President Lincoln's pretext for four long years of total war against the South and the destruction of America's constitutional republic.



As we commemorate the historical events of 1861, the words of Confederate President Jefferson Davis at war's end certainly ring true: "The principles for which we contend are bound to reassert themselves at a different time." Current debates across America over the use of nullification and States' Rights to halt unconstitutional acts of a growing federal government in 2011 show just how prophetic President Davis' words were. America could learn much from her own history; and the Sons of Confederate Veterans are committed to providing numerous educational opportunities to Georgians throughout the remainder of 2011 and for the next four years as we commemorate the Sesquicentennial of the War Between the States. Georgians and tourists alike are invited to visit the Georgia Division website frequently for updates at www.GeorgiaSCV.org.



Interviews with SCV historians and spokesmen, as well as living history presentations, may be arranged by phone at 1-866-SCV-in-GA or online at www.GeorgiaSCV.org.





END RELEASE