Monday, May 16, 2011

The Southerner

From confederateamericanpride.com:

The Southerner


From Can The South Survive

by Michael Andrew Grissom







It seems fitting to close this chapter's fleeting glimpse of the South's ancient history with commentary from two of the authors of the late 19th century. Like others of their class, they described the world from which they had come -- the world to which they owed their allegiance and their inscrutable essence. Thomas Nelson Page discusses first the wartime woman of the South, and then his thoughts turn to the vanished society in general.



Thus, when the time came, the class at the South which had been deemed the most supine suddenly appeared as the most efficient and the most indomitable. The courage which the men displayed in battle was wonderful; but it was nothing to what the Southern women exemplified at home. There was, perhaps, not a doubtful woman within the limits of the Confederacy. Whilst their lovers and husbands fought in the field, they performed the harder part of waiting at home. With more than a soldier's courage they bore more than a soldier's hardship. For four long years they listened to the noise of the guns, awaiting with blanched faces but undaunted hearts the news of battle after battle; buried their beloved dead with tears, and still amid their tears encouraged the survivors to fight on. It was a force which has not been duly estimated. It was in the blood....



That the social life of the Old South had its faults I am far from denying. What civilization has not? But its virtues far outweighed them; its graces were never equalled. For all its faults, it was, I believe, the purest, sweetest life ever lived. It has been claimed that it was non-productive, that it fostered sterility. Only ignorance or folly could make the assertion. It largely contributed to produce this nation; it led its armies and its navies; it established this government so firmly that not even it could overthrow it; it opened up the great West; it added Louisiana and Texas, and more than trebled our territory; it Christianized the negro race in a little over two centuries, impressed upon it regard for order, and gave it the only civilization it has ever possessed since the dawn of history. It has maintained the supremacy of the Caucasion race, upon which all civilization seems now to depend. It produced a people whose heroic fight against the forces of the world has enriched the annals of the human race, -- a people whose fortitude in defeat has been even more splendid than their valor in war. It made men noble, gentle, and brave, and women tender and pure and true. It may have fallen short in material development in its narrower sense, but it abounded in spiritual development; it made the domestice virtues as common as light and air, and filled homes with purity and peace.



It has passed from the earth, but it has left its benignant influence behind it to sweeten and sustain its children. The ivory palaces have been destroyed, but myrrh, aloes, and cassia still breathe amid their dismantled ruins.



And finally, T.W. Caskey, a minister of the gospel who spent most of his life in Mississippi, owning at one time a plantation in that cotton state, describes the way of life in the old-time South, familiar to so many living at that time but lamentably foreign to those in the cacuous society of our age.



For a few years just before the war the South was a land of cotton, negroes, mules and magnificence. Southern planters were among the richest people in the United States. The South was a country of palatial homes and magnificent estates. A well appointed cotton plantation consisted of several thousands of acres of land, from four hundred to a thousand negroes, and as many mules as could be used to advantage, with other property in proportion.



There were no railroads, telegraph lines, telephone companies, land improvement companies or street railway companies for people to invest money in. They spent their money mainly in extravagant living. They clothed themselves in fine raiment and fared sumptuously every day. Every country home had its costly furniture, fine horses, magnificent carriages, expensive shrubbery, silks, satins, diamonds.... A reception at a farm house on a cotton plantation was an affair of state.



Religiously, Southern people, including all classes of society, were firm believers of the Bible. There is but little skepticism among native Southern people to this day.... they never for one moment doubted the inspiration of the Bible.



Education in aristocratic circles always included a course of thorough training in society accomplishments. Life among Southern aristocrats was wholly occupied in one continual round of fashionable gaiety and social enjoyment, and the education of the young people was always designed to fit them for the life that was before them.



Colleges and universities were conducted on the same general plan of lavish extravagance and courtly dignity which characterized the high circles of society. The curriculum in every aristocratic institution of learning included a thorough drill in polite manners and strict social etiquette. The code of etiquette and honor was as rigidly enforced by public sentiment in schools, seminaries, colleges and universities, as in any other department of high society. To fail to act the part of a high-born gentleman according to the accepted standard of deportment, would have expelled a boy from college or university and disgraced him in society....



Southern planters spent much time and money, traveling for pleasure, on Mississippi steamers. To gratify the fastidious tastes of aristocratic travelers, money, time, labor and ingenuity were united to make the old-time steamers of the Mississippi absolutely perfect, as to comfort, confenience and elegance, in the matter of accommodations for passengers. They were nothing less than floating palaces. They furnished every convenience for social enjoyment, such as could be found in the best appointed mansions in the South.



The world has probably never produced anything more extravagant and sumptuous in all of its appointments, in the way of public conveyance, than one of the best-equipped, old-time Mississippi steamers. Kings' courts have rarely been the scene of more reckless extravagance or regal bearing in general manners of life, than one of the best appointed steamers on the lower Mississippi just before the war. It was simply magnificence gone wild. It was the quintessence of extravagance, dignity, formality, courtesy.... That brief period of Southern wealth, magnificence and aristocracy was an epoch in the history of the world, such as we may never see again.



High society everywhere was fashioned on a courtly scale. Admission to the circle of select society was a guarantee of good character, as measured by the recognized social standards, and implied an obligation to conform to all the requirements of social etiquette. A breach of etiquett was punished by prompt and irrevocable ostracism from the best society.



Men stood upon their honor as unflinchingly as women upon their virtue.... When the code of honor required a man to fight a duel, society enforced the requirement on pain of social ostracism. In such a case man could no more decline to fight a duel than woman could compromise her virtue without exciting the contempt of society....



Southern planters were Statesmen and politicians by the nature and necessities of their business. In the days of Abraham they would have been called kings. In the congress of aristocratic society each planter represented a constituency of no mean proportions. The management of an extensive cotton plantation was practical statesmanship. In those days of rude implements, limited resources and great obstacles in agriculture, it required considerable political and financial ability to successfully manage a cotton plantation.



To love life more than honor was the sin unpardonable. Confidential gossip, which reflected upon the character of any person in good society, was not tolerated. No man was allowed to malign another in a whisper. Back-biting was beneath the dignity of a gentleman. If any man felt disposed to speak disrespectfully of another, society demanded a straight-forward, out-spoken, personal reflection, which the parties interested must settle between themselves on "the field of honor."...



To take an enemy unawares or at a disadvantage was an offense against good breeding which society would not excuse. A man unarmed was as safe in the power of his deadliest enemy, as in a garrison of his truest friends. The man who would not hazard his own life in defense of his bitterest enemy when unarmed, was a craven coward. To seek or accept any advantage of an enemy in a duel to the death, was an offense against good breeding which would disgrace any man in good society.



The highest authority in aristocratic society was a sort of unwrtten law called "the code of honor."...



Gallantry was a leading characteristic of old-time Southern gentlemen. There were no women in the eyes of such men; all females of human kind were ladies, except slaves, of course. The man who would remain seated while a woman, no matter how poor and humble, was standing, or even uncomfortably crowded in her seat, would have been promptly kicked out of a public conveyance, as an intolerable bore. Boisterous, profane or indecent language in the presence of ladies was an offense against society which any man of good breeding was in honor bound to punish if he could not prevent.



Hospitality was another leading trait in old-time Southern society. The traveler found a hearty welcome in every Southern home, and the wealth of the host was always lavished upon the traveler with a delicacy of taste and sincerity of hospitality such as would insure his comfort and enjoyment. Well trained servants complied with every wish of the guest, and the entertainment of strangers and travelers seemed to be the pleasure of the entire household. They were not only delighted to entertain stangers, but seemed actually anxious to have them remain in their homes as long as possible. Every member of the old Southern household welcomed travelers to the best hospitality the home could provide, and bade them adieu with evident reluctance to see them go. No remuneration was expected, or would be accepted, for such hospitality.



Language, both in conversation and current literature, in high circles of society, was remarkable for stateliness, dignity and formality. The commonest occurrences and simplest matters in every day life were spoken of, in ordinary conversation, in carefully arranged sentences and well-rounded periods. Items of news were expressed in the papers in pompous phrases, which savored of the dignity and formality of kings' courts. Vulgarisms and slang phrases were carefully excluded from the vernacular of high society. Nothing in the guise of low wit or vulgar humor was ever attempted in social conversation or current literature...



In matters of dress and general deportment, the code of social etiquette ruled every individual as with a rod of iron.... From the cradle to the grave, every member of aristocratic society was continually on dress parade when not on duty in actual society engagements. Every soul was constantly in full society uniform, drilling in the manual of social etiquette....



The stilted dignity and staid formality of select society in that age betokened a generation of disiplinarians. The whole social atmosphere was redolent with the principle of rulership.... The rigid social discipline in high cirlces of society in the South in olden times trained the leaders of the white people for martyrdom. They were not the kind of people to be conquered, or subjugated. They were the sort who have to be exterminated. They defiantly led "the lost cause" till they were well nigh annihilated, and the whole country was completely devastated. With them the rebellion was "an affair of hnor" on a large scale. When once the issue was joined, they couldn't see any honorable way to avoid a fight. They looked at the whole question in the light of the teaching of the "code of honor." And why should they look at it in any other light? "The code of honor" was the highest authority they recognized. Many of the leaders in the South, therefore, looked upon the late war as a sort of personal matter.... When the issue came, they understood that the only alternative was to apologize, or fight, and they promptly decided to fight.



The independence, self-respect and self-reliance bred and born in the women, children, invalids, cripples and aged men who survived "the lost cause" in the South, served a good purpose in causing them to endure the hardships, privations and desolation through which they passed during the years succeeding the war. The whole course of human training for generations back, was well adapted to prepare a people to endure the poverty which fell to the lot of the South after the war. But for that spirit in the people, the fortunes of the country would never have been rebuilt. With a less measure of unconquerable pride and a greater love for luxury and ease, they would have emigrated from a country so completely devastated by war and so hopelessly burdened with the support of a thriftless negro population. It is worthy of note, as showing the mettle of Southern people, that very few families emigrated to the North after the war to escape the hardships every one could see must be endured before the waste places of the country could be reuilt in the midst of such povery and desolation. In some cases those who did leave their native country in ruins, to find better environments in Northern States, were remonstrated with by friends and relatives for their lack of patriotism. Whatever else is true of the spirit and genius of such old-time society in the South, it unquestionalbly trained a people to endure great hardships rather than compromise their self-respect by fleeing for assistance to the people and country they considered their enemies.



If it cannot be said of the Southerner that his culture represents a legitimate, established place among the peoples of the world, then it cannot be said of the French in France or the Swedes in Sweden, for the Southerner can validate his exemplary inheritance not only on one shore but upon two. His legitimacy of race was established in the Old Country and confirmed in the Old South. Not only does he have the right to exist but he has the right to exist well.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



FAIR USE DISCLAIMER



Throughout this website, and without receiving financial gain from it; there are documents, pictures and literature that have been sometimes edited, and reprinted to be used as educational material under the Fair Use Doctrine of International Copywrite Law.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html





The Mendacious Yankee Culture

From confederateamericanpride.com:

The Mendacious Yankee Culture


By Al Benson Jr.







Last year about this time there was a great fuss over Obamacare. Our current Marxist-in-Chief was working mightily to ram it through Congress and the socialists in that august body lusted after its passage also. Then came the August vacation and congress people went back to their home states for the usual round of town meetings, supposedly to hear what their constituents wanted them to do.



The vast majority of their constituents wanted them to vote against Obamacare and they made their wishes very plain at town meetings all across the country. Not even the tooth fairy could have mistaken the wishes of the folks back home—they didn’t want Obamacare and that was that. Guess what? These same people all went back to Sodom on the Potomac and voted for it anyway. People were shocked. They just couldn’t believe their elected representatives would stiff them that way.



Folks, you need to learn a lesson from this. Those people in Washington don’t give a hoot for what you want. They are going to do what they (and their puppet masters) want. Your desires will be the very first thing ignored. You pay the fat salaries of those people in Washington but they do not represent you in any way, shape or form. They have a socialist agenda to enact and that is their first and only priority. They couldn’t care less what you and I want. Those people are prime examples of the mendacious Yankee/Marxist culture that has taken over the federal government and this kind of thing has been going on for over 150 years now. It’s not new—it’s just that it has never been so blatant before. Get used to it—it’s going to get worse.



The mendacity of Yankee culture (and I’m not talking about all Northern folks here) was obvious to some as early as 1860.



In his excellent book Blood Money: The Civil War and The Federal Reserve (Pelican Publishing Co, 2006), author John Remington Graham has made some very astute observations which most people in the Southern Heritage Movement probably never think about. I know I didn’t. He maintains that the War of Northern Aggression was promoted and then financed by the big banking houses on Wall Street because they knew it would be a big money maker for them. As far as the lives lost and ruined, both North and South, who cared? There was a profit to be made and everybody knows you gotta crack some eggs if you want to make an omelet. He noted, on page 49, that: “A new regime of taxation, including not only higher tariffs but income taxes, was enacted to sustain this enterprise profitable to the large banking houses…The institutions included central reserve banks on Wall Street, which insured and nourished the whole system of institutions growing up from financing the American Civil War. The cunning sophistication that planned, incited, and financed the brutal conquest of the Southern states was utterly beyond the comprehension of most people then living in the region. ” He observed the quiet, agrarian, traditional lifestyle of the average Southerner, writing that most Southern folks were “sober, plain and religious, even tending toward the mystical.” Their view of life was a simple one of chivalry and honor and that was how they planned to fight this war, with chivalry and honor, however, Mr. Graham noted “But such a war was not what had been engineered by high finance, and the Southern people were wholly unprepared to resist the juggernaut which has been ruthlessly bought to march against them.”



Southern folks, from Jefferson Davis on down, never really grasped the true mendacity of the Yankee culture, how false and devious it was. Southern delegations sent to Washington were always the victims of one-upsmanship because they tried to deal honestly with the questions at hand, while Lincoln and Seward and the rest had no intention of doing such. The Southerners could not grasp the idea of how honorable men could do what these Yankees did. They failed to comprehend the truth that they were not dealing with honorable men. By the time they learned this it was too late. There was truly a difference between Southern culture and Yankee (not all Northern) culture and for the most part, the Southerners never became “wise as serpents” while in the North, the Yankees had taught the serpents.



John B. Jones, author of A Rebel War Clerk’s Diary was a Southerner who had lived in the North and had observed the Yankee culture firsthand while there. Before the War started he fled back south and in conversation with Governor Wise of Virginia, he said:



The greatest statesmen of the South have no conception of the real purposes of the men now in power in the United States. They cannot be made to believe that the Government at Washington are going to wage war immediately.” The governor didn’t even believe him when he told him that Lincoln had called out 70,000 men. Jones continued: “Nevertheless, when I told him these 70,000 were designed to be merely the videttes and outposts of an army of 700,000, he was quite incredulous. He had not witnessed the Wide-Awake gatherings the preceding fall as I had done, and listened to the pledges they made to subjugate the South, free the Negroes and hang Gov. Wise. I next told him they would blockade our ports and endeavor to cut off our supplies…He said it would be contrary to the law of nations, as had been decided in the Courts of Admiralty and moreover would be a violation of the Constitution…Laws and courts and constitutions would not be impediments in the way of Yankees resolved upon our subjugation. Presuming upon their superior numbers, and under the pretext of saving the Union and annihilating slavery, they would invade us like the army-worm…The real object was to enjoy our soil and climate by means of confiscation.

Jones said of the Governor “He had no idea that the Yankees would dare to enter upon such enterprises in the face of an enlightened world. But I know them better.” If we have studied history at all, we know what happened. The Yankees did indeed do all those uncivilized things that Southerners felt they would never do because the Southerners themselves would not have done them. And so, in the main, they misunderstood their enemy. They were honorable and they expected the Yankees would be also. They weren’t.



They won the war and pillaged the South with “reconstruction” and when they found out how well that worked they began incrementally to “reconstruct” the rest of the country. They’re still doing it. Cultural Marxism is a major part of it, as is political correctness. And still people don’t get it! They think because they oppose what the feds do the feds will back down. Don’t bet the farm on that anymore. In some instances they may appear to back down, temporarily, but all the while they are looking for a convenient back door through which to promote their socialism without you being fully aware of it.



Comrade Obama and the socialist thugs in Congress plan on giving us some brand of Marxism no matter how many of us don’t want it. We’d better start to realize where those people in Washington are really at and we’d better start working through our states to begin to nullify what they are trying to do to us because they are not about to quit just because we don’t like it. More people and state governments need to begin to think nullification and they need to do it now.



Al Benson Jr.'s, columns are found on many online journals, such as The Sierra Times, The Patriotist, and The Fire Eater. He is also a member of the board of directors of the Confederate Society of America. Additionally, Mr. Benson is editor of the Copperhead Chronicle and author of The Homeschool History Project, a study of the War of Southern Independence. The Copperhead Chronicle is a quarterly newsletter written with a Christian, pro-Southern perspective. Email Al to sign up, or write: The Copperhead Chronicle, P O Box 55 Sterlington, Louisiana 71280.



To contact the Fire Eater, send an email to:

to.fireeater@gmail.com.





The Fire Eater



While there are many excellent Southern heritage and activist sites on the web, the Fire Eater is dedicated to continuing the culture of Dixie today, not merely celebrating its past (as important as that may be). The Fire Eater thus is a forum not only for political views and opinion but also for artistic and literary expression. The Fire Eater is also one of the oldest Southern sites on the Internet, now in its eighth year. May God bless the South and her people!





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



FAIR USE DISCLAIMER



Throughout this website, and without receiving financial gain from it; there are documents, pictures and literature that have been sometimes edited, and reprinted to be used as educational material under the Fair Use Doctrine of International Copywrite Law.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html



Southern Shame, Southern Ghosts

From confederateamericanpride.com:

Southern shame, Southern ghosts


By Franklin Raff

© 2010







The University of Mississippi has terminated its mascot, "Colonel Reb." The mascot, an archetypal Southern gentleman with a hat, cane, and a little bow-tie, is of course racist.



Affable, bearded and jaunty, with a bright costume that cleverly foiled his dark history on the plantation, Col. Reb, when he was alive, looked rather like that other infamous slave-driver, Col. Sanders, whose inscrutable and permanent smile these days (in markets where he still shows his face) offers only a faint clue as to the fortunes he's made in his long, post-war masquerade as a peddler of fried chicken.



"We just want it to be over," said one Mississippi student on the subject of Col. Reb's execution.



Watch your back, Sanders.



There is of course nothing sacred about a football mascot or a corporate brand, and nothing particularly sad about the disappearance of either one, except for the fact that now there is nothing left of Southern symbolism to erase. Some time ago, you see, most Southerners started believing that fried chicken, football games, NASCAR and maybe a handmade basket or two were among the only cultural 'treasures' they could, or should, be proud of.



And now we learn that what legions of Americans consider to be a transcendent symbol of extraordinary military leadership and valor, states' rights, indefatigable heroism, enduring pride and strength in the face of terrible odds and calamitous defeat – the Confederate battle flag – is now officially deemed a symbol of hate by the U.S. armed forces. Prospective members of all branches of the armed forces who happen to have a "Confederate flag" tattoo are automatically rejected.



Red crescents, Ankhs and the like are a "go" as are satanic pentagrams with bleeding goat-heads, inverted crosses, Vishnus and Virgin Mothers doing just about anything anywhere you can imagine, but not a star- studded blue cross (or saltire) over a red field. That image is un-American, hateful and now officially equivalent to the swastika.



Americans who sport the Confederate battle flag – many whose ancestors fell under the flag, who are buried with honor on American soil beneath the flag, whose fathers and great-grandfathers flew this flag with patriotic pride over homes, and seats of government, and even U.S. Navy ships at war – and who want to serve our country under arms, are no longer deemed compatible with our armed forces.



The Confederate battle flag has been appropriated by hate groups of one kind or another for racist reasons, but it is also, indisputably, the reigning symbol of Southern history and pride. Why would Southerners ever surrender this treasure? Why would they have it erased from a state flag, as Georgia did in 2001? Why would they allow America's "best and brightest" to ban it as a universal "symbol of hate" without even putting up a fight?



Historians disagree about whether the war would have happened "with or without slavery." Slavery was a national evil, the great mainstay of the agrarian South and a catalyst for polarized politics and violent action on both sides. But even Southerners have now forgotten about the enormous and complex roster of constitutionally based complaints regarding tariffs, direct and indirect taxation, the extraordinarily significant issue of nullification, innumerable federal impositions and more, and more, which led the Confederate states to draft their declarations of secession. These short, concise documents are not only fascinating, they are of obviously incalculable value to any free citizen whose aim is to know the history of his state, his country and his constitution. Do you know of even one young Southerner who has studied any of these documents in school?



It is commonly held even among schoolchildren in the South that the war was fought in the wake of a glorious national Emancipation Proclamation, when of course Lincoln's proclamation very belatedly only freed Southern slaves. Northern slaves were freed even later (the last in New Jersey at the very end of the war), as the cause of emancipation became a public-relations boon for Lincoln, for conscription and for the North internationally. To be sure, there were more slaves in the South than in the North, and the Emancipation Proclamation was a very important and effective document, but "The Great Emancipator" plainly admitted he would free all, or none, of the slaves if it would save the Union. Why must these truths be ignored?



All Americans understand that scores of Union soldiers fought proudly and honorably "to free the slaves," but now Southerners seem to have started to believe, en masse, that their Confederate ancestors raised their battle flag "to defend the institution of slavery." In fact only a miniscule percentage – I have seen estimates lower than 2 percent – of Confederate soldiers were members of slave-owning families, lived or worked on plantations, or were otherwise part of the "antebellum" life painted by Hollywood. Anyone who knows their history knows exactly what most Confederate officers would have told you in the field: "We have no desire for conquest and, as clearly stated by our political leaders, every wish for national reconciliation. The Confederate battle flag represents the fighting spirit of the citizens of these states who are proudly and patriotically rebelling against a central government which has become tyrannical."



Have you ever asked a Southern high-schooler or college student what the Confederate battle flag represented to the men who fought for the confederacy? I've done it many times. The answer is usually: Hatred. Slavery.



And who spoke out against slavery? Many on both sides, of course, and probably many more in the North than in the South, but also Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy; his secretary of state, Judah Benjamin; Gov. William Smith of Virginia; Reps. Barksdale and Kenner (once one of the largest slaveholders in the South) as well as the highest-ranking CSA generals Joseph Johnston and none other than General Robert E. Lee. The Confederate battle flag was Lee's flag, the flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. On slavery, he said: "There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil."



The dirty, not so-little secret of the war, you see, is that slavery had become morally, politically, and (because of the industrialization of agriculture, labor disputes, etc.) financially untenable in both the North and the South, and it was on its way out. Still, Congress did not consider an abolition amendment until 1864. At that time, the Southern states were long absent from Congress. Even then, shamefully, it did not pass and was not adopted until after the war. The North was obviously as tragically intertwined with the institution of slavery as the South. But what Southern youngster knows it?



And who defended the freedom of the press and information in this terrible time? More than 300 Northern newspapers were suppressed during the war and the Northern press was known to have been heavily censored, while, for instance, even Jefferson Davis endured astonishingly dark personal attacks from even the Southern press, but unlike Lincoln, refused to limit their freedoms. In short, scholars agree that "dissenters" had freedom of speech only in the South.



It would seem important to keep these facts in mind as we review a tiny part of the historical record and ponder the present near-universality of the South's acquiescence to a comically simplistic and largely inaccurate "victor's history" of the war. But perhaps facts no longer matter.



The long, arduous road toward national reconciliation and equal rights need never have included cultural annihilation: historical, symbolic or otherwise. Yet that is what Southerners face today, and it is their own fault.



By failing to educate their children, or by allowing others to mis-educate their children, and as evidenced by their willingness to repeatedly allow the definition of their cultural symbols – from the Confederate battle flag down to a bow-tied, fancified Southern colonel in a funny suit – as symbols of "hate," they are ultimately, finally, characterizing their forebears – soldiers, yes, along with doctors, lawyers, philosophers, scientists, and farmers, free blacks (including slave-owners), businessmen and politicians (many of whom were abolitionists) – universally, as the simple, hateful hicks federal propagandists once made them out to be.



By abandoning these most sacred and most benign symbols of Southern heritage, they admit a deeper commitment to ignore and let others define, their past. Worse perhaps, they turn their backs on the legacies and souls of real American patriots and heroes.



When they once again encounter their ancestors, which I believe they will, how will so many Americans account for their feeble treachery? Maybe, like the Mississippi student, they will say: "We just wanted it to be over."



I wonder what some of those old heroes might say in reply.



What about:



And here you are, my spiritually impoverished progeny, 300 years after the first war in which we fought and died that you might be free from a tyrannical central government, and almost 200 years after another great and terrible war, the worst imaginable, in which we fought our brothers and died for the very same cause. You have now willingly disgraced not just this cause – which might have been understandable given the terrible complexity of the time – but you have also disgraced almost every vestige of our memory, corrupting even the flags on our graves. The degree to which you are now indebted to, and dependent on, your federal government is a most bitter reminder of our failure. But you have failed in a deeper sense. You, like many Americans, have in your ignorance abetted in the practical destruction our founders' Constitution. Having surrendered liberty, you are no longer entitled to its blessings. So please do not speak of slavery. You have stripped yourself of your knowledge, pride and heritage. You have shamed and prostrated yourself, and, to no small degree, it is you who are now enslaved.

I shudder to imagine what the ghosts of the past, black and white, will say to us when we join them.



And then again, maybe it won't be so bad. After all, you know what happens to those who do not remember their history.



One way or another, by reverence or ignorance, history is destiny.



Franklin Raff is a Virginian. He lives in Mount Vernon, Va., and Jerusalem, Israel.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



FAIR USE DISCLAIMER



Throughout this website, and without receiving financial gain from it; there are documents, pictures and literature that have been sometimes edited, and reprinted to be used as educational material under the Fair Use Doctrine of International Copywrite Law.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html





Tuesday, May 10, 2011

150 Years Ago....Arkansas Sends Troops To Confederacy

From The Arkansas Toothpick:

150 Years Ago… Arkansas Sends Troops To Confederacy




By admin
May 7, 2011







One hundred and fifty years ago, Arkansas was busily making preparations for war. She had left the Union only a few days ago as the second secession convention met in Little Rock, but contrary to popular belief, the vote of secession was not the only issue on the table at the convention. There were still very important issues to discuss: who will lead the Arkansas troops? And what other changes need to be made following Arkansas’ removal from the nation she had be a part of for twenty-five years?



Following the official vote of secession on May 6, 1861, Arkansawyers faces a number of questions that needed a quick and efficient answer. One of the decisions made by the convention was to establish a military board in which, according to Arkansas historian Michael Dougan, was chaired by Governor Henry M. Rector, B.C. Totten, and C.C. Danely. The convention had decided to turn troops over to the Confederate States of America, “and no troops would be called into service unless the state was invaded.”



Only two days following Arkansas’ secession, she sent out several companies from the First Arkansas Infantry Regiment of Volunteers to Virginia from Little Rock where they would join the Confederate Army amassing in numbers near Lynchburg. It would be this regiment of Arkansas Volunteers that would take part in the first major battle of the Civil War near the Manassas railroad junction in Virginia.



Meanwhile, back in Little Rock, the ladies in Central Arkansas were busying themselves in making preparations for the soldiers eager to volunteer for Confederate service, as noted in a May 9, 1861 Little Rock newspaper: “The ladies of Little Rock have been busy the past week making uniforms and equipping the volunteers. Like the heroines of the Revolution they are infused with a generous ardor for the cause of truth and freedom, and their God speed! to the gallant fellows who are leaving their homes, their mothers, their sweethearts will go with them like the protecting wing of a good angel, and linger with them in the severest trials of war. All honor to the fair women of Arkansas, and success to the brave fellows who are to represent us on the pages of history.”



Within only a few days of Arkansas casting her lot with the Confederacy, the militia and Confederate troops were enjoying the full support of their fellow Arkansawyers, who were only too eager to show their loyalty to their sons mustering into military regiments.







Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Abe Lincoln's Legacy: Leviathan's Bondage Of All Americans

From Lew Rockwell.com:

Abe Lincoln’s Legacy: Leviathan’s Bondage of All Americans


by Scott Lazarowitz



Recently by Scott Lazarowitz: The Planned Chaos of National Security Socialism: Time to Give the Central Planners a Dishonorable Discharge











With the 150th year of the start of the American "Civil War," it is necessary to point out that, not only was it not a war to "free the slaves," but a war to force seceding states back into a union involuntarily, and a war to strengthen the federal government’s economic control over the people.



For whatever reasons the Southern States had to secede from the "Union," they had an inalienable right to secede. All people have a God-given right to associate or not associate with others, voluntarily. If the people of a particular territory want to separate from a federal union of states, they have every right to separate, just as the Founding Fathers had a right to separate from British rule.



No institution or authority has the right to compel any individual or group into association or contract involuntarily. To believe that the federal government had any moral right to force the people of the seceding states to return to federal association involuntarily is to believe that some people with armed power have a right to claim ownership and control of other people, pure and simple.



The argument that the association of states within the federal union is based on some sort of contract – the U.S. Constitution – is misleading, because the people living in 1861 who had been compelled to abide by the contract did not actually participate in the forming of terms and the signing of the contract. People of later generations are not in any way bound to the terms of any contract agreed to by previous generations. 19th Century individualist and entrepreneur Lysander Spooner explains that further in No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority.



To bind future generations to a contract to which they themselves did not agree or sign is itself a form of enslavement, just as the politicians in Washington currently continue to enslave future generations with debt.



What Lincoln’s war to compel people into association involuntarily did was literally to reverse the American Revolution. In the Revolution, people fought to free themselves from the tyranny and enslavements of King George III and his British dictatorial regime. The Revolutionaries fought for their independence.



In contrast, Lincoln’s war effected in compelling the people of the Southern States back into centralized control over them by federal bureaucrats, and further empowered the centralized authority in Washington. Lincoln’s war had nothing to do with "freeing slaves."



Economically, two important moves by Abe Lincoln to further strengthen the federal government’s control over the American people were the National Banking Acts and legal tender laws. The National Banking Acts gave Wall Street – in collusion with the federal government – the power to coordinate inflation (despite the then-nonexistence of a federal central bank). And legal tender laws force Americans to use only government-issued currency as their sole medium of exchange. These two restrictions on Americans’ right to voluntary exchange and voluntary contracts – including the right to provide free competitive banking to consumers and the right of the people to control and use private property as they see fit – were at the heart of Americans’ monetary bondage and government-imposed schemes of redistribution-of-wealth from lower classes to the wealthy from which we continue to suffer.





Lincoln’s Bank Acts and legal tender laws were the precursors to the Federal Reserve and its valueless paper "notes" that Americans are compelled by law to use for exchange. The Fed’s money printing benefits the earlier receivers, the financial and banking elites, and causes the later receivers of the "notes," lower- and middle-class Americans, to deal with the higher food, clothing and energy prices caused by the Fed’s inflationary policies. This government-mandated scheme literally enslaves those on fixed incomes and of the lower economic classes – through their extra labor – to serve the increasingly rich, politically-connected corporatists.



And during Lincoln’s presidency was the first time the U.S. government imposed a federal personal income tax, including on "any professional trade, employment, or vocation." That income tax was repealed but the income tax returned with a vengeance in 1913.



It was so important to the federal government bureaucrats to permanently institutionalize the compulsory labor amongst the citizenry to serve the federal government, that the Washington politicians had their income tax become a part of the U.S. Constitution!



Many people scoff at the criticism of the income tax as a form of "involuntary servitude." But that would have to be because they just haven’t given it much thought, or it’s because they work for the government.



First, part of the income tax is a seizure of some of the earnings of one’s labor. That is the government’s demand that one does a certain amount of labor to serve the government. Second, income tax on investment dividends or capital gains on property sales is a way of government bureaucrats to confiscate a portion of property rightfully belonging to the individual receiving a profit or earning on investment. It is the way for government bureaucrats to steal others’ wealth or property, in the same illicit manner that the Federal Reserve’s inflation allows the government-banking cartel elites to steal from the lower classes.



Compulsory Federal Reserve "notes," legal tender laws, the income tax, forcing Americans to do extra labor to serve the government – all these policies reinforce the government’s ownership of the individual. One’s labor is primarily owned by the government now, one’s employment associations and contracts are all under scrutiny and supervision by the government.



There are no more voluntary relationships in America. The individual does not own one’s private contract with an employer or employee – the government does. And the individual does not own one’s association or contract with one’s doctor or patient – the government owns the doctor-patient relationship, especially cemented by the dictatorial ObamaCare.



And these perversions of society have permeated all levels of society now, in the collective’s ownership of the individual, and in the individual’s serfdom under federal, state and local governmental regimes.



A most recent example of how government employees subjugate their non-government neighbors was in Wisconsin. The teachers’ unions have been actively protesting to strengthen their power to expropriate more of Wisconsin taxpayers’ earnings to fund the teachers’ overly extravagant benefits and pensions – enrichments that their counterparts in the private sector could never possibly get in the actual free marketplace.



And anti-competition protectionist legislation and regulations also shackle potential start-ups and make business extremely difficult for existing small business owners, to protect the profits of established firms, and to protect Big Business.



In New York City, for example, if an individual has a car and wants to provide a taxi service, he must now pay an average price of $607,000. On a fundamental level, if the individual really owned his life and his car, he would have a right to put the sign, "TAXI," on the car and drive in the city and offer people a ride for a fee, and it’s no one else’s business. But the city’s real interest is in protecting established cab companies, by locking out those in need of a job, particularly among the lower-class, from that potential opportunity to provide for themselves. This kind of protectionism has especially affected inner-city minorities.



Minimum wage laws are also an egregious example of how the government prevents people, especially teenagers and especially minority teens, from even having a job in the first place. Employers who can’t afford to pay a worker the government-mandated minimum wage simply eliminate those jobs. As Future of Freedom Foundation President Jacob Hornberger pointed out,



Which is better: working at $1 an hour and learning a trade and a work ethic and watching how a business is run or being prohibited from working at all?



But there is another important factor involved here. Not only does the minimum wage lock poor, inner-city black teenagers out of the labor market as employees, it also prevents them from opening up businesses to compete against the already-established, well-to-do businesses run by white people and others.



In other words, the minimum wage serves as a government-granted privilege to already established businesses, protecting them from competition, including from poor, inner-city black teenagers.



"Liberal" policies such as minimum wage are literally shackling Americans and preventing them from prospering. And now, college students are "debt serfs."



The "Civil War’s" reverse Revolution institutionalized the government’s enslavement of not just black Americans, but all Americans. We are all serfs of the State.



There are many other examples daily of Lincoln’s legacy in government’s directly treating the people like slaves and prisoners. With the TSA, if an individual does not want to go through the airport X-ray scanner – out of a legitimate concern that such radiation exposure increases one’s risk for cancer – or if an individual does not want his child to be sexually molested by degenerates, and if the individual wants to instead leave the premises, he is apprehended, detained and questioned by TSA agents or police.



The pervasive mentality that the government owns the individual and one’s property was immensely strengthened by President Lincoln’s unwillingness to let people be free, in his war against seceding states in general, and from his institutionalized economic enslavements.



Unfortunately, the average American does not seem to grasp the idea and importance – the inalienable right – of nullification: the right of the people to nullify intrusive laws that violate one’s person or property.



As Leviathan continues to enslave us, with the thefts of taxation and Federal Reserve, the dictatorial commands of regulations and the wars on drugs and terrorism that continue to crush our civil liberties and right to due process, we must begin to withdraw our consent to each and every law, regulation, tax and policy that violates our persons and property and our livelihoods.



President Abraham Lincoln’s war against seceding states was to put the states in further bondage of the federal regime’s total authority, as well as constrain all individuals to the collective’s will and to the State.



The Founders had a Revolution for their independence and freedom. Lincoln reversed that Revolution, and is time to reverse Lincoln’s Revolution-reversal, through peaceful, voluntary, non-violent non-compliance, secession and nullification.



April 23, 2011



Scott Lazarowitz [send him mail] is a commentator and cartoonist at Reasonandjest.com.



Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.



What Makes A Great President Great?

From Lew Rockwell.com:

What Makes a Great President Great?


by Michael S. Rozeff



Recently by Michael S. Rozeff: 'I’d Rather Fight Them Over There Than Here'











George W. Bush only ranks 34th in the recent surveys of the greatest Presidents of the United States. Since there are but 40-43 of these magnificents in total, Dubya is way down there. Why?



What is greatness in a U.S. President, hereafter simply called a President? There is no scientific definition, although the more scholarly polls have criteria of greatness. These need not detain us. The polls themselves tell us what Americans think makes a great President, and it is against the implicit criterion that we observe in the data that we discover that Dubya’s low standing is an anomaly.



The data on the greats that I use are from Wikipedia. The right hand column has aggregate rankings over all the polls. Guess who is number 1? Abraham Lincoln.



Thomas DiLorenzo published books debunking Lincoln in 2003 and 2006 (see here and here). These have had no perceptible influence on the polling results, not yet. I shall explain why they have had no influence.



The key fact about Lincoln is that he presided over the country during a terrible war. Wartime Presidents are regarded by Americans as the greatest Presidents. That is what we discover when we examine the polls. Time and again, Americans revere wartime Presidents. That’s the essence of my theory. To Americans, a great President is heavily associated with war.



It doesn’t affect his greatness that Lincoln started the war, which, if you think about it, should detract from his greatness. Wilson got the country into World War I and he ranks number 6. Franklin Roosevelt got the country into World War II and he ranks number 2. Their high rankings are also associated with the fact that they presided over the country during large-scale wars.



Harry S. Truman is number 7. He ran the government at the tail end of World War II. He dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He committed America to the Korean War. He fits the theory.



Dwight Eisenhower is tied for number 8 with Andrew Jackson. Both were generals. Jackson was known for his exploits in the War of 1812. In addition, he fought against the Creeks and Seminoles in Florida. It was he who signed the Indian Removal Act of 1830 and ethnically cleansed the Cherokee, Seminole, Choctaw, Creek, and Chickasaw, resulting in numerous deaths along the Trail of Tears.



Ike was famous for his World War II efforts. Ike presided over the Cold War, and so did Truman. Ike also sent troops to Lebanon in 1958. But even without recounting every military exploit of these Presidents, the point is clear. They are Presidents heavily associated with war.



Thus, so far, we have 6 out of the top 10 Presidents being directly associated with large wars: Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Andrew Jackson, and Dwight Eisenhower.



James K. Polk is number 10 in these polls. He’s lesser known. From Wikipedia, we learn that Polk



"is noted for his foreign policy successes. He threatened war with Britain over the issue of which country owned the Oregon Country, then backed away and split the ownership of the region with Britain. When Mexico rejected American annexation of Texas, Polk led the nation to a sweeping victory in the Mexican-American War, which gave the United States most of its present Southwest."



So Polk was also a major wartime President. That makes 7 out of the top 10.



In 5th place is Theodore Roosevelt. This Roosevelt played a major role in making the Spanish-American War what it was. Wikipedia’s entry tells us



"President William McKinley appointed a delighted Roosevelt to the post of Assistant Secretary of the Navy in 1897. Because of the inactivity of Secretary of the Navy John D. Long at the time, this gave Roosevelt control over the department. When, ten days after a battleship was blown up in Havana, Cuba, the Secretary left for an afternoon for a massage and Roosevelt became Acting Secretary for four hours, Roosevelt told the Navy worldwide to prepare for war, ordered ammunition and supplies, brought in experts, and went to Congress asking for authority to recruit as many sailors as he wanted, thus moving the nation toward war. Roosevelt was instrumental in preparing the Navy for the Spanish-American War and was an enthusiastic proponent of testing the U.S. military in battle, at one point stating 'I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one.'"



Subsequently, Roosevelt resigned and formed volunteers that fought in Cuba. He and his Rough Riders became famous for taking San Juan Hill. As President, we find that



"Roosevelt was the force behind the completion of the Panama Canal; he sent out the Great White Fleet to display American power; and he negotiated an end to the Russo-Japanese War, for which he won the Nobel Peace Prize."



Theodore Roosevelt’s high standing once again confirms the hypothesis that wartime Presidents achieve the highest standing among the greats, or that what Americans think of as a great President is a man who associates himself with war. Teddy’s Nobel Peace Price is hardly remembered as compared with "Speak softly and carry a big stick". Americans like big sticks, those who carry them, and those who use them.



We’ve got 8 out of 10, which is not bad for a one-factor theory.



Occupying slots 3 and 4 are Washington and Jefferson. Now Washington is another general and famous for his activity in the Revolutionary War, so that he too fits the theory. Washington, of course, put down the Whiskey Rebellion.



That leaves Tom Jefferson as being the sole exception. How did he manage to get into the top ten? The Declaration of Independence is surely the big reason with the Louisiana Purchase a close second. Next to war, Americans like to expand and when they cannot expand with their laws, they like to have influence by other means, connections, and systems. But for the record, it should be noted that Jefferson played a part in getting the War of 1812 going:



"Jefferson always distrusted Britain as a threat to American security; he rejected a renewal of the Jay Treaty that his ambassadors had negotiated in 1806 with Britain and promoted aggressive action, such as the embargo laws, that contributed to the already escalating tensions with Britain and France leading to war with Britain in 1812 after he left office."



So there we have it. Nine out of the top ten greatest Presidents either presided over major wars or were associated intimately with them. The tenth one contributed to bringing about a major war. No other single factor except war comes to mind that can explain the top 10 rankings.



There are some generals like Ulysses S. Grant and Zachary Taylor who rank very poorly. Taylor was in office only 16 months. Grant’s low standing is usually attributed to an association with corruption. That explanation may be valid because Richard Nixon is in 32nd place.



Lyndon Johnson presided over the Vietnam War and he ranks number 14. This actually tends to confirm the hypothesis. One might have thought that the war’s unpopularity would doom LBJ to a very low standing, but it does not. That’s because the factor that’s important is simply presiding over the war, i.e., helping to cause it, drafting soldiers, making loud noises about enemies, criticizing the war’s critics, waving the flag, showing strength, making speeches before soldiers, citing statistics on how many of the enemy have been killed, hiring and firing generals, associating oneself with victories, and declaring that the war is being won in the name of freedom and the American way.



This brings us to the big anomaly: George W. Bush. He started two specific wars and launched an all-encompassing War on Terror. Why is he #34 in the rankings? Will his standing improve as time passes? Does confirmation of the hypothesis take time?



Sticking to war-related factors as explaining the rankings, I suspect that Bush’s standing is low because his propaganda campaign on weapons of mass destruction (WMD) turned out to be a dud or myth. This is not to say that the myths upon which the earlier wars were founded were not also myths. They were, but those myths were not made widely known at the time or thereafter. People believed in the myths of the earlier wars and they still believe them. The history books have perpetuated them. In Bush’s case, the communications network is more efficient. But the fact of most importance is that Bush gambled. He placed a big bet on WMD. The justification of the war turned on their existence. Had they been found, then he could have withstood the fact that the war went so badly thereafter. They were not found, and so he languishes. He made an unnecessary war. Another factor is that he promised a quick victory. He promised "shock and awe". The victory never occurred. Things also went very badly in Afghanistan. Instead of getting bin Laden, he went after the Taliban government. Then he let bin Laden escape.



Give Americans a good war myth (reason or reasons for a war) and preside over that war with the appropriate embroidery and trappings. These historically have contributed to a President’s high standing or greatness in history as measured by various polls.



Americans respect the presidency way, way too much. They believe Presidents. They believe Presidents who act as if wars are thrust upon the nation. They can’t or don’t believe that Presidents take the nation into wars purposely for reasons that have nothing to do with national security. Americans believe Presidents who act as if the wars they enter are necessary. They don’t see these wars as unnecessary. Americans trust Presidents. Then when the President presides over the nation through a war, they feel that he is doing something good for the American people because that war was necessary.



There is no alternative but to show that Presidents cannot be trusted. Government cannot be trusted. This essential knowledge is not deeply engrained in the American consciousness. Americans must be shown that they have been fighting unnecessary wars for most of their history. George W. Bush’s wars are not exceptions to the rule. They are the rule.













April 23, 2011



Michael S. Rozeff [send him mail] is a retired Professor of Finance living in East Amherst, New York. He is the author of the free e-book Essays on American Empire: Liberty vs. Domination and the free e-book The U.S. Constitution and Money: Corruption and Decline.



Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.



The Un-Civil War Truths Your Teacher Never Told You

From The Absurd Report:

Political Quote of the Day »






The Un-Civil War Truths Your Teacher Never Told You



The Bear on Jan 26 2008 at 9:30 am
Filed under: Uncategorized





Author Mike Scruggs brings an important new scholarly perspective to the issues that divided the United States prior to 1861 and through the tortuous years of the War and the terrible aftermath called the Reconstruction. This is a book that should be required reading. It is our history and our heritage. It is a book that reaches out to every American with a curious and open mind in an effort to rescue truth from decades of oppression.



This is history as you were never taught in school, and it shapes our society still today.

Read the factual history of the Southern Flag, the true causes of the War, the first 13th Amendment, the Cherokees’ alliance with the South, the Constitutional issues that are still alive today, how the South was kicked out of the Union after the War, what really went on during Reconstruction, the iron fist of the Union League Club, the carpetbaggers, the dubious passage of the 14th Amendment, and much more. Anyone who reads what Mike Scruggs has written here cannot help but walk away with a far greater understanding of the South, of what it stands for, and of its true role in this nation.



A chapter from the book!

UNDERSTANDING THE CAUSES OF THE UNCIVIL WAR A Brief Explanation of the Impact of the Morrill Tariff



By Mike Scruggs for the Tribune Papers





Most Americans believe the U. S. “Civil War” was over slavery. They have to an enormous degree been miseducated. The means and timing of handling the slavery issue were at issue, although not in the overly simplified moral sense that lives in postwar and modern propaganda. But had there been no Morrill Tariff there might never have been a war. The conflict that cost of the lives of 650,000 Union and Confederate soldiers and perhaps as many as 50,000 Southern civilians and impoverished many millions for generations might never have been.



A smoldering issue of unjust taxation that enriched Northern manufacturing states and exploited the agricultural South was fanned to a furious blaze in 1860. It was the Morrill Tariff that stirred the smoldering embers of regional mistrust and ignited the fires of Secession in the South. This precipitated a Northern reaction and call to arms that would engulf the nation in the flames of war for four years.



Prior to the U. S. “Civil War” there was no U. S. income tax. Considerably more than 90% of U. S. government revenue was raised by a tariff on imported goods. A tariff is a tax on selected imports, most commonly finished or manufactured products. A high tariff is usually legislated not only to raise revenue, but also to protect domestic industry form foreign competition. By placing such a high, protective tariff on imported goods it makes them more expensive to buy than the same domestic goods. This allows domestic industries to charge higher prices and make more money on sales that might otherwise be lost to foreign competition because of cheaper prices (without the tariff) or better quality. This, of course, causes domestic consumers to pay higher prices and have a lower standard of living. Tariffs on some industrial products also hurt other domestic industries that must pay higher prices for goods they need to make their products. Because the nature and products of regional economies can vary widely, high tariffs are sometimes good for one section of the country, but damaging to another section of the country. High tariffs are particularly hard on exporters since they must cope with higher domestic costs and retaliatory foreign tariffs that put them at a pricing disadvantage. This has a depressing effect on both export volume and profit margins. High tariffs have been a frequent cause of economic disruption, strife and war.



Prior to 1824 the average tariff level in the U. S. had been in the 15 to 20 % range. This was thought sufficient to meet federal revenue needs and not excessively burdensome to any section of the country. The increase of the tariff to a 20% average in 1816 was ostensibly to help pay for the War of 1812. It also represented a 26% net profit increase to Northern manufacturers.



In 1824 Northern manufacturing states and the Whig Party under the leadership of Henry Clay began to push for high, protective tariffs. These were strongly opposed by the South. The Southern economy was largely agricultural and geared to exporting a large portion of its cotton and tobacco crops to Europe. In the 1850’s the South accounted for anywhere from 72 to 82% of U. S. exports. They were largely dependent, however, on Europe or the North for the manufactured goods needed for both agricultural production and consumer needs. Northern states received about 20% of the South’s agricultural production. The vast majority of export volume went to Europe. A protective tariff was then a substantial benefit to Northern manufacturing states, but meant considerable economic hardship for the agricultural South



Northern political dominance enabled Clay and his allies in Congress to pass a tariff averaging 35% late in 1824. This was the cause of economic boom in the North, but economic hardship and political agitation in the South. South Carolina was especially hard hit, the State’s exports falling 25% over the next two years. In 1828 in a demonstration of unabashed partisanship and unashamed greed the Northern dominated Congress raised the average tariff level to 50%. Despite strong Southern agitation for lower tariffs the Tariff of 1832 only nominally reduced the effective tariff rate and brought no relief to the South. These last two tariffs are usually termed in history as the Tariffs of Abomination.



This led to the Nullification Crisis of 1832 when South Carolina called a state convention and “nullified” the 1828 and 1832 tariffs as unjust and unconstitutional. The resulting constitutional crisis came very near provoking armed conflict at that time. Through the efforts of former U. S. Vice President and U. S. Senator from South Carolina, John C. Calhoun, a compromise was effected in 1833 which over a few years reduced the tariff back to a normal level of about 15%. Henry Clay and the Whigs were not happy, however, to have been forced into a compromise by Calhoun and South Carolina’s Nullification threat. The tariff, however, remained at a level near 15% until 1860. A lesson in economics, regional sensitivities, and simple fairness should have been learned from this confrontation, but if it was learned, it was ignored by ambitious political and business factions and personalities that would come on the scene of American history in the late 1850’s.



High protective tariffs were always the policy of the old Whig Party and had become the policy of the new Republican Party that replaced it. A recession beginning around 1857 gave the cause of protectionism an additional political boost in the Northern industrial states.



In May of 1860 the U. S. Congress passed the Morrill Tariff Bill (named for Republican Congressman and steel manufacturer, Justin S. Morrill of Vermont) raising the average tariff from about 15% to 37% with increases to 47% within three years. Although this was remarkably reminiscent of the Tariffs of Abomination which had led in 1832 to a constitutional crisis and threats of secession and armed force, the U. S. House of Representatives passed the Bill 105 to 64. Out of 40 Southern Congressmen only one Tennessee Congressman voted for it.



U. S. tariff revenues already fell disproportionately on the South, accounting for 87% of the total. While the tariff protected Northern industrial interests, it raised the cost of living and commerce in the South substantially. It also reduced the trade value of their agricultural exports to Europe. These combined to place a severe economic hardship on many Southern states. Even more galling was that 80% or more of these tax revenues were expended on Northern public works and industrial subsidies, thus further enriching the North at the expense of the South.



In the 1860 election, Lincoln, a former Whig and great admirer of Henry Clay, campaigned for the high protective tariff provisions of the Morrill Tariff, which had also been incorporated into the Republican Party Platform. Lincoln further endorsed the Morrill Tariff and its concepts in his first inaugural speech and signed the Act into law a few days after taking office in March of 1861. Southern leaders had seen it coming. Southern protests had been of no avail. Now the South was inflamed with righteous indignation, and Southern leaders began to call for Secession.



At first Northern public opinion as reflected in Northern newspapers of both parties recognized the right of the Southern States to secede and favored peaceful separation. A November 21, 1860, editorial in the Cincinnati Daily Press said this:

“We believe that the right of any member of this Confederacy to dissolve its political relations with the others and assume an independent position is absolute.”

The New York Times on March 21, 1861, reflecting the great majority of editorial opinion in the North summarized in an editorial:

“There is a growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go.”

Northern industrialists became nervous, however, when they realized a tariff dependent North would be competing against a free trade South. They feared not only loss of tax revenue, but considerable loss of trade. Newspaper editorials began to reflect this nervousness. Lincoln had promised in his inaugural speech that he would preserve the Union and the tariff. Three days after manipulating the South into firing on the tariff collection facility of Fort Sumter in volatile South Carolina, on April 15, 1861, Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to put down the Southern rebellion. This caused the Border States to secede along with the Gulf States. Lincoln undoubtedly calculated that the mere threat of force backed by more unified Northern public opinion would quickly put down secession. His gambit, however, failed spectacularly and would erupt into a terrible and costly war for four years. The Union Army’s lack of success early in the war, the need to keep anti-slavery England from coming into the war on the side of the South, and Lincoln’s need to appease the radical abolitionists in the North led to increasing promotion of freeing the slaves as a noble cause to justify what was really a dispute over just taxation and States Rights.



Writing in December of 1861 in a London weekly publication, the famous English author, Charles Dickens, who was a strong opponent of slavery, said these things about the war going on in America:

“The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to

conceal its desire for economic control of the United States.”



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



Karl Marx, like most European socialists of the time favored the North. In an 1861 article published in England, he articulated very well what the major British newspapers, the Times, the Economist, and Saturday Review, had been saying:

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

A horrific example of the damage that protective tariffs can exact was also seen in later history. One of the causes of the Great Depression of 1930-1939 was the Hawley-Smoot Act, a high tariff passed in 1930 that Congress mistakenly thought would help the country. While attempting to protect domestic industry from foreign imports, the unanticipated effect was to reduce the nation’s exports and thereby help increase unemployment to the devastating figure of 25%. It is fairly well known by competent and honest economists now that protective tariffs usually do more harm than good, often considerably more harm than good. However, economic ignorance and political expediency often combine to overrule longer-term public good. As the Uncivil War of 1861-5 proves, the human and economic costs for such shortsighted political expediency and partisan greed can be enormous.



The Morrill Tariff illustrates very well one of the problems with majoritarian democracy. A majority can easily exploit a regional, economic, ethnic, or religious minority (or any other minority) unmercifully unless they have strong constitutional guarantees that can be enforced, e. g., States Rights, Nullification, etc. The need to limit centralized government power to counter this natural depravity in men was recognized by the founding fathers. They knew well the irresistible tendencies in both monarchy and democracy for both civil magistrates and the electorate to succumb to the temptations of greed, self-interest, and the lust for power. Thus they incorporated into the Constitution such provisions as the separation of powers and very important provisions enumerating and delegating only certain functions and powers to the federal government and retaining others at the state level and lower. Such constitutional provisions including the very specific guaranty of States Rights and limits to the power of the Federal Government in the 10th Amendment are unfortunately now largely ignored by all three branches of the Federal Government, and their constant infringement seldom contested by the States.



The Tariff question and the States Rights question were therefore strongly linked. Both are linked to the broader issues of limited government and a strong Constitution. The Morrill Tariff dealt the South a flagrant political injustice and impending economic hardship and crisis. It therefore made Secession a very compelling alternative to an exploited and unequal union with the North.



How to handle the slavery question was an underlying tension between North and South, but one of many tensions. It cannot be said to be the cause of the war. Fully understanding the slavery question and its relations to those tensions is beyond the scope of this article, but numerous historical facts demolish the propagandistic morality play that a virtuous North invaded the evil South to free the slaves. Five years after the end of the War, prominent Northern abolitionist, attorney and legal scholar, Lysander Spooner, put it this way:

“All these cries of having ‘abolished slavery,’ of having ‘saved the country,’ of having ‘preserved the Union,’ of establishing a ‘government of consent,’ and of ‘maintaining the national honor’ are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats—so transparent that they ought to deceive no one.”

Yet apparently many today are still deceived, are deliberately deceived, and even prefer to be deceived.



Unjust taxation has been the cause of many tensions and much bloodshed throughout history and around the world. The Morrill Tariff was certainly a powerful factor predisposing the South to seek its independence and determine its own destiny. As outrageous and unjust as the Morrill Tariff was, its importance has been largely ignored and even purposely obscured. It does not fit the politically correct images and myths of popular American history. Truth, however, is always the high ground. It will have the inevitable victory



In addition to the devastating loss of life and leadership during the War, the South suffered considerable damage to property, livestock, and crops. The policies of “Reconstruction” and “carpetbagger” state governments further exploited and robbed the South, considerably retarding economic recovery. Further, high tariffs and discriminatory railroad shipping taxes continued to favor Northern economic interests and impoverish the South for generations after the war. It is only in relatively recent history that the political and economic fortunes of the South have begun to rise.



One last point needs to be made. The war of 1861-65 was not a “civil” war. To call it the “Civil War” is not a historically accurate and honest use of language. It is the propaganda of the victors having attained popular usage. No one in the South was attempting to overthrow the U. S. government. Few Southerners had any interest in overthrowing their own or anyone else’s state governments. The Southern states had seen that continued union with the North would jeopardize their liberties and economic wellbeing. Through the proper constitutional means of state conventions and referendums they sought to withdraw from the Union and establish their independence just as the American Colonies had sought their independence from Great Britain in 1776 and for very similar reasons. The Northern industrialists, however, were not willing to give up their Southern Colonies. A more appropriate name for the uncivil war of 1861-65 would be “The War for Southern Independence.”



But had it not been for the Morrill Tariff there would have been no rush to Secession by Southern states and very probably no war. The Morrill Tariff of 1860, so unabashed and unashamed in its short-sighted, partisan greed, stands as an astonishing monument to the self-centered depravity of man and to its consequences. No wonder most Americans would like to see it forgotten and covered over with a more morally satisfying but largely false version of the causes of the Uncivil War.



Mike Scruggs is an historian who now lives in Hendersonville, NC