Nolan Chart
Home Be a Columnist Logon Columns Survey FAQ Newsletter Contact Print Advertise Other

DAMNOCRACY - Government From Hell
columnist: Wendall Dennis

Like This Article?
Thumb It!
5 thumbs so far

Topic: Constitutional Issues
The American People Were Conquored!

The governmental power necessary to ensure the rights of sovereignty to every citizen, regardless of sex, creed, or religion, per the Declaration of Independence, is now the instrument of subjugation to that government.
by Wendall Dennis
(Libertarian)
Friday, April 4, 2008

The vast majority of citizens do not recognize the fact that our nation was united by military conquest. The Civil War, according to the words of Lincoln, was not to for the purpose of freeing the slaves, but to preserve the union.

The advocates of the principle of states rights lost the war, the advocates of the power of central government won!

While the war established the legitimate principle of the responsibility of our form of government to be the legal protection of individual rights for all citizens: unfortunately, in the process it also re-established the principle of inherent governmental power, substituting delegated authority, with assumed rights, thus spawning a new breed of politician.

Why have we forgotten the legal looting of the former Confederate states by these political scavengers in the guise of "administrators?" Although this "carpetbagger" period was of relatively short duration, the affects lasted for at least two generations; their study was still part of the curriculum in my schools days.

Today, the name, as well as the deeds, appear to have been wiped from our collective memories, perhaps so overshadowed by the civil rights movement that they simply became inconsequential.

Regardless of the reason, the nation is currently experiencing the greatest ramifications of the outcome of the war in our history, ramifications threatening our very sovereignty.

The Constitution When  Restored, Was Not the Constitution Lincoln Suspended!

Suspension of the Constitution, as well as the right of Habeas Corpus, resulted in nation wide rule by martial law. The reality is, it has not been totally lifted too this day. In the early 1940's, the criticism of government policy could get you a prison sentence. Today: indefinite, incommunicado incarceration, based upon nothing more than accusation, with total deprivation of due process.

Think, and ask yourself the question: What condition existed immediately following the War for Independence?

The Answer: Total Right of Individual Sovereignty! Our national government began on a blank sheet of paper.

The purpose for the war was fulfilled; it was then and there a reality; there was no national governmental structure. The only real restraint on the freeman was the inherent moral code, or the lack thereof, within the individual.

For the first time in recent history, a sovereign people, created a sovereign government; a government founded upon a Constitution, which, if interpreted as written, is clearly intended to be applied to the government, not the citizenry!

When thusly applied, as reinforced by its Tenth Amendment, any jurisdiction, or application, not specifically enumerated, is to be off limits to the elected representatives; as acknowledged by oath, prior to their assuming the duties, to which they were elected.

                                MY HOW THINGS CHANGE.

When the Constitution was restored, the Federal Government, and the officials staffing the offices, assumed the rights of authority, inherent of conquest. Although the words were unchanged, it began to be interpreted in accordance with British maritime/mercantile Law.

Due to this one hundred eighty degree change of application, the citizenry were stripped of sovereignty, and the officers of government acquired it.

Over a period of about a century, courts of equity were interspersed with courts of common, or  Constitutional law;  eventually replacing them. 

Concurrently: Rule by corporate dictate, was  interspersed with  constitutional governance; corporate currency replaced constitutional money, and  the Constitution  so interpreted;  law and justice became a commodity, available for the right price; the hired lawyer, replaced the hired gun, thus, the soveriegn nation, was stolen by the  soveriegn corporation!

Remember the slogan: "The Business of America Is Business:"  corporate business specifically. We the people and the product of our labor, became corporate  property,  

Not just the "Rebs," but the entire nation was ruled by the Federal Government, the Constitution becoming what the controlling politicians of the time declared it to be, to be adhered to, or ignored, as political convenience dictated, a condition existing to this day.

This is the authority behind the Judges, Presidents, and Legislators apparent prerogative, for ignoring the Constitution, without regard for their oaths.

 Immediately following the war, the mechanism of government was too weak to enforce much of the acquired power, thus the magnitude of change was not recognized at the time, however, the foundation had been laid.

Several abortive attempts to create a national bank, finally culminating in the Federal Reserve, income tax laws, confiscation of constitutional money, and enforcement of prohibition laws, were among the first examples of the expanding power.

However, federal power was not expanded in earnest until the Civil Rights movement. When President Eisenhower justly employed it, for the purpose of enforcing compliance with civil rights laws, the flood gate was opened.

History has again proven that power begets power, and that if it can be misused, it will be misused.

The Constitution, as well as the Bill of Rights, is either ignored, being decimated by the courts, or, as is the case with Second Amendment, under constant attack.

Our "Damnocratic" government representatives, now unabashedly play the American people like a cheap fiddle, constantly manipulating fact, figures, and information, then "polling" us to determine how much of it we bought.

Remember the statement of the man caught behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz "don't believe what you see, believe what I tell you!" Same statement in the form of a question: How many of us will begin to believe our eyes, and how many will continue swallowing the garbage we are being fed?

Because the truth has a nasty habit of playing hell with the spin doctors version of a good story, news correspondents access to events is now determined by whether or not it will benefit government. "For their protection," at the siege of Waco, none were allowed closer than two miles, while in Iraq they were "embedded" with the troops.

Our politicians, in the name of the federal government--just as the British, in the name of the Monarch--now govern under the cloak of sovereign immunity, sovereignty stolen from We The People. Under the guise of constant re-interpretation, a facade has been created to disguise and justify this authoritarian government, and sell it to the citizens as Constitutional.

By constant repetition of policy over a period of about fifty years, our "leaders" have replaced a stable Constitutional Republic, with a very unstable, Socialist Damn-ocracy, oblivious to the warning of James Madison that: "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, and have in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

Are these words--a haunting from the grave--a warning which we have chosen to ignore, or do they merely highlight circumstances over which we have had no control, short of another Civil War?

Is it the chosen time for our current cross breed government to face the ultimate judge, the Declaration of Independence?

                           MY PERSONAL OPINION?

A person must possess their sovereignty before they can voluntarily subjugate a portion of it to a just government. It has taken us over one hundred years, and the most brutal war in our history to achieve the necessary conditions for each and every person, regardless of race, creed, color, and gender, to at least get a fair shot at the brass ring.

The caterpillar is indeed in the process of expiring of old age, that the butterfly may emerge in the form of the true Republic.

Envisioned within the Declaration of Independence, the emergence of the government ordained and managed into existence by the creator of all things; the government impossible to build until now Is Imminent.

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." With these beliefs and statements, our forefathers justified the killing of "His Majesties" troops, and the overthrow of a government.

If this statement, an affirmation of the dignity and sovereignty of each individual, was an untruth, then our forefathers were murderers, and our nation was founded illegitimately. (The view of British Royalty for over two centuries.)

If however, the Declaration of Independence is a statement of eternal truth, should every copy be destroyed, the innate principles contained within, it, will continue to drive future generations, just as they had driven the many previous generations, prior to Jefferson having committed them to paper.

The document neither builds a government, nor does it mandate a form of government, it merely states the goals of any government to be the securing of individual sovereignty.

"To secure these rights, governments are created among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.."

This uncompromising judge will continue to destroy governments and civilizations until mankind finally perceives and acts upon this truth: The essence of the term "the governed" is embodied, in its totality, in each sovereign human being!

In a proclamation consisting of only fifty-six words, Jefferson recognized the intended value of every individual soul, their relationship to each other, and their collective relationship to their creator; the principles comprising the heart and soul of civilization itself.

While the ingenious manner in which the power of government is curtailed and limited by checks and balances, has been hailed as the master piece of representative government, correctly recognizing the source of lawful government to be each individual citizen, was of far greater importance!

Our forefathers, by hypocritically protecting the "right" of slavery, and the denial of universal sovereignty, doomed their government to failure, before it was implemented. Thus the Civil War!

            A Constitutional Crisis? What Do You Think?

The selling of indulgences shattered Catholicism, destroying forever the unity of Christianity; that same process, now serving as our "justice system" is producing identical results. When either absolution or justice, becomes a commodity to be bought and sold, you have neither.

Judicially we are rapidly approaching the time that juries will be incapable of rendering important decisions, state governments enact legislation, or the results of elections certified, without the threat of being overturned at some level of the judiciary.

Financially we are tolerating a tax & currency system, even its administrators don't understand.

Politically we have devised no better methods than auction and bribery to choose our leaders; conflict of interest has been expunged from our vocabulary.

Individually we must secure the services of an attorney to either explain the common law of the land, or, have it reinterpreted to our benefit in a court of law.

Morally we are allowing our government representatives to sell our following generations into indentured servitude, to provide present government "services" and future "benefits" that we ourselves are unwilling to pay for.

There is an alternative! The civilization built on the model of the Declaration of Independence, is still in our future!

Self Government is the only viable form of government, all others require libraries of capricious, contradictory law, and an army of (priest) lawyers to interpret and guide the individual through this artificial mine field.

Collective self government must begin with individual self government--but not to worry. If we are indeed beings created in the image and after the likeness of our Creator, along with the inherited sovereignty, derived through education, and the consequences of experience, comes the inherent ability to achieve and maintain that sovereignty. We have no choice! If the ability exist, so also does the responsibility.

Our Constitution, when applied as the Bill of Rights proves that it was intended, and interpreted according to the Declaration of Independence, is still a very viable contract of government.

The founders of our nation conceived a plan, and laid the cornerstone in the form of our Constitution, for a free citizenry.

Damn-ocracy, (authoritarian government) through debt, has mortgaged our immediate future, as well as that of our following generations, to the International Banking Cartel.

We now find ourselves faced with the task of either capitulating to permanent authoritarian slavery, or dismantling this suffocating financial system with which we have been burdened, and building the envisioned, Free American Republic.

We not only can, but must reinstitute government by electing representatives who value the principles espoused within the Declaration of Independence!

A Very Exciting Time And Place To Be Alive!

www.4ourvote.net

Did you like this article?
If you did, Thumb It!
5 thumbs so far

2008 Wendall Dennis, all rights reserved.
Published: Friday, April 4, 2008
Last modified: Friday, April 4, 2008

The views expressed in this article are those of Wendall Dennis only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Wendall Dennis is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.

Report violation by Wendall Dennis of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.


More Articles By Wendall Dennis

Be A Columnist
Tell A Friend About This Article

Reader Comments:

Posted By: Logical Premise
Date: 2008-04-04 21:13:09

"Our forefathers, by hypocritically protecting the "right" of slavery, and the denial of universal sovereignty, doomed their government to failure, before it was implemented. Thus the Civil War!"

A very good and salient point. If they had outlawed slavery, there would have been no real legal & moral leg to stand on when the issue of State's Rights came up.

The death of State's Rights then is the death of State's Rights now. State's Rights are never used to protect the people, they're used to protect the interests of the powerful that control the State. The Civil War was not about liberty or patriotism -- it was about the Southern Men of Business complaining about Federal interfereance in their business model, with heavy taxes and limits on expansion.

The fact that the South's economic model depended on Slavery is often overlooked in the point made that the Civil War was not about freeing the Slaves. The Slaves had no place in the Civil War except as a causus belli.

In today's society, we have lots of issues that could concievably be resolved on a state level. Unfortunately, these issues are BETTER resolved at a national level. My favorite is, of course, gay marriage.

Let's say we have a pair of lesbians. One is from Europe, the other is an American citizen. If they get married in Massechutsets, the european can apply (in theory) to become a citizen of the US.

What if they move to Texas where gay marriage is outlawed? Is she still a citizen?

What if the European has to travel across country? Is she just a citizen in the states that recognize gay marriage?

I'm not saying "FED IZ ALWAYZ TEH BETTERS". But I am saying that simplistically stating that Liberty is some function of State's Rights and that our government's corruptions on a national level aren't also mirrored on a state and local level is ... well, to be polite, somewhat naive.  

Report violation


Posted By: Ivan from Oregon
Date: 2008-04-05 17:14:27

Logical, I have fun "running into" you.  In this discussion, the thing that needs to be settled first is, "what is the issue at hand?".  Is "marriage" an "economic union" (like a corporation).  The red herring is trying to untangle a "private contract"  vying for "pork" in a state jurisdiction outside the contract.

Report violation


Posted By: Republicae
Date: 2008-04-05 22:11:27

As usual, the "premise" is more than off his premise of logic and indeed factual information that is only brought about through intense and thorough study. 

 

 

Now, Lincoln himself stated his primary reason [casus belli] for all the concern over the South Seceding from the Union was the Union itself however, it was not, nor could it have been the Union itself because on several occasions  in his career he stated that each State had the Constitutional Right to change their form of government, even if it meant rebelling to achieve it.

It was not slavery; otherwise he would not have proposed a Constitutional Amendment that would forever protect the institution of slavery. Nor would he have said the numerous things he did about the fact that he didn't care one way or another if even one slave was freed.

The real reason, when you logically deduce from all the above evidence in the facts of history that accompanies the above statements, was that neither of those issues were the real reason Lincoln did not want the South to leave the Union.

Numerous Northern Newspapers state the real reason numerous times, not only by Lincoln, but also by several of his Industrial supporters and. That reason was the utter devastating prospect that if the South left the Union that the government’s coffers would be bled dry with the lost of revenues and likewise, that the Northern economy would be decimated.

Lincoln himself stated that if the South was allowed to secede "What then will become of my tariff?"

Read the archives for yourself, in newspapers like the Chicago Daily Times, in the 1860, Dec 10 edition, before the War started the editorial of that paper stated the real reason for the War:

"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, WITH ALL ITS IMMENSE PROFITS. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow."

The Philadelphia Press in their 1861 edition proposed one of the most interesting ideas that made its way to Lincoln, January 15. This also seems to be the basis for Lincoln's Inaugural Address. The paper said that: If South Carolina were to take the forts by force, this would be levying war against the United States and high treason against the Constitution" In other words, if South Carolina could be "tricked" into firing on the Forts in Charleston Harbor, that would be enough to go to War to stop the State from Seceding and thus reeking havoc on Northern and government revenues. The paper went on to say:

"In the enforcement of the revenue laws, the forts are of primary importance. THEIR GUNS COVER JUST SO MUCH GROUND AS IS NECESSARY TO ENABLE THE UNITED STATES TO ENFORCE THEIR LAWS. Those forts the United States must maintain. IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF COERCING SOUTH CAROLINA, BUT OF ENFORCING THE REVENUE LAWS. The practical point, EITHER WAY, is whether the revenue laws of the United States shall or shall not be enforced at those three ports."

YES, LINCOLN TOOK NOTE.

Like Lincoln, on March 2, 1861, The New York Evening Post headed its editorial with these words: "WHAT SHALL BE DONE FOR A REVENUE?"

"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 de 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."

It went on with an amazing disclosure of the real reasons why the North and why Lincoln did not want, nor could allow the South to secede from the Union:

"WHAT, THEN, IS LEFT FOR OUR GOVERNMENT? SHALL WE LET THE SECEDING STATES REPEAL THE REVENUE LAWS FOR THE WHOLE UNION IN THIS MANNER? Or will the government choose to consider all foreign commerce destined for those ports where we have no custom-houses and no collections as contraband, and stop it, when offering to enter the collection districts from which our authorities have been expelled"

In less than two weeks of a barrage of such editorials, Lincoln took that fateful action that would ensure the shelling of Fort Sumter; he sent reinforcements to the Fort. It was the action he needed to fulfill his deed of treachery and begin the long destructive path into un-Constitutionalism, and Treason against the duly elected government of the United States.

 “I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution . . . has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose, not to speak of particular amendments, so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

 

This of course was consistent with one of the opening statements of the First Inaugural, where Lincoln quoted himself as saying: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

 

I find it strange that if Lincoln was so adamant to abolish slavery why he would support an amendment that was totally against everything he supposedly stood for. Could it be that Lincoln's motives were far different and far less honest than one might suppose if one just skimmed over the history of the period?

 

Interestingly enough, Lincoln was a strong supporter of one of the federal laws that actually supported slavery and sustained it as an economic power within the South. That law was called the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, had that one law been revoked Slavery would have ended within a very few years because it would no longer be profitable, neither for the Southern Planters or the Northern Slave Shippers.

 

Concerning the expansion of slavery into the territories, Lincoln’s Secretary of State William Seward explained: "The motive of those who protested against the extension of slavery had always really been concern for the welfare of the white man, and not an unnatural sympathy for the Negro"

 

Lincoln was in agreement when he said: "The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted with them."

 

They care nothing for the slave, they actually cared less about the slave then the slave owners did. Read the Slave Chronicles and see what the slaves themselves thought about the difference between the whites of the South and those from the North, particular their views about Union soldiers.

 

The emancipation of the slaves was not a pressing issue with Lincoln, not until the War was on nearly at the door steps of the White House and Lincoln thought Washington would be invaded, then and only then did he press the issue of slavery by announcing that sham of a policy called the Emancipation Proclamation which only "freed" slaves within Confederate Territory and didn't touch the very slaves that Lincoln had power to free and that was those under Union control. Why, if Lincoln tried so hard to free the slaves did he not do it when he could and free those who were under the direct control of the Union army to free?

 

It was not the South that would no budge on the issue because that issue was not in question regarding the cause and reasons behind the war. As said before, Lincoln offered the South a deal that if they would stay in the union that he would push for the perpetual safeguards for the institution of slavery in the South. The issue was not slavery or the South could have made the deal in the beginning, before conflict every started, the issue was the way the North and the federal government imposed the heaviest tariffs on all Southern goods going in and out of the South.

Does anyone know why the federal union government never brought Jefferson Davis to trial for Treason? The answer is that almost every Constitutional Lawyer and expert at the time, in the North, declared that while the South lost the War on the battlefield that if Davis was ever brought to trail they would win the case for Constitutional Secession in the courts and such a victory would show the criminality of the actions of Lincoln and the North.

Shortly after Lincoln's inaugural address, which by the way was a complete and utter sham, one newspaper in the South stated:

"It is impossible to doubt that it was Mr. Lincoln's policy, under the name of reinforcing the laws, to retake the forts, to collect the revenue of the United States in our Ports and to reduce the seceded States to obedience to the behests of his party [Radical Republican] His purpose therefore was war upon and subjugation of our People."

Now, it was evident that the Northern newspaper editors were well aware of the issues at hand and also aware of what was needed to secure the Tariffs for the federal government and protection of Northern manufacturers, even as far back as 1860:

"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system or that of a tariff for revenue and these results would likely follow."

"In the enforcement of the revenue laws [the heavy, one-sided Tariffs] the forts [like Fort Sumter] are of primary importance. Their guns cover just so much ground as is necessary to enable the United States to enforce their laws. Those forts the United States must maintain. It is not a question of coercing South Carolina, but enforcing the revenue laws. The practical point, either way, is whether the revenue laws of the United States shall or shall not be enforced at those three Ports, Charleston, Beaufort and Georgetown, or whether they shall or shall not be made free ports, open to the commerce of the world, with no other restriction upon it than South Carolina shall see proper to impose. Forts are to be used to enforce the revenue laws...not to conquer a State."

When South Carolina seceded on December 21, 1860, the Northern newspapers were quick to suggest:

"The government cannot well avoid collecting the federal revenues at all Southern Ports, even after the passage of secession ordinances; and if this duty is discharged, any State which assumes a rebellious attitude will still be obligated to contribute revenue to support the federal government or have her foreign commerce entirely destroyed"

Now, once again concerning the reasons behind the actions of the Southern States in their urge to cuts the binding ties of the union, if you look at the actions of the Congress of the 1860 and the platform of the Radical Republican Party of 1860 then you would quickly recognize that the South had very few alternatives. By early 1861 there was one of the highest tariffs in history imposed upon the South by Congress called the Morrill Tariff. In the House, Rep. John H. Reagan of the State of Texas stated about the long list of punitive tariffs:

"You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue laws, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. you are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of Northern Capitalist. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and our institutions."

Indeed, the reasons for the South's desire to break the bind of union was the same as our Founders, it had much more to do with over-taxation without representation. Lincoln was basically in the pocket of the Northern industrialist and was obligated to them to impose heavy tariffs on the South while maintaining protection for the Northern manufacturers. However, it was not only the desire for trade protectionism that the North desired, but also the aggrandizement of what they saw as Empire. In the Quarterly Review in Britain, commentary stated:

"Fate has indeed taken a malignant pleasure in flouting the admirers of the United States. It is not merely that their hopes of its universal empire have been disappointed, the mortification has been much deeper than this. Every theory to which they paid special homage has been successively repudiated by their favorite statesmen. They were Apostles of Free Trade: America has established a tariff, compared to which our heaviest protection-tariff, has been flimsy. She has become a land of passports, of conscriptions, of press censorship and post-office espionage, of bastilles and lettres de cachet [this was a letter that bore an official seal which authorized the imprisonment, without trial of any person named in the letter] There was little difference between the government of Mr. Lincoln and the government of Napoleon III. There was the form of a legislative assembly, where scarcely any dared to oppose for fear of the charge of treason."

Ah yes, the government of Lincoln, one where fear ruled not only the average man and woman on the street, but in every Newspaper, every church, every Legislature and even the courts.

To ensure the execution of the Tariffs imposed upon the South, Lincoln imposed a de facto blockade when the South decided to declare a tariff-free trade zone in the Southern State Ports for all Southern products imported and exported to Europe. Of course, this would circumvent the heavy Tariffs of the North on the South and thereby would deplete the coffers of the federal government and endanger the economic viability of Northern Industrialists. Why on earth would The State Republic of South Carolina dare to fire on a federal fort Sumter? Was it out of shear pleasure, was some crazy man in charge of the Battery on Charleston Harbor? Did they just want to start a War with the North? Could it be that they were protecting their Constitutional Rights as one of the Several States that voluntarily entered into the Constitutional Convention to join this federation based upon the ideals of federalism called the United States of America and that those Rights and its Sovereignty to exercise, by the Consent of the Citizens of The Republic of South Carolina, their desire to defend their economic interests against the infringement by a powerful and rich force within Congress?

Yes, Lincoln was pressured by some extremely strong special interests, to impose a blockade against the Sovereign States that made up the South. Under the guise of resupplying Fort Sumter, Lincoln, in effect, ensured action by the South to begin the War he and his Industrialist patrons so desperately wanted and needed. It was the perfect ploy to demonize the South while allowing the North and the federal government to remain pure. It worked!

Anyone can go to the Library of Congress, to the newspaper archives of the day and easily sort out the real history of the conflict, it is a history that is definitely not taught in our schools or colleges.

The War was totally about tariffs and the desire of certain Radical Republicans to create a "nation-state" and that is exactly what was created by this war, a centralized national government with the power to impose its national will over the State Republics which were Sovereign and too powerful in the eyes of certain people and special interests.

Of course, there was no illusions behind the reasons of the War in the South, they were fighting for what they saw as the original Constitutional Republic and the ideals upon which it was founded. The New Orleans Daily Crescent stated that the causes of secession were simply this:

"The know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty to seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests. These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union. They, the North, are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto. They are mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it."

For a very interesting discourse on the reasons behind the War read Charles Dickens, yes the same author that wrote A Christmas Carol, his discourse on the subject is extremely enlightening and extremely honest in its condemnation of Lincoln, the federal government and the extremely powerful special interests that helped guide Lincoln's hand toward outright tyranny and eventual destruction of the South.

I will leave you with these words, I find them absolutely amazing in the light of history:

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." Abraham Lincoln-----spoken before Lincoln came under the strong influences of Northern Industrial Special Interests and before he became drunk with power normally associated with autocratic tyrants.

 

 

 

Report violation


Posted By: patrick henry
Date: 2008-04-07 13:57:56

Wendell, good article..

Republicae awesome as usual.

Hello statist? Cricket, cricket, anyone out there? Hard to argue with the truth.

Black is White

War is Peace

Ignorance is strength

Freedom is slavery

Now all stand for your 2 minutes of hate, Emanuel Goldstiens!

LIBERTY or DEATH

Report violation


Posted By: Logical Premise
Date: 2008-04-10 10:18:11

Since Republicae can't appearatly parse language, I'll say it in baby talk.

The Civil War was the North trying to destroy the South's economy. Slaves were used as a moralistic excuse but did not matter.

Why you would take that statement to make a pages long rant as if I had said Slaves were the reason the civil war was fought is beyond me. What I said, of course, is that people miss the POINT of why states rights argument failed in the end.

People did not care about the slaves, and didn't want free blacks -- but once the argument was cast in the light that the South was fighting for Slavery then that's the way the rest of the world decided to interpret it, and it's why England and France had no real desire to get involved.

When people discuss the War now, they correctly identify the fact that the North cared nothing about slaves and that Lincoln did 100% of nothing to help blacks , either free or slave, at any time. Nathan Bedford Forrest treated blacks better than Lincoln did. But in making that valid point, they ignore the "reality" that the South's economy WAS predicated on something illegal, immoral and wrong, and that the major issue that ended up destroying the South's hopes was that for all it's claims of supporting the Constitution and protecting Liberty, it was *SEEN BY OTHERS* as a champion, instead, for slavery and bondage.

You can take that for what it's worth.

Report violation


Want to comment on this article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is required to track your comment. However, we will neither publish your email address nor distribute it to other organizations or persons. The only reason we might use it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All comments are subject to our terms of use policy.

Leave A Comment

Your Name:  

Your Email Address*:  

Your Comment: