15 Jul American ISIS: The Government War on the Confederacy by Bill Buppert
Publisher’s Note: Please keep in mind that in the broader sense that every war in history is about slavery; about who will own you and your resources. I have no dog in the fight in the War of Northern Aggression, both sides were government supremacists.
My friend Joe Jarvis recently published a book I just read called Anarchy in New England. I posted a review at Amazon here. I highly recommend it. –BB
“A government that can at pleasure accuse, shoot, and hang men, as traitors, for the one general offence of refusing to surrender themselves and their property unreservedly to its arbitrary will, can practice any and all special and particular oppressions it pleases. The result — and a natural one — has been that we have had governments, State and national, devoted to nearly every grade and species of crime that governments have ever practised upon their victims; and these crimes have culminated in a war that has cost a million of lives; a war carried on, upon one side, for chattel slavery, and on the other for political slavery; upon neither for liberty, justice, or truth. And these crimes have been committed, and this war waged, by men, and the descendants of men, who, less than a hundred years ago, said that all men were equal, and could owe neither service to individuals, nor allegiance to governments, except with their own consent”
– Lysander Spooner
Dylann Roof murders nine black folks in cold blood in their house of worship in South Carolina; an awful event that deserves the fiercest condemnation. If one of the congregants had been armed, fewer people would have been harmed. It just so happens that the pastor is a former government “representative” who opposed concealed carry.
An enormously tragic event but the availability of guns didn’t cause the killings; an individual mindset intent on evil deeds did so.
Inevitably, the usual political suspects dance on the graves of the barely cold corpses to call on the restrictions of weapons and in this case, Confederate regalia.
Roof is seen in several photos wearing a jacket with both a Rhodesian flag and the flag of apartheid South Africa. By extension, he is a supporter of the Confederacy.
In a span of weeks, this single private psychopath’s murderous rampage somehow led the governor and political apparatchiks in South Carolina to lower the Confederate flag that was flying over the capitol and retire it. There are many interesting trends to tease out of this reaction.
We even hear rumors of large chains like Amazon and Wal-Mart being asked to remove the sale of any Confederate items from their shelves both virtual and brick and mortar.
Roof’s actions are reprehensible and the government’s reaction is expected as they tend to fill their pants when non-badged gunmen mow down innocents like the state is wont to do against the MOVE headquarters in Philly, Ruby Ridge, Waco or the recent incident where the cops ran over several children during a high-speed chase. After every one of these incidents, no one clamored to remove the flag all of these miscreants flew under, Old Glory Like the currency in the US, the Federal government hates competition and turns an angry visage toward any killing that is not government approved and authorized.
So suspend your history and logic and take a gander at the reaction of the politicos after the massacre at the church. The shooter is somehow connected to Confederate sympathies because he flies the flag that is flown by millions in the US and planet-wide. I have seen rebel flags of every variety flying in the Middle East. While in the Army when I commanded, I had a 3×5 Bonnie Blue proudly adorning the wall behind my desk despite the Army ban on Confederate regalia because I could depend on the historical ignorance of my colleagues that they would fail to recognize it. I am married to a woman who is a blood relative of Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson. I have done a fair amount of reading and while I am not a fan of what the Confederacy became over time during the Second American Revolution, I have every confidence they did the right thing in forcing a separation from Lincoln’s leviathan.
And I have no illusions that the war was simply about slavery but a variety of factors much like every complex internecine conflict in history. I recommend a thorough reading of the historiography and especially the works of Thomas DiLorenzo and Emancipating Slaves and Enslaving Free Men by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel. There are hundreds of others but these should lead the reader to discover other historical rabbit-holes germane to why the entire divorce was brewing before the ink was dry on the Constitution.
In the end before the well-deserved bullet ended the dictator Lincoln’s sordid life, the train was set in motion to consolidate the Federalist vision at the end of the 18th century into the full realization of the totalitarian enterprise on American soil that would travel at light speed at the turn of the 20th century thanks to the thorough undermining of individual liberty and freedom concentrated in those five years from 1861-65. Many laws would seal the fate of individual volition but the magical 13th Amendment would free the chattel slave and the 14th Amendment would put every human in America on the government plantation.
I would suggest a look at Lincoln’s Executive Orders during his Presidency to get a taste of just how bloodthirsty and morally twisted this monster was. And this is just 1862.
Lincoln idolatry has been a major fashion since the end of in all the popular salons of American academe. Yet Lincoln held the black man in rather low esteem:
“There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas…”
“In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, “It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and in their places be, pari passu [on an equal basis], filled up by free white laborers.”
“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 have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.”
“Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.”
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
On the Emancipation Proclamation:
“I view the matter as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion.” A. Lincoln
So why isn’t the Lincoln Memorial slated for destruction in the new jihad in Lee Greenwood’s America? Well, despite the deep Democrat roots in the Ku Klux Klan, the idolatry for the man in both political parties matches that of Wilson and FDR. These three have superseded political ideology by faction because they are war presidents. And the excesses they practiced were…necessary. So goes the collectivist fairy tale.
The Confederate flags as a nation-state would fly barely five years before the defeat would spell doom for Southron independence. The familiar cloth of Old Glory flew over slavery from 1791 to 1865 and arguably has flown over slavery ever since in the modern leviathan state that DC lords over like a jealous occupier.
Fast-forward to today where the actions of one twisted young man have caused a stampede of legislators and their parrots in the collectivist commentariat to attempt to banish the symbols of the Confederacy, decimate monuments and dig up the dead. You read that last correctly, the worthies in the Memphis political combine want to destroy the monument and dig up and exhume the remains of Nathan Bedford Forrest. His relatives are still alive.
Imagine if you would a country or number of countries in a region where the overwhelming force of one occupier has established a stranglehold over the populations. Not only do they threaten all who fail to pledge fealty and obedience (Reconstruction anyone?) but they go out of their way to destroy any symbols of competing ideologies. In this case, we have ISIS in the Middle East destroying countless priceless archeological sites and symbols that betray any faith but Sunni or Salafist Islam.
This is what is happening in America; just a slight variant on the theme of the US-sponsored ISIS state.
Like weapons, there is zero evidence of the colored cloth in private hands being a direct causative to criminal harm of anybody in history. Now mind you, colored cloth in government hands is directly attributable to hundred of millions of deaths in the 20th century alone.
You will note that between WWI and WWII, the incidence of regiments fighting in conflicts overseas started to shed the “parochialism: of state and regional identity and eschewed that for exclusively national identification like the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions among the legions of numbered divisions stripped of any individual identify from the states. In doing so, connections that cloud loyalties to the central state are simply erased. I would suggest this is an important component for the mandarins in DC, they wish no competing allegiance thus the jeremiad against the Confederate flag(s).
The government logic appears to assume that Roof did what he did because of the influence of the symbology and his perceived meaning of those flags; in other words he dared to initiate violence absence license from the state to do so. The funny thing about government licensing is that it is simply a way to make something illegal legal.
There may be another reason the government is rather eager to rewrite history and quite literally erase a cultural heritage. Americans just celebrated a secession from the United Kingdom from the faraway 18th century on July 4th; official recognition boundless across the fetid plain. This established the present regime’s bona fides but a similar celebration of an internal and internecine conflict that questions the prerogatives of the central government is officially shunned and causes many in official Washington to quake at recognizing a remembrance that questions both their moral authority and their suzerainty over a tax jurisdiction.
DC loathes the idea of secession if it fractures alliances it endorses. I make this point to illustrate that the sundering of the USSR into nearly two dozen constituent states was applauded by the mandarins in DC but the same apparatchiks are loathe to consider rewriting map lines of any countries they invade or aggress against. Thus the failure of Iraq and Afghanistan, both imaginary countries, to be defeated by the US and the West and all the ancillary countries embroiled in the US-authored maelstrom of violence in the Middle East may have this refusal to partition to blame.
The US does not want to do overseas what it fears at home. Much like empires always bringing home with a vengeance what they practice abroad, the same reverse phenomenon holds when it comes to true federalism, confederation and partition. The US will not tolerate the sundering of map lines in countries it invades unilaterally. I point that out because of the US and NATO enthusiasm to create a Muslim Marxist rump state in Kosovo carved out of the still warm corpse of Yugoslavia.
This is why the US government loathes any notion of an honorable or meritorious Confederate secession. As I do, one can be dismissive of the southern ambitions to consolidate the southern states under one set of fetters or Jefferson Davis’ statist mimicking of northern nation state proclivities to prosecute a regular (as opposed to irregular) conflict to win independence. But the notions of secession all the way down to the individual level are the only final marker of freedom. Obviously, if you can’t opt out of something, you are in a state of servitude.
So when one teases out the implications of this new-found domestic collectivist jihad of all things southern rebellion, the central government absolutely hates the idea of independence and individual liberty. They will pull out all the stops to root out every branch of freedom and independence from the soil across the fetid plain.
The US government and its satraps in the captured states across the fetid plain are trying to send the Confederacy and therefore secession into the institutional memory hole much like the sanitized history of the US and the world taught throughout the government-education complex.
In the end, whatever dark components the Confederacy may have had, it was pure and simple a divorce that the central powers would not tolerate.
And the rulers still feel that way.
“The principle that the majority have a right to rule the minority, practically resolves all government into a mere contest between two bodies of men, as to which of them shall be masters, and which of them slaves; a contest, that — however bloody — can, in the nature of things, never be finally closed, so long as man refuses to be a slave.”
– Lysander Spooner