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.

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.

Resist.

“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

Bill Buppert
thirdgun@hotmail.com
32 Comments
  • Sean
    Posted at 10:14h, 15 July Reply

    I thought about flying the Van Dorn flag before just to annoy people, but realized in today’s day and age many people will see the crescent moon and attribute it to Islam.

    • Anonymous
      Posted at 02:57h, 16 July Reply

      I have the Moultrie flag on my car

  • Jerry
    Posted at 10:17h, 15 July Reply

    That, sir, is a damn fine article. I especially loved your observation regarding the relationship of the Fed and ISIS to the Confederate flag and ME historic sites. They are the same. Any alternative to the status quo is anathema.

    • Bill
      Posted at 20:56h, 15 July Reply

      Thanks, Jerry, any alternative to the statist quo is anathema. Cheers…

      Bill

  • haroldcrews
    Posted at 17:16h, 15 July Reply

    Propositional nations are by their very nature totalitarian. It’s only a question of time.

    • Jackson
      Posted at 08:05h, 17 July Reply

      A concept that is fully expounded on in Thomas Chittum’s excellent Civil War II book. He differentiates “empires” (polyglot groups held together by force and bribery such as Yugoslavia) from nations (organic groups of people controlling their own fate, such as the Czechs).

      The proposition nation is just merely the latest attempt to prop up an empire with a convenient ideology. Kings and gods being out of style, the courtesans of the empire have come up with the proposition nation idea instead. (See: Kristol, William et al.)

      Eventually empires pull themselves apart. Or at least, that is Chittum’s thesis. The USA as a polyglot empire / proposition nation WILL eventually pull itself apart, and when that happens (like it or not) that will be along ethnic lines. Empires always devolve along the most obvious fault lines. In Iraq that is Shia / Sunni. In America it’s Black / White / Mexican.

      Thus: the second Civil War. I think the book is back in print.

      https://www.amazon.com/Civil-War-Two-Breakup-America-ebook/dp/B00OI7NQOI/ref=la_B001KCOPHQ_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1437145783&sr=1-1

  • John C
    Posted at 21:05h, 15 July Reply

    Good article like always.

    Wow that is something to be related to Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson. Your wife could of been related to much more worst people.

    Last year I finished reading How The South Could Have Won the Civil War: The Fatal Errors That Led to Confederate Defeat by Bevin Alexander.

    The difference between Jackson and most most other generals on all side is amazing and very depressing. From my readings on several books on this topic (the Civil War) Jackson’s campaign he proposed (which may of won the war) to take the war to the north and tactics in the battle (not wasting lives on unwinnable battles, putting each battle in perspective to the whole campaign rather then just winning, and knowing how to use the limited resources, the technology and used the terrain) was the best for that time.

    You could see that Jackson was thinking in a 3D chess way (using James Corbett anthology) as proposed to most generals in the war and generals in history of a 2D chess.

    What makes the story sad is that he dies early in the war and that very few of the lessons were learned by the Generals such as Lee leading to the blood baths and the war carrying on longer then might otherwise of happen.

    Also I would like to note how many Generals today would be in the front lines with the men?

    • Bill
      Posted at 02:31h, 16 July Reply

      Thanks for your thoughts on Jackson, he was a 3GW (Maneuver) commander way ahead of his time like NB Forrest.

      Per the General officer observation, I recommend a reading of Fighting Power by van Creveld and Command Culture by Muth.

      Thomas Ricks (a deluded collectivist but keen observer) has some interesting things to say on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPcEPdfEGto

      Thanks for checking in John, always a pleasure to hear from you.

      Bill

      • John C
        Posted at 19:23h, 16 July Reply

        Hi Bill,

        I will have a look on at reading these two books you recommend since I enjoy reading on miltary and history. I have a lot of books on my counter to read. I am in the middle of reading.’The Great Divide: Why Liberals and Conservatives will never ever agree’ by William D Gairdner. Very good so far I have to say. Although I disagree with one of two points in the book.

        Last year I was not reading that many books but this year I have made an effort to read a least one book a month.

        I have a book to recommend to you that I think you would like ‘The Deming Dimension’ by Henry R. Neave. It is a business management book but I think it is one of the best I have read ( I have read many since doing a degree in business). The book is based on Dr. Deming and his principles and philosophy on business.

        The reason I pick this for you is that many of his lesson remind me of what a lot of the Austrian Economics and Libertarians have said on the effect of government on the economy especially in regards to laws and substitutes (carrots and sticks). I also pick this one instead of one of Dr Demings books since this author takes the lessons and makes it easy to understand. My personal part in it was the red bean experiment and some of his warning to companies (some of the same ones that later ask for a bail out) and individuals on important of knowledge. Even if you don’t read this book you should a least read or watch the red bean and check some of his quotes out.

        Anyway Bill I should be in the USA next week

        John

  • gamegetterII
    Posted at 21:47h, 16 July Reply

    An outstanding piece of writing sir.

  • Buffalo Lips
    Posted at 23:19h, 16 July Reply

    “And I have no illusions that the war was simply about slavery….”

    Great article with an unfortunate statement that is unsupported by facts and history.

    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

    A good place to start is the actual document.The source document! When you read it, a couple of times if you have the patience, you will see clearly that self-determination was a big part of the reasoning behind the decision of the South to secede. The Federal Government was badly overstepping its Constitutional authority. Ultimately, the south seceded because of interference in their sovereignty. The issue that brought it to a head was in large part slavery, and the federal government was interjecting itself and interfering where it had no constitutional authority. The interference from Washington became sufficiently intolerable that the southern states wanted out. It must have been bad.

    But that is where people get confused. The south seceded because in the collective opinion of every elected state government in the south, the Constitution had become null and void in their view because of the actions of the federal government. State sovereignty was at the heart of it all.

    Abraham Lincoln then attacked the South to prevent their secession, not to free the slaves. Slavery was still legal in many of the northern states just as it was in the South. The Civil War was not over slavery; it was fought over secession, to prevent it.

    That’s right:

    The Civil War was fought to prevent the South from doing the same thing the colonies had done to the British; they seceded when they believed their treatment to be intolerable.

    The North attacked the South, not the other way around. The Civil War was fought by the South in self-defense. It was self-defense.

    The Emancipation Proclamation was promulgated in 1863, fully two years into the Civil War. That document has a history all its own.

    As for the Confederate Battle Flag, it was the flag finally adopted by CSA Army (after several revisions). The flag had nothing to do with slavery. It was an army battle flag flown by an army. It would help to understand what a battle flag is and its purpose. It’s nothing ideological. It’s military, a way to communicate your identity, and it’s only use was on the battlefield to be able to correctly identify the assembled forces that opposed each other. You don’t want to be firing your canons at your own people. Hence the need for a battle flag so you can easily discern who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. This prevents taking friendly fire.

    To say that the Civil War was fought over slavery is totally wrong. It’s revisionist history.

    Scale this down. Let’s say I’m doing something you don’t like. You think you have the authority to tell me to stop. I don’t agree and I refuse. You attack me with force. With an army. Wow. I defend myself. You may win the fight but don’t claim that I started the fight or that I was morally inferior. You used force to have your way with me. I think we can agree that there wasn’t much freedom-loving respect for the revered rights of self-determination of the South, was there.

    And restating the obvious, Abraham Lincoln was OK with killing over 600,000 people and maiming a similar number to prevent the South from seceding, preventing the very act of self-determination. His place in history should be right next to Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot.

    Not addressed here are things that were going on in the historical background (economic and taxation issues) that the South considered egregious as well.

    One more time. The South seceded over intolerable constitutional abridgment, infringement of state sovereignty and denial of self-determination; not slavery. The North started the Civil War to prevent the secession of Southern States.

    As an important aside, and a point that should not be lost in the conversation, state sovereignty ended for everybody with the outcome of the Civil War, as did self-determination. It’s been downhill incrementally ever since and judging from the national mood, and almost universal worldwide distrust of Washington, D.C. these days, we’re not far from having another ‘go at it’.

    • regt2000
      Posted at 23:55h, 16 July Reply

      The War of Northern Aggression was not fought over slavery. It was fought because the Federal government required (demanded) that thew Southern states pay high tariffs on the products (such as cotton) they produced There was no Federal taxation at the time, and those tariffs were essential for the operation of Federal government. The Southern states refused to accept what was actually a tax upon their labor and property.

      Lincoln did not wish to curtail the income of the Federal government, nor did he wish to suffer a loss of control over those states wishing to leave the “Union”. Lincoln used slavery as a rallying point for the North, although the North was never forced to end _its_ use of slavery. Just the Southern states in rebellion.

      Thomas DiLorenzo has several articles written dealing with this topic, along with

      https://mises.org/search/site/article%20aspx

    • Bill
      Posted at 03:02h, 17 July Reply

      You and I have no disagreement, sir. Well met.

      Please note that I think the bottom line is Lincoln wanted to put everyone on the plantation.

  • skybill
    Posted at 23:34h, 16 July Reply

    “Confederate Battle Flag,””Stars and Bars,”” Old Glory,” And on and on……. Time maybe to hoist the “Jolly Roger!!!!!” It hails no Country, President or King!! Even the Captain of the ship according to the Covenant is only the Captain s long as the ” Crew” agrees and if they decree he can be “Replaced!!!” Arrrrgh matey!!!! Sail on!!

    Just a thought ……..after all that’s been happening around me lately!! Lock and LOAD!!!

    Got Gunz….OUTLAW??!!!,

    III%,
    skybill-out

    • Bill Harzia
      Posted at 05:57h, 17 July Reply

      And make sure that the Jolly Roger hoisted is the one with the red background, not the black.

  • James
    Posted at 05:43h, 17 July Reply

    I am going to fly the “Blue Bonnie” flag. First used by a part of Florida was basically the same when the Confederates fired their first shots. Many are not familiar with it,thus,it not only resists PC/kill history crowd but gives one a chance to explain and discuss the war of succession. Sure,will anger some folks which is fine but more importantly gives one chance to educate and learn more of our history,a win/win in my book, great article.

  • Jackson
    Posted at 08:21h, 17 July Reply

    Buffalo Lips: Interesting article, but it’s hair splitting really, isn’t it. You say “the war was fought over secession”, which is true. But what was the secession over? Slavery!

    I like your suggestion to go to primary source documents. And when you do you quickly see that slavery was the THE animating issue behind the secession.

    Regt2000: You are trotting out this old canard that the secession was about tariffs. I recently read both both Texas articles of secession and the South Carolina ones. The Texas document mentions slavery 26 times, while extolling on the superiority of the White race, and tariffs not at all.

    This line you are peddling is the one all the civil war reenactors parrot, but it’s fundamentally dishonest to claim that the Civil War (or the Secession that caused it) wasn’t all about slavery. It was. We know because they said so:

    https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/secession/2feb1861.html

    A few excepts:

    “She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery–the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits–a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?”

    “In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color–a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and the negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.”

    Again, this is the Document that the Texas legislature passed as: “[D]eclaration of the causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union”.

    I take them at their word. They were honorable and well spoken men, who said what they meant and meant what they said. It’s quite obvious the supported slavery, disagreed with anyone trying to end it, and thought the White race wholly superior to the Black. And this impelled their secession.

    • Bill
      Posted at 08:41h, 17 July Reply

      Jackson,

      Thanks for the splendid responses. I, too, used to endorse the slavery canard so common to defenders of the Confederacy. Further reading scrubbed any doubt from my mind that both the North and the South did not seek to remove slavery but simply to defend it in the South and alter its chattel constraints in the North to enable the Union to put everyone on the plantation. I still endorse the Southron rebellion in 1860-61 and feel it was the Second American Revolution. The greater the plurality of government polities, the greater possibility for freedom to bloom somewhere.

      After all, the Constitution had slavery built into its DNA hence:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1793

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850

      Little did we know just how far the government would take it per Lysander Spooner: A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.

  • Ron W
    Posted at 12:07h, 17 July Reply

    Secession is Constitutional and therefore completely LAWFUL regardless the reasons. The Constitution is premised on the principles of the Declaration of Independence which states that we of “free and independent States”. The Federal Government, a creation of the States by the Constitution, has NO delegated powers to prevent or stop a State or States from seceding from the Union since, according to the 10th Amendment, it may do NOTHING without the delegated power to do so. And being a creation of the States, its powers are delegated which always come from the greater to the lesser.

    • Bill
      Posted at 03:06h, 18 July Reply

      If you’ve read my site you know I think the Constitution was built from the ground up to give us the leviathan state we labor under today.

      I think secession is something no one can remove as a choice but by force. Secession is the rule and not the exception in human history.

      The Constitution does NOT permit or allow secession:

      What about Texas, which according to legend retains its own special secession clause? Supreme Court Justice Salmon P. Chase settled that question all the way back in 1869:

      When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

      The monster Lincoln proclaimed:

      First Inaugural Address March 4, 1861

      We find the proposition that, in legal contemplation, the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And, finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was “to form a more perfect Union.”

      But then again what descriptive value does the word unconstitutional have anyway?

      This is the same Lincoln that said this in 1848:

      “…Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better– This is a most valuable, — a most sacred right — a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world…”

      Here’s my guarantee, no state will leave the Eye of Mordor in DC without a fight to keep the helots on the plantation.

      Like the franchise, the constraints are built into the central government hologram so it never reduces government power and discretion.

  • George W Short
    Posted at 12:46h, 17 July Reply

    “Well said folks!” It’s good to see so many people who know the TRUE history of our countries civil conflict . I can’t believe how our history has been ‘hijacked’ for control over our childrens minds and hearts . The South is full of great people with a full rich heritage!

    I’m from CA and we have only the ‘gold-fields’ of the ’49’s’ to embrace. $$$$$$

  • DAN III
    Posted at 15:37h, 17 July Reply

    I cannot add a single thing to the commentary here. All remarks being enlightening and educational.

    Thank you all.

  • Cumberland Minuteman
    Posted at 05:43h, 18 July Reply

    The war, as with all wars, was about slavery. All wars are a means to control the levers of plunder of the resources of others, for ones self.

    The North wanted to enslave the free population of the South through the Morrill Tariff. After all SC was the point of resistance to tariffs a mere 40 years prior as well as had been complaining about lack of enforcement of the fugitive slave acts and the CONstitutional guarantees in regards to slavery itself for as long.

    One has to keep in context that slavery existed before the signing of the CONstitution and its guarantees were a serious point of contention in the Slave holding states joining the voluntary union.This is in no means an attempt to condone slavery at all, just to point out that the validity of the CONstitutional compact was in question, and slavery was the example most prevalent to the issue (among a litany of others listed).

    I do have, however reject the notion that preserving slavery in the South was the prime motivation for secession. Sure THREE of the THIRTEEN states were adamant about preserving slavery as a means of white supremacy; but why leave out the articles from the remaining states? And when one looks at the secession ordinances in regards to slavery, which state, other than Mississippi, was the complaint that the Constitution was not being followed in regards to Sec 2 art 4 and the fugitive slave laws? If two parties are signatories of a compact and one side ignores the stipulations of the compact then the other party is no longer bound to the compact.

    Most States stated as their reason for secession lay in they being free and independent states. Being by THEIR OWN WORDS; how does one deny that it was about States Rights?

    I further find it interesting that in bringing up the TX ordinance that all the other complaints to include the tariffs was left out, or that the GA ordinance, which goes into great detail about the protectionism and tariff issue, was never mentioned. In fact much more words are committed to these factors then all issues surrounding slavery in the GA ord.

    Alexander Stephens lays out the causes quite well in “Constitutional causes of the late war between the states. It can be read for free at http://www.constitution.org/cmt/ahs/consview.htm. Being the Sr. Senator from GA (voting against secession) and later the VP of the CSA, I would find his explanations to be valid first source information fro the casus belli.

    Virginia simply fell back on their proclamation they gave at the ratification of the CONstitution, to maintain their ability to withdraw at any time, and only did so AFTER Lincoln started hostilities and called for VA to cough off militia units to fight SC.

    Why ignore the Corwin Amendment so strongly supported by Lincoln which would amend the Constitution to preserve chattel slavery for perpetuity?

    How does one jive Lincolns first inaugural where he states he has NO intention of abolishing slavery, nor did he state that he had any constitutional right to do so (and this coming from a guy that totally ignored and usurped the same CONstitution)?

    How does one dismiss that the war was not about taxation, when Lincoln himself in the same address states that there will be no bloodshed nor invasion as long as the duties are paid to the US treasury?

    After all; at what percentage does the stealing the fruits of ones labor constitute slavery? 100%? 75%? 51%?.

    CM

  • selecto
    Posted at 08:03h, 18 July Reply

    Could have saved myself a lot of money that I paid for college history classes by simply surfing the net and reading blogs such as this. A personal thank you to everyone that contributes their thoughts and knowledge to this site.

  • Paul Bonneau
    Posted at 08:25h, 18 July Reply

    See also “When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession” by Charles Adams, and “One Nation, Indivisible?: A Study of Secession and the Constitution” by my friend, Robert Hawes. Reject the narrative you were force-fed in the government schools.

  • J M
    Posted at 12:56h, 19 July Reply

    It’s very important to note that several of the states listed slavery as a grievance when they seceded. Slavery was a grievance in declaring secession, however slavery was not a cause of the WAR. The invasion launched against the several southern states was to keep them in the Union, not abolish slavery.

    Causes for secession and causes for war are two separate issues. It does not logically follow that secession justifies an invasion of the seceded states by the former government.

  • Doug
    Posted at 15:25h, 19 July Reply

    Bill you sure hit the nail on the head.

    Not much has changed except the tyrants and actors who constitute the current regime. And I think there is not much difference between them in the time since when you get down to that too which matters. There is just a lot more of the bastards. No problem, there are a lot more of us who have had enough of these clowns.

    And we have guns too. Better yet, this time we are nebulous, we are everywhere, we are legion. We have history to teach us, and if our brothers in liberty had just cause and moral imperative all those years since, our cause is even more undeniable and irrefutable.

    Funny how they are going after the idea of secession and abolition once again. That says an awful lot about what they are worried about. Is secession and abolition the greatest threat to tyranny? Without doubt I think it is. That is a great thing. It is always best when statists fear you. You get inside their OODA loop just by existing. It eats at the sonofabitches. Knowing you can never be coerced or forced to comply. They know your withdrawal of consent and refusal to comply is a contagious vector of liberty. It must be eradicated.

    And I contend, what we are seeing, (aside from the standard statist practice of multitasking your crisese as means and false narratives six ways to Sunday to wring every last drop of turmoil and distraction possible as quickly as possible, so you can move on to the next target before anyone has a chance to assimilate the last false flag event and catch their balance), is a very serious effort to head off any idea of secession, never mind nipping abolition or outright defiance and resistance in the bud.

    War has been declared on a plurality of people who have indomitable will and refuse to submit to tyranny.

    Some say the war of northern aggression never ended. Maybe

    On that score I think Bill, you deserve hats off for your audacity and tireless efforts, the research and reason you employ, being a thought leader and for advocation of the movement towards abolition.

    Seneca said ideas are like seeds, once planted, great ideas grow and spread out of proportion to their tiny stature.

    Mao said the gun should never rule the party.

    That butcher would appreciate withdrawal of consent is a greater weapon than the gun. Bet you in the ways of the Asian mind, he would not fail to appreciate, by their efforts to liquidate the ideals and principles of liberty, the tyrants of amerika are the greatest secession and abolition salesman possible. But then again, Mao and his party did control the gun, Ole Mao wouldn’t waste time with such frivolities as creating racial memes out of whole cloth, that fucker would send his psychopaths in and liquidate enough subjects till there wasn’t enough of them to bother anybody for a few years. After all, the party did control the gun.
    Something this party we got going on doesn’t.

    Wonder how much that little reality behooves the sonofabitches.

    I have no evidence but what my insights and gut feeling tell me, just as happened in the time leading up to secession in 1895, there is an undercurrent, a ground swell of thought and movement towards abolition and all it promises. They are going to try and pick us all off one at a time, piecemeal. Disenfranchise us, Kulak us, do the diaspora on us. But you know what? All they are doing is stirring up a hornets nest. Good luck motherfuckers!

    They don’t understand the motive power of liberty. They can not comprehend what true tolerance and the limits of it it in a society that has liberty running in their blood.

    To me, and this is my personal opinion, but this statist cabal, are rank amateurs when it comes to what revolution and secession is about. Not the red diaper radical chic trust fund brat despicable professor mind job crap bullshit artist progeny and spawn of psychopaths “revolution”, but the real stuff.

    The stuff worth fighting and dying for.

    So you go Bill!

    I’m with you Brother. All the way.

    Bravo!
    Bravo!
    Bravo!

  • Doug
    Posted at 10:00h, 21 July Reply

    Resist.” (Yes, it is more important to resist than many of us may understand. Read Lysander’s quote carefully with the thought in mind about consequences)

    “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

    I think Micheal Collins understood your enemies words and actions were only as powerful as the lack of consequences for such words and actions by those they are directed at. Gandhi understood, Hitler understood, Dr. King knew exactly, Stalin was a virtuosos at the meaning of how to employ words. Lol no further than the Kulaks and the persecution of that group of people.

    Somebody said elections have consequences, he also categorized a culture of people as bitter clingers, how it is said these same people, and their symbols and traditions are indication of their evil white supremacy and bigotry.

    There is an incredible dichotomy at work here, now.

    It isn’t us who are white supremacists, that belongs and is owned lock stock and barrel by the liberal statist left. It is comprised of the most hateful psychotic bigoted racial Wellesley College whites alive.

    It isn’t us who are the bitter clingers, that is the sole purview of the red diaper Marxist intelligentsia and their ilk of the legacy media and academia who cling to statist ideology and their self appointed elitism like a starving leech.

    …And it isn’t us who are radical secessionists and abolitionists. It is these members of the human extinction movement who have seceded from and are attempting to abolish the principles, traditions, and activity of liberty, prosperity, and happiness.And without our actions, resistance, and yes, abolition, which have the cost of dire political, cultural, and physical consequences upon their tyranny, they will continue to use words which will in time lead to consequences far more dire than what we witness today.

  • aliasooze
    Posted at 16:21h, 26 September Reply

    I’ve just stumbled upon your site today. I haven’t read all of your articles or all of the comments yet so please excuse me if I’m speaking out of turn.

    I wanted to add that there was an original 13th amendment aka Titles Of Nobility Act. It states:

    If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain, any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.

    BAR as in bar association stands for British Accreditation Registry.

    A site called barefoot’s world explains the relevancy to the civil war and the UNITED STATES better then I can.

    https://www.barefootsworld.net/real13th.html

    A quote from Lincoln that proves Lincoln wasn’t against slavery, but he was going to save the Union at any cost.

    “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.” (Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862)

    I like the idea of being an abolitionist since anarchist scares the bejesus out of most. All people no matter their color should be free.

    Thank you for the time you invest.

Post A Comment