The Rising Seed

Sacred Conviction

2011-05-09T19:26:00.000-07:00

Biblical Authority and the Road to War in Antebellum America
By: Jonathan Harris

For the downloadable version click here
Sacred Conviction

Was the South Ignorant?

2011-05-02T17:30:00.000-07:00

Propaganda Used to Justify Propaganda
By: Jonathan Harris

Ever heard the charge that the South was (and still is) full of a bunch of backward hicks who don't know anything about "real" education? This myth fits the progressive understanding like a well worn shoe. Once original sin is rejected man becomes perfectible. This is the basic problem with humanism. They think that all problems have their answer in some kind of psychological modification. From fascists to communists to the early Republican party (now represented more in the Democrat party) reeducation is one of the primary tenants. Take the children away from their parents and "reprogram them" through public education. This is why true conservatives are so against the federal public school system. Those who have studied history know what happened during Reconstruction when the North started their indoctrination campaign against America's children.The South, with its history of dueling, slavery, and military involvement, must be a violent culture and therefore by implication an "uneducated" culture---This justified the action. In 1865 educator Francis Waylard wrote President Lincoln stating, "The rebellion has tested the value of education. It has been a war of education and patriotism against ignorance and barbarism." Let's see if this fact really holds up. The graph below represents the number of educational institutions residing in the South compared to the rest of the nation in 1850.

In the words of James Williams in The South Vindicated, "The South, in 1850, had absolutely more colleges than the North, though her free population was more than 100 per cent. less. The proportion of public schools was smaller, but the proportion of private schools was greatly in excess." Guess it's not a lack of education that causes all the supposed "violent" behavior huh? Must be something in the water?

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War

2011-02-17T17:30:00.000-08:00

A Review
By: Jonathan Harris

The PIG series (Politically Incorrect Guides) has quickly become the hallmark of my bookshelf. I remember a couple years ago when I first read the PIG to the South. After finishing I quickly scooped up the PIG to Capitalism and the PIG to Islam etc. I've probably read or listened to about six of them now, and still enjoy picking up a new one. In other words, they have not let me down. They're simple, accurate (for the most part), and usually written by experts in the field. The last installment in the series that has made the bookshelf is called The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War. As a result of my reading I would have to maintain that this book should be the introduction for every student of "Civil War" history, especially those who don't particularly care for history. H.W. Crocker III does a great job in his first two chapters, "A Country of Their Own" and "The Gunpowder Trail," of busting the myths most often associated with the "Lost Cause." Was it really about slavery?

Crocker points out a few notable things that seem to throw a wrench in the system of the Yankee establishment. When South Carolina seceded she pointed right back to the Declaration of Independence to justify her cause. Was she not seizing the same principle for which our forefather's fought in the American War for Independence? It is no coincidence that nation which heralded George Washington on their official seal claimed as its supporters the grandsons of the Jefferson, Washington, and Francis Scott Key. Were these patriotic symbols dying to promote a cause against which their own grandfathers fought so nobly? Needless to say, Crocker goes into more detail concerning the legal and philosophical arguments for secession. The objective reader will naturally conclude that not only was secession lawful, but it was also profitable.

When it comes to slavery Crocker is quick to point out the Northern hypocrisy that so often gets overlooked in our own day. Before Nat Turner's rebellion there were three times as many anti-slavery organizations in the South as there were in the North, but with the rise of a secular abolitionism, the debate became framed in a different light. Lincoln, who removed General Fremont from command when he attempted to free slaves in Maryland, and claimed that his goal was to preserve the union, not free slaves, also assigned the superior position of racial equality to the white man; as did General George B. McClellan who couldn't stand the stench of "billy goats or niggers." Contrast these sentiments with those of Jefferson Davis who freed and educated his slaves, Robert E. Lee who freed his slaves and believed in progressive emancipation, and Stonewall Jackson who illegally taught a negro Sunday School. It wasn't a simple "for or against" position on slavery that was the issue, it was more "what view of slavery do you hold to?" The Republican politicians and businessmen held to a form of civil slavery (state capitalism) for all men while retaining their racism for the black race. The Northern abolitionists also believed in a form of civil slavery (socialism) for all men while retaining their bigotry (i.e. encouraging raids and insurrections) against those who owned slaves (even if they did so out of a humanitarian motive to rescue and educate non-Christians from Africa).

In addition to the first two chapters, Crocker fills his book with two other sections on battles and famous generals. They read like a biographical story and have the same literally appeal. Thus, even for those who aren't a fan of the Southern viewpoint will find good historical information concerning battles and generals in this work.

The last chapter tackles the question, "What would have happened if the South did win?" Crocker destroys the Nazi-Confederate connection that is so often made in our modern media, instead placing the connection where it should have been all along: at the feet of Abraham Lincoln. All in all, this book is a great read, and a great gift to give those who want an introduction to the "Civil War." Order your copy by clicking the link below.

In addition to this soft-copy version being available for purchase, there is an audiobook available for free for all those who own an amazon.com account. Simply go to Amazon.com for more details.

The Jewish Confederates

2011-01-10T20:21:00.000-08:00

Discriminated Against Just Like the Rest of Us
By Jonathan Harris

In Thomas C. Mandes Washington Times article More Than 10,000 Jews Fought For The Confederacy we find that "The largest ethnic group to serve the Confederacy. . . was made up of first-, second- and third-generation Jewish lads." Mandes goes on to quote Rabbi Korn of Charleston who stated, "Nowhere else in America - certainly not in the Antebellum North - had Jews been accorded such an opportunity to be complete equals as in the old South." Officers Abraham Myers and Adolph Proskauer joined the ranks of the nations finest men in defending what they deemed to be northern aggression. V.M.I cadet Moses Jacob Ezekiel represented their view well when he stated, "We were not fighting for the perpetuation of slavery, but for the principle of States Rights and Free Trade, and in defense of our homes which were being ruthlessly invaded." It's unfortunate that in the years following the War for Southern Independence the myriads of Jewish immigrants who settled in the North possessed no introduction to the previous struggle of their very own kinsmen who were predominately Southerners.

In fact, one of the most important officials in the confederate government was of Jewish descent. Judah P. Benjamin:

. . .was a member of the Louisiana House of Representatives and a U.S. Senator Louisiana; he was the second Jewish senator in U.S. history. Following the formation of the Confederate States of America, he held three different Cabinet posts in the government of Jefferson Davis. He was the first Jewish Cabinet-member in a North American government, and the first Jew seriously considered for nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court (he declined an offer of nomination twice).

In contrast to this was the way the Northern army treated her Jewish soldiers. "Gen. Robert E. Lee allowed his Jewish soldiers to observe all holy days, while Gens. Ulysses S. Grant and William T. Sherman issued anti-Jewish orders." One of the most infamous anti-Jewish orders issued by Grant was referred to as General Order Number 11 and it expelled all Jews from Kentucky, Tennessee and Mississippi. Lincoln later reversed Grant's order- an order that would never have been needed to be reversed in the Confederate army.

Last week I had the privilege of visiting the Skirball (Jewish) Cultural Center near Los Angeles, California. While there I noticed an exhibit on the way Jewish people were treated during the "Civil War." Not surprisingly Grant's order was viewed as the typical white racism of the time, and Lincoln's revocation was hailed as a monumental accomplishment toward multiculturalism. What was missing though was the Confederacy. It was as if it really didn't matter to Jewish history that Judah P. Benjamin was one of the most influential Jewish men in American history or that the vast majority of Jews fought for the South. When I asked a docent why this was the case she told me that at one time there was a whole section on Mr. Benjamin, but things had to be "moved around." I immediately knew what that meant. Someone complained. Not only has Confederate history been whitewashed but so has Jewish history. What seems to matter now is how the Jewish socialists who came to America in the 1880s and 1920s seem to view their history, and for them the Confederacy is not a part of it. How long before American history itself completely vanishes in the name of political correctness? We've already witnessed a major Southern university loose its mascot, symbol, and fight song because of their association with the Confederacy, a fraternity loose the ability to allow confederate uniforms to be worn to its traditional balls, and a "Confederate History Month" castigated by every major media outlet. Cultural genocide is on the march and traditional values will not be spared. Their memory will be erased from the annals of time unless we pass it down to our children. After all, we can't rely on the culture we live in to do it for us.

A Few Thoughts on Slavery

2010-12-11T09:50:00.000-08:00

And Why it's Unavoidable
By: Jonathan Harris

Spiritual Slavery

A couple weeks ago we had a guest speaker at our church talk on the subject of slavery. The main point of the message was that as Christians we are slaves of Christ. There has been what John MacArthur calls a "conspiracy" concerning the Greek word Doulos which often times is translated as simply "servant," when in reality it means "slave." Certainly there are far-reaching implications for the Christian who considers himself a slave of Christ. He no longer belongs to himself, he belongs to Christ entirely. The language of Scripture is crystal clear when it comes to the subject of spiritual slavery. We were "bought" with a price as 1 Cor. 6:20 says. Over and over again we see Christians referring to themselves as slaves. Paul, James, Jude, Peter etc. and even Christ considered themselves slaves of God. Jesus said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master; neither is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him." If one studies the Bible thoroughly they will find there are only two options- either you are a slave of God, or a slave of sin (Mark 6:24, John 8:34). So the question is not, "Am I a slave," but rather, "Who's slave am I?" Now of course we are speaking in spiritual terms right now, but what about chattel slavery? We all know that's wrong right? This question has come up in many discussions I've been apart of , and I want to see if this issue can be addressed from a Biblical and historical perspective without waxing long or sounding boring. It's my hope that this information will help you defend your faith from those who want to point the finger at "those racist Christians!" and also help you think rightly in your own mind.

The first thing we need to figure out is what the Bible says about chattel slavery. I know there are some of you out there who immediately want to discount anything the Old Testament has to say on the topic, so in deference to you, I will start with the New Testament.

New Testament on Slavery

Let's start with Christ. He lived at a time when slavery was commonly practiced (i.e. the slave girl who confronted Peter when he denied Christ, the slave of the high priest whose ear Christ healed, etc.) and said nothing negative about it. There was no speaking out against it on his part, only passive approval. Some of you may argue, "But His purpose was to seek and save the lost, not champion social causes." I'm not sure this premise is completely valid because Christ had a lot to say about society, government, relationships, etc., but even if we grant this premise we still have to deal with the parables Christ told involving slavery. The parable of the landowner (Matt. 21:33-46)?, the parable of the slave's duty (Luke17:7-10)?, and the parable of the wise slave (Matt. 24:45-51)?, etc. must be reckoned with. Christ often used slavery as a spiritual analogy. Does this mean He approved of the institution on an earthly level? Perhaps so, perhaps not. At the very least it does mean that he didn't oppose it.

Many have tried to use Paul's writings to renounce slavery, but nothing could be further from the truth. Let's look at a couple of the most quoted passages on the subject. In Col. 4:1 (and Eph. 6:8) Paul states, "Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven." Here we can see a "bridge" coming into focus between the idea of spiritual and chattel slavery. Notice Paul doesn't say, "Free your slaves for it is a sin." Instead he instructs for masters to treat them kindly. It is utterly shortsighted for people to use what Paul said in the previous chapter to support the idea that Paul was opposed to the institution simply because he said there was no "slave and freeman" in Christ. All it means is that when Christ is held in common there is nothing significant dividing slaves and freemen because they are equally significant. Paul also says there is no "circumcised and uncircumcised." Does that mean that we should all be circumcised? It can't because that would contradict Paul's other writings on the subject.

Paul also wrote a letter (the book of Philemon) to Philemon on behalf of Onesimus, a runaway slave, who Paul had converted. Paul's intention was for the Philemon to accept Onesimus back into his service. If slavery was a sin would not Paul have warned Philemon of his sin instead of encouraging him to continue in it?

The major text used to support the notion that Paul opposed slavery is 1 Cor. 7:21-24 which states:

Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord's freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ's slave. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. Brethren, let each man remain with God in that condition in which he was called.

Most anti-slavery proponents forget about the last portion of the phrase for good reason, because it would totally negate their point. In context, Paul is talking about the physical condition of converts- Jews and Greeks, slaves and freemen. He then relates chattel slavery to spiritual slavery showing that if one is a converted slave he is free from sin in Christ, and if he is free, then he is Christ's slave. In other words, a restatement of the idea that Christ unifies all social classes and ethnic distinctions, not a statement on whether slavery is right or wrong. His command to "not become slaves of men" must be contrasted with the first phrase in the sentence stating that we "were bought with a price." It means, Christ is our primary master. He paid the most for us. We have a duty to disobey our earthly masters when it conflicts with Christ. Likewise, if we can become free as verse 21 says, we should do it! It gives us greater freedom to serve God. This is not a statement about slavery being a sin, but rather a personal admonition to follow Christ first. To make more of it is nothing short of eisegesis.

The Old Testament

We could talk for weeks about what the Old Testament has to say on the subject. My goal however is to find out primarily what it says. i.e. I'm not looking to know every single law concerning slavery. Instead, I just want to know if it was approved, and if it was, to what degree. Before we start however I must make one thing clear. The Old Testament does matter. Some of you might say, "But that was given to the Jews." True enough, the moral and ceremonial laws have been negated by the New Covenant (or at least aspects of them), and they don't apply to gentiles, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't look at them. My reason is simple. The same God reigned then that reigns now. His nature does not change, and therefore his moral standard is unmoving. His principles are the same yesterday, today, and forever. With this being said, I am not arguing that we must apply the Old Testament to today for fear of sinning if we don't. I'm arguing that we should apply it. In other words, it's the best model we have. Sure there are differences between a Theocracy and a Republic, but this doesn't mean the civil magistrate is therefore not required to punish murderers etc. in the latter. He still "bears the sword" to "punish evil" and promote good as Romans tells us. We only know what justice is and how it should be carried out by the government on society by looking at the Old Testament. So on that note, we shall proceed.

Slavery was definitely accepted both for kinsmen (Ex. 21:2) and for those captured in battle (Deut. 21:10), however there were limits placed on it. As I stated in a previous post Leviticus and the Goodness of God:

Biblical slavery, is not based on race, it is based on economic standing (see Ex. 21:2-6; Deut. 15:12-18). Hebrews would sell themselves into slavery for the purpose of obtaining livelihood (our equivalent of declaring bankruptcy). Also, criminals would become slaves as a way to pay for their crimes (our equivalent of community service). Therefore, it was voluntary. . .“kidnaping” was not an option. . . the Israelites were never to go out and capture slaves. In fact in Exodus 21:16, the death penalty was instituted for those who engaged in such practices. . . Hebrew slaves were freed after six years (Ex. 21:2), All slaves were freed on the year of Jubilee ( Free slaves were released with a handsome payment (Deut. 15:12-15), slaves were given responsibilities such as having families (Ex. 21:3-4), runaway slaves from other cultures curious about Israel’s God were not to be returned (Deuteronomy 23:15-16), excessive punishment was forbidden (Ex. 21:26-27; Lev. 24:17), foreign slaves could become proselytes (Lev. 22:10-11), slaves could share inheritances (Prov. 17:2), slaves were to rest on the Sabbath, and female slaves were to be protected (Exodus 21:4-11).

So much for the Old Testament being "anti-slavery" since the Jews were slaves in Egypt. The real problem in Egypt wasn't slavery, but an unjust slave system.

American History and Slavery

I will admit that it's hard to use the term slave (even though it comes from a derivative of Slav who were white) without it conjuring up images of racial injustice. In our country sadly this has happened, but let's be fair, there's plenty of blame to go around and plenty of blessing to remember. African waring factions sold rival tribe members for rum in the first place. New England slave merchants (note: they are from the North) then bought these slaves in the horrendous Triangle Trade and eventually shipped some of them (4% of those that came to the New World) to the South (Read my post on Northern involvement in slavery here). The less than 5% of Southern whites who used slavery (there were both black and white masters) did so in an honorable way in accordance with Paul's admonition for Masters to treat their slaves with respect (Read my post on Southern slave conditions here). The Northern opposition to the "expansion of slavery" had everything to do with protection for white labor, not care for black families. Still, in spite of all the wrongs done both in the North and South, God's purposes were served. Former pagans were exposed to the Gospel in Christian homes. Western Civilization has blessed those who continue to work hard for their living even today in what was once the slave community. It is for this reason that I can look at all the problems with it (i.e. man capture and racism which were both forbidden by Scripture) and say, "Thank God that the slave trade brought the Gospel to the heathen." Insofar as the slave masters lived in accordance with the Word of God, they were doing nothing wrong, even if their government was.

We're All Slaves Now

Yes, I realize the header is politically incorrect (well...just about everything about this post is), but it is true. Think about it for a moment. On a spiritual level (that which is of the utmost value compared to our flesh) we are all slaves of something, otherwise Christ was a liar. However, we are also slaves of someone in the physical dimension as well. You see, I don't believe the Bible conveys the idea of "ownership" but rather "stewardship." This applies to property both animate and inanimate. Slave masters are stewards of what God has entrusted to them because after all, "All authority has been given to Christ." So in that sense, slave master's are completely responsible for their slaves. In the same way however, governments are responsible for their people, parents for their children, and pastors for their sheep (we are to be "subject one to another). What happened during reconstruction was the federal government became the slave's new masters and the welfare doles started with the Freedman's Bureau. Today it has expanded into an empire of slavery, only this type of slavery is not warranted by Scripture. The sons of former slaves find themselves today to be slaves (in general) to Uncle Sam. The only differences are they don't work for their privileges, and they lack the love and support of kind masters. What's the result? A moral catastrophe. My point is three fold. 1) We are all slaves in a loose sense. 2) Those who were suffering injustice in our country at the hands of slavery are now under a greater injustice undergoing an unauthorized form of slavery.3) Slavery will always be around (Rev. 13:16)

Apologetic Approaches

Now hopefully even if you don't agree, you have a Biblically informed opinion on this topic now. The information provided here may be fine and dandy for most Christians but what about the nonbeliever? How do you deal with them if they ask the question, "Doesn't the Bible support slavery?" Really the question is very simple to answer, and I have used this approach first-hand. This will require some knowledge of presuppositional apologetics (check around this website for tons of material), but it's fairly easy to grasp once you understand what to do. Basically, the unbeliever has no transcendent ethical standard to appeal to. So you can say, "Yes the Bible does allow a form of limited slavery." Then ask, "Why is this wrong." A nonbeliever will not be able to give you a rational answer. They may appeal to convention (well people say it's wrong) or their own arbitrary standard (I don't like it) but both fail in the long wrong. Very simply stated, Hitler winds up being right either way you cut it by these criteria, and you could in fact use that logic to prove that slavery is right under the proper circumstances. In Muslim countries the majority agrees that slavery is fine (although not a Biblical type at all), so it must be. Or, I think it's fine, therefore it is. What looked like your biggest problem to overcome with the unbeliever soon becomes your biggest asset because it provides an opportunity by which to do an internal critique of his or her worldview. Don't forget though, be sure to at least make sure the nonbeliever knows what the Biblical position is (so they don't get the wrong idea) and if you have the historical background, what American slavery truly was. (Note: Apologetics is about reaching people with the Gospel, so don't get bogged down in rabbit trails like slavery for too long)

In closing, I think it can be seen that slavery can either be a good or a bad thing depending on your master. Christ is a good master. Sin is not. Southern plantation owners were primarily good Christian masters. The federal government is not. Yes, there are injustices because of sin, but don't criticize an institution because of individual sin. Simply advocate that the government does its job and punishes the individual instead of abolishing the institution.Under the former logic we should get rid of the institution of marriage because the divorce rate is so high. Remember, God has not been silent. He speaks through His word, and He has given us principles to defend. Let us not be ashamed of them because of our culture. Let us instead defend them! It's called making disciples.

For further reading check out:

Are Christian's Racist?

Leviticus and the Goodness of God

Slave Treatment in the South

Northern Involvement in Slavery

Abraham Lincoln: The Great Discriminator

The Confederacy: America's Worst Idea

2010-10-21T23:18:00.000-07:00

If You Know How to Pick Cherries That Is
By: Jonathan Harris

A Feminist Look at the Antebellum South

In the December 2010 edition of American History magazine, the editors chose Stephanie McCurry, an author and professor of history at Penn State to author their front page article entitled, The Confederacy: America's Worst Idea with the cover title Did the Confederacy get What it Deserved?: Coming to Grips with the Civil War. McCurry's faculty biography states that she "is a specialist in Nineteenth Century American history, with a focus on the American South and the Civil War era, and the history of women and gender." However, the biography should have read, "specialist in Nineteenth Century American history, with a focus in reinterpreting the American South and the Civil War era, through the lens of the history of women and gender." McCurry is nothing more than a modern-day revisionist motivated by her commitment to feminism maintaining that:

. . . the mass of Southern women had emerged as formidable adversaries of the government in the long struggle over its military policies. By insisting that the state live up to its promises to protect and support them, even taking up arms to do so, these poor white women, who had never participated in politics before, stepped decisively into the making of history.

To support her assertion she cites the fact that, "Mobs of women. . . carried out at least 12 violent attacks on stores, government warehouses, army convoys, railroad depots, salt-works and granaries" between the middle of March and the middle of April in 1863. Yeah, that was what crippled the Confederacy. A month in which wives rioted for food. It wasn't so much the Northern Army, lack of resources, and lack of man-power- it was a handful of angry women. Even more ridiculous is McCurry's insensate characterization of the Confederacy as "the white man's new republic" because "3.5 million were enslaved" and another 3 million (women) were "disenfranchised" since they couldn't vote. My question for Professor McCurry would be, "And how did this differ from the North?" She forgets that the Northern states didn't allow women to vote either, and the few blacks that did live there were almost universally barred from voting. Naturally, I was appalled at what I was reading. A cover story in American History ends up really being just an opinion piece on how women get the credit for defeating the South and they should have been given the right to vote? Something's wrong in our history departments, and I think it can be traced back.

It was twenty-one years ago that Drew Gilpin Faust- the present day president of Harvard University- managed to "rub everyone the wrong way" by stating that the Confederacy lost the War Between the States most likely as a result of the lack of support among women in the South. Stephanie McCurry, who was moderating Faust's panel at the time, remembers the audiences reaction.

The audience at the talk, she says, "went nuts." To military specialists, to historians of slavery, to economic historians, even to some feminist historians, Faust's argument seemed at once radical and wrong-headed, and at the conference and afterward many people let her know that. Faust was verbally attacked. "I'd never seen anything like it."

Even other revisionists and anti-South historical hacks such as James McPherson had a problem with Faust. However, as we can see, what was out of step twenty-one years ago is now the front page of one of the premier American history magazines.What's happening to our educational integrity in this country?

Who Started It?

Naturally, the feminist reinterpretation of the South was not the only problem with McCurry's article. Just about every sentence had some kind of a bias or blatant inaccuracy, and without actual citations, most references are hard to actually look up. McCurry starts her "historically researched" article by saying, "In December America will mark a unique and largely embarrassing anniversary [i.e. the beginning of the War for Southern Independence]." Yeah, that's the way to start a historical paper. Tell us what you really think right off the bat. She continues, "The secessionist states hazarded all [meaning since they started the war, they are responsible for all the damage it brought.]" However, could not one say equally that the North "hazarded all." After all, Lincoln was the one that mobilized an army and sent in troops. The Battle of Fort Sumter- in which no one died- was a manipulated event with Lincoln's name all over it. However, even if you for some reason think that the South Carolina "started" the war (despite the riots in Maryland and Missouri instigated by Federal troops enforcing marshal law to keep them from seceding), this does not explain why the Feds went after the other ten Confederate States. The South seceded, the North invaded. It's as simple as that. Tell me, who's the one causing the hazard- the folks wanting to be left alone, or the invading force?

He Said It Once, He Said It Again, But He Was Lying

In the next paragraph, McCurry indirectly contradicts herself. She states, "Jefferson Davis and other Confederate leaders cast secession as a constitutional move designed simply to restore government to what the Founding Fathers had in mind." She then quotes Davis as saying in his post-war memoir The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government:

The goal of secession was merely to protect the rights of "sovereign" states from "tremendous and sweeping usurpation by the federal government. . ."The existence of African servitude was in no wise the cause of the conflict, bot only an incident."

What would a normal person gather from all this? That if the Confederate leaders reasons at the outset and after the war were the same, they must be the actual reasons for which they fought (at the very least in their minds). What does McCurry say? Nothing of the kind. She says people who believe this line of thinking have, "lost sight of the true nature of what the Confederates attempted to do" which was of course keeping slavery legal. So basically the Confederate leaders were involved in a conspiracy to reinterpret the war in their favor before the war even started? Davis's account of the war she labels "mythology." After all, he was only the president of the country, what did he know anyway?

The Confederate Constitution

As the article goes on, the claims become more and more bizarre. Maintaining that the Confederacy had no right to secede- without supporting it with one shred of evidence- McCurry then notes that the Confederate Constitution precluded their own states from seceding. This has to be one of the stupidest things I've ever read. Davis, who says secession is inherent in the U.S. Constitution, becomes president of a country which forms a constitution which is almost verbatim the same as the U.S. (with a couple common-sense changes), yet somehow what he "really meant" was that no state could leave. Really? McCurry continues to put her lack of knowledge on display by even claiming that the document "eliminated any opportunity for the new government ever to change the law of slavery." She quotes from the Article 1, Section 9, "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." It's key to remember here that the effect of the U.S. Constitution was really the same exact thing, excluding the term "negro slave," even though by law they were covered under "property." However, what the U.S. Constitution did not allow for was the individual banning of slavery by States, which the Confederacy allowed. Neither did the U.S. Constitution itself ban the slave trade which the Confederate Constitution specifically did in Article 1:

The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

I mean, you can tell right? These guys really wanted to preserve slavery!

Conclusion

There exists a pile of other inaccuracies and misinformation contained in McCurry's article, however if I were address all of them I would likely have an essay on my hands five times the length of this one. We could talk about her handling of the Cornerstone Speech, characterization of slave insurrections, predictions on how slavery would have continued for generations if the South had won, etc. Suffice it to say, whatever McCurry is, she's not a historian. She's a pop-mystic, speaking about history as if it is a type of deity ordaining the ultimate triumph of almighty woman. I will be canceling my subscription to American History.

A Pro Southern Documentary?

2010-09-11T14:17:00.000-07:00

Modern Prophets

2010-08-11T10:32:00.000-07:00

How the Confederates "Saw it Coming"
By: Jonathan Harris

In a recent discussion I had, two men of differing political persuasions- one was conservative, the other libertarian- were bemoaning the direction of our nation under "Gasp!" Obama. Ironically, although I'm not a libertarian, I tend to empathize with how most libertarians see our history. They tend to see the wisdom in the "Anti-Federalist Papers," the usurpation of Liberty during the "Civil War," and the rise of globalism during the Progressive era as a problem. In contrast, most of my fellow conservatives, up until recently, have looked back to the 1950s as the ideal period. "If everything would just go back to the way it was when I was a kid," or, " ...when my father was a kid." They don't tend to see the War of Northern Aggression, or the Progressive era as problems. In fact, Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt are usually the prime example of a "tough" conservative's hero. It's only been recently, through the voice of Glenn Beck I suspect, that conservatives have woken up to Roosevelt and Wilson's true legacies, albeit not Lincoln's unfortunately. Obama however has, in a good way, joined these two forces. Everyone knows he didn't come out of nowhere (or should I say "He?"). Obama's election has been brewing for over a hundred years as America's foundation has been under erosion. Both libertarians and conservatives can see this clearly now. During our conservation I pointed out that there was a group of people similar to us, devoted to limited government, the Bible, federalism, the free-market, and everything a true conservative fights for. They were called "Confederates," and they predicted our modern dilemma before the progressive era had even gained sway. We would do well to revive their prophecies concerning our time to glean from their wisdom. Perhaps if more people started reading the Confederate soldiers in their own words, they would see that they weren't a bunch of hick ignorant racists, but rather the most humble of the intelligent that bore arms in defense of their homeland. It's time to stop slandering them and start honoring them; if anything, for their foresight. In the words of Robert E. Lee, "A nation which does not remember what it was yesterday does not know where it is today."

General Patrick Cleburne

Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late. We can give but a faint idea when we say it means the loss of all we now hold most sacred - slaves and all other personal property, lands, homesteads, liberty, justice, safety, pride, manhood. It means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the War, will be impressed by all influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, our maimed veterans as fit objects for their derision, it means the crushing of Southern manhood, the hatred of our former slaves, who will on a spy system, be our secret police. The conquerors policy is to divide the conquered into factions and stir up animosity among them, and in training an army of Negroes the North, no doubt, holds this thought in perspective. - Gen. Patrick Cleburne 1864

General Cleburne, an Irish immigrant, wrote the preceding in reaction partially to the Northern policy of raising Blacks to fight for the Union; a policy Cleburne, along with fifteen Confederate cosigners, thought the South should emulate. If the war had continued another year, this plan would have been fulfilled under the direction of Jefferson Davis upon the urging of Robert. E. Lee. Although many blacks did already fight for the Confederacy (Some estimates put the number higher than blacks fighting for the North), most were consumed with non-combat duties. It is hard to estimate the number of blacks in the Confederacy largely because of the lack of segregation. Northern armies created official black regiments (racism anyone?), while the South had slaves fighting right along with their masters (see General Nathan Bedford Forrest).

Despite the primary issue of urgency being described here, there is something rather prophetic. Cleburne's admonishment was that "Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late." We think of that today under Obama. Unfortunately, we're too late! Cleburne's words were from 1864. What were the aspects of this subjugation? Cleburne states, "We can give but a faint idea when we say it means the loss of all we now hold most sacred - slaves and all other personal property, lands, homesteads, liberty, justice, safety, pride, manhood." We have a few categories being presented under, "all we now hold most sacred."

The first is, "slaves and all other personal property." To those who have been educated from a politically correct perspective, this automatically sounds like racism. "See, the South was fighting for slavery!" Well, in a sense, that is true. Although less than 5% of whites owned slaves, they were all fighting in part to maintain their economic system while progressively eliminating slavery. Robert E. Lee said in a letter to Lord Acton- which we will look at shortly- that the elimination of slavery after the war under the 13th amendment "is an event that has been long sought, though in a different way, and by none has it been more earnestly desired than by citizens of Virginia." From an economic perspective, the worst thing that could have possibly been done to the slaves was to grant them freedom, especially after destroying their master's wealth. This lead the way for the North to start programs which made blacks dependent on the Federal government. Ironically, the modern welfare state many blacks live in has its origins not in the Confederacy, but in the Federal government. The former slaves haven't been freed, they have merely been granted a less compassionate master: Big Brother. The North had progressively eliminated the institution (although for wrong reasons concerned with "white" labor) and so had most other nations in a peaceable way. That's really all the South was fighting for when it came to slaves. That's why the Confederate Constitution outlawed the slave trade (which was being furthered almost entirely by the North). In Cleburne's letter, a distinction is made between slaves and "all other personal property." This is because the Confederate's recognized a distinction did in fact exist. One was a man, the other was inanimate. This is why slave masters generally treated their slaves different than their other property to the extent that less racism and more prosperity for blacks both free and slave existed in the South. (See: "Slave Conditions in the South") Unfortunately, both forms of property would be confiscated by the Federal government. This happened under reconstruction as Sherman's Army raided, raped, and repossessed the "rightful" property of the Union. It's also happening today in an indirect way: Progressive taxation and inflation. Obama may be sneakier, but he's nothing new when it comes to legalized theft. In fact, the first American income tax and national currency came under another president: Lincoln.

The second aspect of subjection is the stealing of "lands [and] homesteads" which also took place under reconstruction through unconscionably high taxes imposed by carpetbaggers along with the Federal military government. It is noteworthy that after the war, the same Union Army marched West to steal Indian land. Surely this type of thing doesn't happen today though does it? Can anyone say, "Imminent Domain?"

How about the third aspects, which I am combining given their common inanimate traits. "Liberty, justice, safety, pride, [and] manhood." We could all perhaps talk for hours about the loss our rights, the lack of justice in our court system, the refusal of our government to stop illegal immigration and thereby protect us, the pathetic lack of American patriotism, and the demise of true manhood. We live in a world predicted by Cleburne to the "T." Regulations have taken our liberty, political correctness has robbed us of both justice and safety, "white-guilt" and by implication "American-guilt" have robbed us of our pride, and feminism has neutered our men. Could this really all be predicted solely based on the erosion of State's rights? The answer is clear: There's more to nationalism than merely "preserving the Union." There's a humanistic religion behind it.

The fourth facet of subjugation is education. The wise general stated accurately:

The history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy ... our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the War, will be impressed by all influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, our maimed veterans as fit objects for their derision.

Talk about specific! How did he know what we'd be learning as standard curriculum in school today? Perhaps being Irish helped him on this one through his observations of what the English had done to his own culture. What is happening in our country right now is often referred to as "cultural genocide." The stable center of our nation referred to as the "Bible Belt" is under constant attack. In fact, it's even more far-reaching than that. Christianity itself is also under attack from a historical perspective. The avowed Czechoslovakian communist Milan Kundera said, "The first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its culture, its history. Then have somebody write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new history. Before long the nation will begin to forget what it is and what it was." This is precisely what we are under. The founders were "white racist capitalists." The Confederates, who blatantly stated their commitment to the founder's principles are even white and more racist.

The General's fifth prediction concerns race. It is profound to think that a Confederate soldier could have the foresight to see our modern racial divide. The North would bring about "the hatred of our former slaves, who will on a spy system, be our secret police. The conquerors policy is to divide the conquered into factions and stir up animosity among them." Whenever modern students are taught the history of "Civil Rights,"- which I look forward to writing about from a Southern viewpoint- they are always told that it was the "legacy of slavery." Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality it was the legacy of reconstruction. The slaves lived in a relatively unsegregated society (especially in comparison to the North). It was Northern policy, pitting blacks against whites, that caused racial tension in the middle of the 20th century South. Had the Confederate's won, I highly suspect a civil-right's movement would have been even necessary. It's hard to study historical hypotheticals, but if the modern Confederatos, the only known "un-reconstructed" group of Southerners, are any example of how it might have been, it most certainly would have been safe for both the black and white man. As it stands in today's America, there are places neither one is safe, especially the white man. We have a president elected by 96% of the black population, with their support unwavering even though their promises haven't been delivered. It is obvious a racial divide exists. The Confederates knew it would come to this. They believed in Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Notice even today, most blacks carry vestiges of their Confederate heritage, being Christian and for all intensive purposes being traditionally Southern. Unfortunately, politically speaking there has been a divide do to the breakdown of the family, welfare, and poor education: all elements of reconstruction, not slavery. During reconstruction, former slaves were given more government posts, extra rights including voting privileges, and the ability to get off easier for crimes. This was the start of the resentment that carried through the 1960s.

General Robert. E. Lee

I can only say that while I have considered the preservation of the constitutional power of the General Government to be the foundation of our peace and safety at home and abroad, I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.

-Robert E. Lee to Lord Acton 1866

Lee's words ring true today more than ever. Solely based on the erosion of "constitution power of the General Government" through the actions of the Union, Lee predicted a government which would be "aggressive abroad and despotic at home." Although libertarians and I may differ a bit on the "War on Terror," I hope we can all agree that since the War Between the States the U.S. has in fact been more aggressive than it would have otherwise. The Indians wars are a prime example of imperialism at its worst (although I do acknowledge good and bad on both sides). The unwarranted interaction in both the Spanish American War and World War 1 should make any conservative scratch their head a bit on why we even entered them? The fact that we have around 160 military bases abroad currently should make any proponent of small government a bit curious. Is this the aggression Lee was referring to? How about being despotic at home? Words cannot contain the examples coming to the forefront of the minds of every conservative.

Chaplain Robert Lewis Dabney

The State will fall into the hands of teachers who will not even teach secular learning honestly; money will be wasted, and the schools will become corrupting examples to their own pupils of slighted work and abused trusts. . .Christians must prepare themselves then, for the following results: All prayers, catechisms, and Bibles will ultimately be driven out of the schools. . . Infidelity and practical ungodliness will become increasingly prevalent among Protestant youth, and our churches will have a more arduous contest for growth if not for existence.- R.L. Dabney 1879

All Christians would do well to read the writings of R.L. Dabney, General Jackson's Chief of Staff. He predicted both the future of the feminist movement and the outcome of government controlled education (an outcome of the war and reconstruction). He saw a day when Bibles and prayers would be taken out of schools. No doubt many of his contemporaries denounced him as crazy. The Bible was practically universally taught. However, Dabney was dead on when speaking about education. Not only would Cleburne's prediction come true concerning the teaching of history, but the teaching of secular humanism would also commence. in the 1860s-70s the Federal government tool control of the states, the economy, and the children, all of which was an overstep created by a secular humanist worldview. It is not government's job to school. It's the parents. It's not government's job to run the economy. It's the responsibility of individuals. It's not the government's job to interfere with the states responsibilities either. Biblically speaking, all three of these things were rooted in an anti-Scriptural view of reality, that somehow through consolidation and control a utopia can be created perfecting humans by their own wisdom. The Confederates, with a Biblical worldview, saw this and rejected it.

President Jefferson Davis

The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form. - Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government 1881

Perhaps this is the most encouraging prophecy of all. Sure, bad things happened as a result of the war, but the cause of limited government will one day reassert itself. Incidentally, I believe the Tea Party movement is not far off from picking up where Jefferson Davis left off though not many of them know it. Unfortunately, most of them see secession as a last resort, which really means, a tool never to be used. Davis perhaps can empathize. "I worked night and day for twelve years to prevent the war, but I could not. The North was mad and blind, would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came." The very president of the Confederacy had a hard time separating from the country he had helped shape and loved, and last of all he wanted a war on his hands. We should have the same mentality. Secession is a viable option, but that doesn't have to mean war. If it does mean war, we are not the aggressors. In fact, secession is the very epitome of a peaceful solution to a political problem. If we are afraid to reassert this right, we must ask ourselves, "What are we afraid of?" And if we are afraid, "What does that say about our current state of freedom?" I think another Jefferson might have some wisdom to shed on this. "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

Will we honor the memory of our Confederate forefathers, or continue slandering them? They are more than our "conservative" forefathers. They are our "Christian forefathers." (yes, I know there are some exceptions). Their predictions, legitimize their cause. We would do well to place them in high esteem. In the words of Winston Churchhill, "A nation that forgets its past is doomed to repeat it," and again, "No nation can long survive without pride in its tradition."

Red Republican's and Lincoln's Marxists

2010-07-28T19:00:00.000-07:00

Marxism in the Civil War
By: Jonathan Harris

Before reading the book "Red Republican's and Lincoln's Marxists" I have to admit I was a bit skeptical. Despite my predisposition to be wary of any fiber of genuine Christian morality flowing within the veins of Lincoln not to mention the founders of the GOP, I did not think it likely that any of them would be sympathetic towards the precepts of communism. After all, communism is a monster of the 20th century isn't it? Wilson, FDR, Johnson, and Carter may have been affected, but Lincoln? Having given up the fantasy that "Honest Abe" "freed the slaves" and "saved the union" by maintaining the constitution and being authentic with the true intentions of Thomas Jefferson, I decided to see whether or not this association between Lincoln and the teachings of Marx was legitimate. What I found was shocking - perhaps more so to the average products of public education than I, but admittedly I was astonished. Herein I will endeavor to acquaint my readers with a couple of the more damning facts which give us reason to question the allegiance of the Republican party to free markets and limited government. While I cannot offer nearly half of the information I'd like to, I encourage you if interested to pick up a copy of the book by clicking on the icon above. These are facts historians have conveniently left out and its time Americans became introduced to them. They will explain the "state capital" tendencies of the GOP, expose the Lincoln cult, and trace the origin of the progressive disease in the US. I ask you to continue to read and in so doing unlock history's best kept secrets.

Marx and Lincoln

When we survey the history of the "Civil War" through the eyes of the world's most notorious communist, we are acquainted with a man who hated (as can be seen in his post-war letter to President Johnson) the South out of pathetic ignorance. Karl Marx supposed that the South had in secret prepared to undermine the United States for years, that Jefferson Davis was a "dictator," that the Confederate Constitution (which outlawed the slave trade) promoted slavery, that the Supreme Court was a tool of slaveholders, and that the South geographically encompassed three-quarters of the Union.

In the autumn of 1861 Marx, the Father of Communism, wrote the following regarding the "American Civil War."

The war of the Southern Confederacy is, therefore, not a war of defense, but a war of conquest, a war of conquest for the extension and perpetuation of slavery.

It is interesting to observe that virtually all Liberals and a majority of modern day conservatives would heartily agree with such a statement. This should raise a "red flag" in the minds of those who love liberty.Why is it that the majority of Americans, even those who advocate the free-market, agree with the way in which Karl Marx of all people framed the cause of the war? Though Marx and his partner in communism Fredrick Engels lived in Great Britain, they served "as propaganda agents for the Northern cause in Europe." The authors point out that "while most Americans think of abolition of slavery as an end in itself, communists had a completely different view of abolition." Marx stated in The Civil War in the United States, "Labor cannot emancipate itself in the white skin where in the black it is branded." After the war was over Marx said in a speech:

And the successful close of the war against slavery has indeed inaugurated a new era in the annals of the working class. . . Still the Civil War offered a compensation in the liberation of the slaves and the impulse which it thereby gave to your own class movement.

As one can see, the freeing of the slaves was not an end in itself to the Father of Communism, but rather a means to an end- that end being the revolution of the working class against the proletariat. I should note that the authors do dismantle Marx's notion that the South was aggressively fighting to "perpetuate" slavery. On the contrary, the War Between the States was a war of centralism vs. federation, of humanism vs. Christianity, of socialism vs. capitalism, and of imperialism vs. popular sovereignty. We do not have time to address Marx's popular lie in this review, but would encourage those curious regarding this issue to pick up a copy of Myths of American Slavery.

After Lincoln's second inaugural victory, Marx delivered a congratulatory letter to the 16th president on behalf of the International Workingmen's Association which stated in no uncertain terms where the allegiance of the communist community lay. The last paragraph of the letter is as follows:

The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.

Though no conservative should have a problem with the rescuing of "an enchained race" (Although it may be pointed out that Lincoln never accomplished this task, and the radical republicans enchained all men to civil slavery while in the process making the lot of the slave even worse) all of our eyebrows should raise when we hear the words "reconstruction of a social world." Was Lincoln fulfilling the next step in creating a world in Marx's image? How can this be?

The American System and Socialism

The answer lies in an idea of strong central government promoted by Alexander Hamilton, passed on to Henry Clay, and finally making its way into the White House through the election of Abraham Lincoln. The "American System" as it was called is defined by the authors as "nothing less than an attempt to increase the power of the Federal government beyond that which the Constitution authorizes." Clay, a politician Lincoln modeled himself after, was an advocate of centralized banking, internal improvements, and protective tariffs all of which conflicted with the Constitution and promoted a centralized state. Sometimes these policies are referred to as "State Capitalism," a system in which the government favors certain businesses and regions over others in exchange for favors and vice-versa. It goes without saying that it takes a strong central government to impose a system of redistribution. The communist transformation (note: communist and socialist meant the same thing in 1860) of America gained legitimacy under the leadership of the early Republican party due to these policies. If we compare the Communist Manifesto to Lincoln's actions we can see this quite clearly. The Manifesto calls for a "heavy progressive or graduated income tax." In comparison, Lincoln signed the Legal Tender Act in 1862, and the national currency acts in 1863 and 1864. Instantly a system of nationally charted banks were created and a federally run national banking monopoly was born. One of the leading supporters for nationalizing baking, (R) John Sherman of Ohio proclaimed, "Nationalize as much as possible [and thereby] make men love their country before their states." In 1862 Lincoln signed America's first income tax into law creating the first IRS service. Another idea supported by both Lincoln and Marx was Federal involvement in education. In 1862, Lincoln signed the Morrill act, named for Senator Justin Morrill who defended it this way: "The role of the national government is to mold the character of the American people." Instantly money that was made through Federal land grant sales went to funding colleges. It goes without saying that Washington controlled the curriculum. In Carl Sandburg's six-volume account of the life of Lincoln he highlights something conservatives should find disturbing. When referring to Robert Owen's (an early American socialist) utopia it is said that "the scheme lighted up Lincoln's heart." It is for these reasons that columnist Vin Suprynowicz has called Lincoln and his most ardent supporters "American Bolsheviks."

Communists in the Ranks

The communist connections and participants in Lincoln's War emphasized by Red Republicans are to numerous to mention within the limited space here, so for times sake I will mention some of the more influential men and important connections. After the failed socialist revolutions of 1848 which encompassed most of the European continent, many German, English, Hungarian, Bavarian, etc. atheistic socialists flocked to the United States having been banned from their homelands for treason. Ironically just about all of them wound up in the North (for a number of factors including an already strong progressive movement brought on by Transcendentalists and Unitarians) as ardent supporters of the Republican party. During the first GOP convention one of the main objectives of the Forty-Eighters was to assure that "Puritans and native born Americans" would not control the party. The Germans, being the largest of the immigrant groups, contributed the greatest to Lincoln's election. Frederick Engels (Marx's brother in arms) pointed out, "had it not been for the experienced soldiers who had entered America after the European revolution -- especially from Germany -- the organization of the Union army would have taken still longer than it did." The first GOP convention included 19 German -American delegates, most of whom were forty-eighters some of whom were personal friends of Marx and Engels. In fact, the GOP platform included protection of voting rights for foreign-born citizens and promotion of the Homestead Act under the nickname of the "Dutch" (i.e. German) planks. Lincoln valued the German vote so much that he even secretly purchased a German newspaper, the Illinois Staats Anzieger before his election. In fact, just about every, if not all, of the German communist participants highlighted in Red Republicans were at some point journalists for German newspapers in the U.S.. It was the "default" vocation for exiled socialists.

A couple of the more influential German Forty-Eighters (i.e. communist revolutionaries) in the GOP were Carl Schurz who was a GOP delegate, Lincoln supporter, minister to Spain in Lincoln's administration, General in the Union Army, Secretary of the Interior under Hays, senator from Missouri, journalist, and president of the National Civil Service Reform League (a position he used to disenfranchise Native Americans just as he had the South). Franz Sigel served as a general in the Union Army and became the superintendent of the St. Louis Public School system. It is worthy of mentioning that the uniforms of the Third Regiment of Missouri under his command had been customized to resemble the socialist revolutionary uniforms worn in Germany in 1849. Friedrich Karl Franz Hecter who led the German revolution was a key player in obtaining the German vote for Lincoln, he also led a German regiment in the war. August Willich, a personal friend of Marx (Marx described him as a "communist at heart") recruited more than 1,500 German soldiers and became a Union General. Louis Blenker was General of the 8th New York Infantry and gained a reputation in Northern Virginia as a looter from the way in which he commanded his men to steal from the civilian population. Edward Solomon and two of his three brothers became Generals (the 4th was a Sergent) in the Union Army, he himself became governor of Wisconsin. Another Edward Solomon (unrelated, who was a bit young to be a forty-eighter, yet was still a socialist) became a General under General Grant and was awarded the appointment of governor of the Washington territory from President Grant. Friedrich Kapp, a newspaper man after the German revolution, was an elector for the GOP and became the commissary of immigration in 1867. Fritz and Mathilde Anneka were influential German revolutionaries who were also friends with Karl Marx and supported the Union war effort through speeches and journalism. Mathilde went on to be one of the original radical feminists in the United States. Karl Heizman was also a journalist and became an advocate of terrorism against the South by attacking civilians and women and children (an idea unfortunately implemented). Joseph Weydemeyer was a close associate of Marx's the Annekes and Willich starting the first Marxist organization in the U.S., the Proletarian League of New York, and starting two socialist newspapers which favored Lincoln. Peter Joseph Osterhaus became a postwar military governor in Vicksburg after serving under General Sherman. Max Weber migrated to New York from Germany to become a General in the Union Army, an IRD agent (modern day IRS), and finally a U.S. consul to Naples.

When we turn our attention to the Non-German socialists the connection between the Republican government and socialism becomes even more clear. It is thought that Lincoln himself offered Giuseppe Garibaldi, the Italian leader of socialism against the Pope the position of commander of Union forces, a position Garibaldi declined upon Lincoln's refusal to reframe the war as being "anti-slavery." Two of the members of John Brown's gang were Forty-Eighters (from Bavaria and Vienna). Frederick Hassaurek from Vienna edited a German newspaper in Cincinnati, campaigned for John Fremont (the first Republican candidate for president), and became a diplomat to Ecuador under Lincoln. Julius Staul, a Hungarian revolutionary, became the US consul to Japan and Shanghai after serving under Fremont in the Union Army as a General. Fremont's chief of staff was Alexander Asboth, also from Hungary. He went on to become a U.S. diplomat to Argentina. In fact, Fremont (the famous explorer, GOP presidential candidate, and general) is so connected with socialism judging from the men he surrounded himself with, most of whom are not included in this review, that it leaves little doubt that he himself was a socialist.The commander of Fort Delaware (a notorious Union prison camp in which captured Confederates were tortured and killed) was Hungarian revolutionary Albin Francisco Schoepf. Thomas Francis Meagher was an influential Irishmen who helped substantially in the raising and commanding New York's Irish Brigade. He was also a journalist, lecturer, and not to mention a convicted criminal having been first deported to Australia (penal colony) by Great Britain. Lorez Brentano, another Forty-Eighter became a senator from Illinois and served as a U.S. ambassador to Dresden.

Many of the early republican socialist leaders weren't foreign at all. John C. Fremont was the first Republican presidential candidate, Senator John Sherman was General William T. Sherman's brother, General Sherman himself was on a list of "approved communists", Charles A. Dana who was according to Lincoln the "eyes of the administration" was Assistant Secretary of War and a very close friend of Marx and Engels. Horace Greeley, a committed communist, hired Dana as an editor for his paper The New York Tribune, and included Karl Marx as a columnist. If we broadened our margins to include Unitarian, Transcendentalist, and other Utopian humanists supporters of the Union we would have a very large list of influential socialists indeed.

Hitler and Lincoln

Having recently finished Mein Kampf part I, I find it almost laughable to hear modern conservatives compared to Adolph Hitler. Hitler was nothing more than a "National Socialist" which is what the Nazi party stood for. His railings against communism were over a slight disagreement in their method of class warfare and international socialism. He chose race/cultural warfare instead of class, however still maintaining the basic principles of socialism (save perhaps destruction of the family). It is interesting to note that Hitler had much in common with Lincoln (No I'm not saying Lincoln was a Nazi). Hitler stated in Mein Kampf

The states that make up the American Union are mostly in the nature of territories. . . formed for technical administrative purposes. These states did not and could not possess sovereign rights of their own. Because it was the Union that created most of these so-called states.

Abraham Lincoln said:

The Union is older than the States and, in fact created them as States. The Union, and not themselves separately, procured their independence and their liberty. The Union threw off their old dependence for them and made them States, such as they are.

Aside from being completely wrong historically speaking the philosophy behind both statements is also wrong. Hitler believed in a Reich that would last 1,000 years. In other words a "perpetual" empire, insofar as human governments can be ongoing. Lincoln believed that the nation would "not perish from the earth." Since neither Lincoln nor Hitler were Christians in the orthodox sense it is doubtful that their token statements about God from a Christian perspective were legitimate. It is more likely that as master politicians they were able to fulfill the expectations of religious people while pursuing a centralized God-like state with their actions. Actions do speak louder than words.And Hitler's actions were akin to Lincoln's. The authors state:

. . .the Federal Republic of Germany was composed of twenty-five German states. . . free, independent, and sovereign. . .One of the first things done by Hitler. . . was to deny any claim of state sovereignty by these states and to consolidate all power into one big government.

Placing a government in a position of perpetuity is to ascribe to it an attribute of God, and deny Him the right to divide a people as He did at Babel and as He'll do when He returns. It places man's faith in a "stable" system instead of a stable God.

Conclusion

At the very least it should be mildly disturbing to hear that Hitler and Marx were named among the fans of Lincoln, and it should call into question just how "Republican" in the conservative sense Lincoln truly was. Far from being a sole indictment against Lincoln however, we should call into question the whole origin of the GOP. Are they truly conservative if they look back to Lincoln for inspiration? They were the original party to allow socialists to gained admittance into the U.S. government, which ushered in the progressive era of Roosevelt, Wilson, and FDR. It's clear that a "renewal" is not the answer for the GOP, but rather a complete start from scratch. Either that or the creation of a third-party that will adhere to the Constitution and stop trampling on the rights of states and people like both parties have been in the habit of doing over the past 150 years. Still, it is the principles of God that will save this nation, the God that Hitler, Marx, and Lincoln rejected, not political parties. It is a battle of humanism vs. Christianity and only revival in the orthodox Christian sense has any hope of restoring the government of the United States.

Jefferson Davis

2010-05-10T08:57:00.000-07:00

An American President
By: Jonathan Harris

Around midnight this morning I finished watching an almost four hour biography on the life of Jefferson Davis, the first and last president of the Confederacy. The documentary Jefferson Davis: An American President stands apart from the usual snide insults and cheap falsities that are attributed to the man behind the Southern nation. Drawing on the knowledge of top Davis scholars, the embodiment of the Confederacy is presented in a fair-minded way highlighting the facts and not the myths. Davis was of course borne in Kentucky but spent most of his life growing up in Mississippi. A statue of Davis in the state capitol of Kentucky stands in the background giving prominence to the central figure of the room Abraham Lincoln, another son of Kentucky. There are demands today to strip the less significant statue of Davis from the capitol grounds on the idea that the man was a traitor and racist. The documentary dispels much of these unfair claims by exposing the times in which Davis lived, and the principles on which he stood.

Davis on Slavery

Yes, Davis did own slaves, and yes he fought in Congress for the right of slave-owners to take their slaves with them to the territories of the United States- however his reasons for participating in both activities is rarely given a look, and all other actions made by him are rarely given any time at all in modern classrooms. Davis is the one pinned with slavery and sedition while folks like Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson generally get more respectable treatment, however all three had similar if not identical principles when it came to government and even the question of slavery. Davis's slaves were treated extremely well as the documentary shows. One story which stands out in my mind is the account of his top slave James Pemberton, who was in charge of managing the others in their work capacities. Davis offered Pemberton freedom at one point which Pemberton quickly turned down claiming he'd rather be the slave of Davis indefinitely. Pemberton was a loyal friend to both Davis and his wives. Another interesting story that gives a glimpse into the life of Davis's slaves is an incident that occurred after Davis was released from prison after the war. Having nothing and nowhere to go, one of his former slaves who was living in the North a freeman gave Davis a sizable amount of money simply in return for his kind treatment. One of the photos of Davis presented in the documentary shows him sitting in a Baptist church surrounded by blacks with a black man preaching at the pulpit. The personal view of the president of the Confederacy was that slavery had many evils associated with it but overall it was good for the Africans to come to the new world out of their paganism and be exposed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He valued learning so much he educated his slaves and made it his personal goal to see them function in an adult capacity. Like most men at the time Davis believed that blacks were inferior, mostly due to cultural inadequacies, and he treated them as a loving father would treat his children. To him slavery was the stepping stone for the negro to become civilized. His views must be viewed in the historical context- in which he would have personally been seen as an extremely sympathetic man to the plight of slaves. There is no indication he ever sold a slave, and it was his constitution that allowed more possibilities for the peaceful freeing of all slaves (The Confederate Constitution protected slavery as an institution but allowed for the states to dissolve of it in their own ways and totally made illegal the slave trade. In contrast the U.S. constitution protected slavery and made it federally legal). His objection to disallowing slave-masters from going to the territories with their slaves stemmed from his strict-constructional view of the Constitution entirely. The 5th amendment could not be regarded as unimportant in his mind, and according to the logic of him and his fellow Southerners, if one section of the Constitution was ignored what was to keep the whole thing from being ignored? We've reaped the consequences of his loose-constructionist political rivals today.

On Secession

The tariff was another constitutional issue negatively impacting the South that Jefferson fought over, and while he did believe state's had the right to secede, as many both North and South did at the time, he did not want secession to take place. He tried everything to keep the Union together helping engineering the Crittenden Compromise which Lincoln refused to hear, writing a personal letter to Lincoln which was never replied to, and sending delegations to make treaties with the United States which were never heard. He had a hard time even seeing the U.S. flag knowing it was the flag he was still loyal to (the "Old Union" as he would always call it), the flag he got wounded under in Mexico, the flag he had fought for. It was the deaf ears of Lincoln and the Republican party that eventually caused him to rise to his nation's calling leaving the union. I would recommend for everyone to read his farewell address which outlines the peaceful relationship he cherished and would have liked to see continue as two separate peoples.

His Contributions and Imprisonment

Many folks don't realize Jefferson Davis was the man mostly responsible for many things that affect our government today apart from the Confederacy. The Smithsonian Institution was sponsored by Davis as he valued learning very much, and the renovations that occurred at the Capitol building (i.e. the statue on the top, the gold leaf interior, the extensions) were his doing as Secretary of War. While serving in this position he also brought the United States armed forces into the modern age- a contribution he would later regret in a way, since he was the engineer in his own defeat. His book The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government is a call to constitutional government in the way our Founder's wanted it and would have served as the reasoning for his defense in court if he had been allowed to be tried. After he was caught by Federal troops in Georgia, Davis spent time in prison waiting to go to court. Of course, if he would have been acquitted the Confederacy would have been seen to be constitutionally in the right, and if he had been sentenced he would have become a martyr. Many Northeastern prominent abolitionists (who knew the ramifications) offered to pay his bail, which he refused to do. Living in a prison in which a guard stood by him at all times watching his every move, Davis had little privacy, but he strongly believed he was right to continue this arrangement indefinitely (despite many health illnesses from reoccurring malaria and war wounds as well) as long as there was still hope for the South. Davis wanted to continue fighting even after Lee had surrendered. He was a man of principle unlike his competitor up North who was a man of practicality. The trial started and Davis was quickly becoming the martyr for freedom in the world. European newspapers denounced the injustice being done to him, and the Pope even sent him a crown of thorns. Andrew Johnston and Radical Republicans decided it was better to just let Davis go without a trial which is what they did.

After the War

Having already lost one wife (which according to friends made him a more serious man. When he was a cadet at West Point he was known for partying, but that changed with tragedy.) and three children Davis was a man at his wit's end, and any other man would have gone crazy no doubt. Of his six children only two survived to adulthood, one dying in her early thirties. Davis tried living in Europe, starting a life-insurance company in Tennessee which went under, and eventually went back to planting, living near poverty the entire time. His planting prospects likewise failed with flooding problems. The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government gave him some success but not nearly what he had hoped for. Instead of writing a memoir he wrote what looked like a Constitutional justification for secession and the war. Always a Southerner, always a devout member of the old Union, Davis died in 1889. His death was grieved by all the South, and in New Orleans, where he died, the biggest public funeral ever was held as a parade marched in his honor. There lied a man with an idea of preserving self-government, state's rights, and constitutional authority in the tradition of the first Jefferson- Thomas. He will be forever revered in my mind and in the minds of those who know the truth about him. These are the reasons I highly recommend Jefferson Davis: An American President.

Slave Conditions in the South

2010-05-03T17:26:00.000-07:00

Lashes or Love?
By: Jonathan Harris

Perhaps the most common tactic employed by Southern detractors is painting the whole South as a bunch of racists. If you can paint someone as racist in our day, nothing else they say seems to matter. The implications of this are far-reaching. Bill Maher loves to harp on the fact that the South is both racist and predominately Christian. The two have to be related right? It's the Northeast that shows true tolerance in the midst of their secularism. Indeed, the Christian God himself must be a racist if it's His people that exhibit this kind of behavior; you know what I mean, the cliche white male with a Southern accent beating a black man within an inch of his life while shouting racial slurs and sipping lemonade. This kind of perception may play well on the big screen or in the media, but it doesn't match the facts by a long shot. Let's examine what the truth is concerning Southern slave conditions by examining reliable historical sources- not radical abolitionist stereotypes.

The Data

Our most reliable sources of information are not going to only be from selected first-hand accounts. If we based our whole argument around individual cases we could find ourselves in deep trouble of picking and choosing the cases that match our preconceptions. Let me give you an example. If I were to select accounts of home-schooled children who underwent abuse during their upbringing, and then ignore the vast majority of children who were treated well, I could make a very compelling case that homeschooling is a horrible institution by highlighting the hundreds of cases of abuse. Radical abolitionists were notorious for using this same flawed reasoning. However, by their standards I could demonize any labor system. So what sources of information are available today by which we can judge rightly the Southern slave situation?

Slave Narratives

My favorite depictions of Chattel slavery comes directly from the slaves themselves and can be found in the Slave Narratives- the cumulative result of two years of in depth interviews surveying over 2,000 former slaves by the Works Project Administration under FDR. In the book Time on the Cross, noble prize winning scientist Robert Fogel demonstrates that nowhere in the Western Hemisphere were slaves better treated and cared for than in the South. After studying the Slave Narratives Fogel concluded that 60 to 80 percent of all respondents had only positive things to say about their masters and their life during slave days.

The U.S. Census

If you're a big fan of raw data, perhaps the 1860 U.S. Census will have you convinced against radical abolitionist rhetoric. One way to assess the quality of life is to look at the rate of population increase. We can do this by comparing the number of live births with the number of deaths. In 1860, the Southern black population was shown to have increased by 23 percent, while the Northern black population only increased 1.7 percent. If we go back ten years to the 1850 U.S. Census something even more startling emerges. 1 out of every 1,000 white persons was deaf, dumb, blind, insane, or idiotic. In Northern states 1 out of every 506 black persons had the same handicaps. For Southern blacks it was merely 1 in 1,464 persons who possessed such inabilities. So the question is, based on raw data in which region were blacks treated better?

Foreign Observers

Certainly if there are any unbiased individuals when it comes to the cultural conflicts between the North and South we should assume that they would be from somewhere other than the United States. Englishman James Silk Buckingham published his observation of Southern slavery in 1842 by stating that slaves were "well-fed, well dressed, and easy to be governed." They were in his view as well off as were English servants in the middle rank of life. In Democracy and America French observer Alex de Tocqueville stated that "the prejudice of race appears to be stronger in the states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists." Northerner Frederick L. Olmsted published Journey to the Seaboard Slave States in 1856. His assessment of slavery? According to Facts the Historians Leave Out:

He learned that the slaves were probably fed better than any comparable class of other countries. The labor required of house-servants he described as light, that of field-hands not appreciably heavier than that of laborer in the North. It interested him that slave marriages were frequently made occasions, attended by their owners; those of favorite slaves, performed in the master's house by the master's minister.

Common Sense

If we reasonably think through the topic of slavery in the South and the situation of modern blacks, the official Northern dogma looses credibility pretty quickly. Just ponder with me a minute. If you were to spend $1,000 a worker (what a sum in today's money!) and only receive a 10% profit how would you treat your indentured servant? I doubt you would abuse him/her. Even if you were purely a creature of economics you would want to keep your slaves as healthy as possible for as long as possible. Fortunately, Southerners weren't merely creatures of economics. They cared for their slaves on a personal level, in huge contrast to the way Northerner's in general treated black people at the time. This is why former slaves are almost universally Christian. Would you accept the religion of an abusive master and keep following it even after you were out from under your master's rule? Of course not! Southerners saw the slave trade as an opportunity for evangelism and many slaves were thankful for it. Sure the institution was far removed from what should have been happening Biblically, although this was primarily on the part of the Northern slave merchants (i.e. racism and man capture), but there were many benefits that often get ignored. I'm grateful my ancestors came over as indentured servants because what they left behind was much worse than what they found. Read the slave narratives and you'll find that many slaves felt the same exact way.

In conclusion: If you still aren't convinced that Southerners generally exhibited courtesy to their slaves and free blacks in contrast to the North, I challenge you to offer evidence to the contrary (which shouldn't include individual stories or accounts). In other words, where are the numbers? Sure there were some nasty slave owners. I've had some nasty bosses in my short life. But what are the best sources of information for making a logical decision on this topic? They aren't stories, they're figures. There's a place for stories, but facts should take precedence. If they aren't, are we really being honest with ourselves?

Complicity

2010-04-29T07:04:00.000-07:00

How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery
By: Jonathan Harris

Three journalists of the Hartford Courant, all hailing from Northern States, made a startling discovery a couple years ago as they researched a local lawsuit involving a demand for reparations from modern companies involved in the slave trade. Investigating what appeared to be a peculiar civic incident turned into year and a half post-magazine endeavor turned into a book entitled Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery. The three Northerners describe their initial reaction to the evidence incriminating their homeland as follows:

Our first response was confusion: Hold on, weren't we the good guys in the Civil War? Wasn't the South to blame for slavery? After all, Southerners had plantations, we had the Underground Railroad. They had Simon Legree, we had his abolitionist creator. . . We are journalists, not scholars, and want to share what surprised, and even shocked, the three of us. We have all grown up, attended schools, and worked in Northern states, from Maine to Maryland. We thought we knew our home. We thought we knew our country. We were wrong.

It is well worth emphasizing the these journalists are not Southern sympathizers by any stretch of the imagination. Their conclusion seems to be, "The South was wrong but so was the North. We just didn't realized what hypocrites we were." Still, the book is primarily research, and although every author has a bias, these guys do a great job sticking to their facts helping readers, North and South, to draw their own conclusions. Although, in one portion of the book highlighting the horrors of the Middle Passage, we are almost lead to believe that the South possibly could have had the moral high ground (or a pit not quite as deep depending on how you look at it).

Such practices [related to the Middle Passage] underscore the essential difference between the slave traders and slave masters. For better or worse, the lord of a plantation had to coexist with his slaves. The slave trader had only to deliver them.

Most people don't know that the slave trade itself (the cruelest portion of the entire institution) was almost exclusively (at least in the U.S.) a Northeastern business venture. The Great Triangle, in which slave captains sailing from Connecticut and Rhode Island would sell their Northeastern rum in exchange for slaves, and the slaves in exchange for Molasses in the West Indies, is wiped clean from most public school history accounts. Even after 1808, millions of slaves were still being traded by Northeastern merchants- New York itself, being notorious for turning a blind eye to the nefarious trade made it the staple of its economy. It is thought that Massachusetts Bay in its early years would not have been able to survive without the human flesh trade, and America itself would not have been an economic powerhouse if it weren't for the often hidden, but still created wealth the trade brought. It was the American flag which flew over all slave vessels bearing their precious cargoes to South America, the West Indies, and the American South in the first half of the 19th century- this enabled ships to resist seizure by the British who would capture and deport any slave cargo found (if the slaves weren't sold instead). It was Northerners in "Free States" who often exhibited violence towards those opposed to slavery. William Lloyd Garrison's being chased, roped, and paraded in 1835 Boston, or Elijah Lovejoy's murder by an Illinois mob in 1837, are two of the most famous incidents. And not only was the North a fertile hostility ground for blacks and abolitionists, but it was also from whence came the true intellectual firepower which scientifically justified slavery- Philidelphia's Samuel George Morton and his crew of Northeastern University professors.

Here's a tip of the iceberg sampling of just some of the facts this work expands upon:

In 1760 the slave population of New England and the Mid-Atlantic States was 41,000.
In 1790 New York alone had 20,000 slaves.
In 1807, the DeWolf family ships (one company in a humongous enterprise) brought 2,000 Africans to Charleston in a 7 month period.
In 1822 Cotton is 40% of New York's domestic exports, and the North is the nations hub for Cotton mills.
In 1842 The Prigg decision (precursor to Dread Scott) is written in Massachusetts.
In 1854 Types of Mankind is published by Northern academia challenging the Genesis creation account and scientifically affirming that blacks were inferior to whites.
In 1862 The Comstock, Cheney piano-key manufacturing company is formed in Ivoryton, Connecticut monopolizing a trade for the next fifty years that would enslave or put to death millions of Africans.
In 1863 Draft rioters in New York City kill scores of blacks and set fire to a Colored Orphan Asylum.

The facts indicting the North are too numerous to highlight in this review so I suggest to anyone interested in studying this hidden history further, pick up a copy, and while you're at it pick up Myths of American Slavery (a book on the slave trade from a Southern perspective) as well. Click on either link below to order.

Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery

Myths of American Slavery

"Reagan Conservative" or "Lincoln Republican"?

2010-04-22T11:06:00.000-07:00

The Real Difference Between the Blue-Bloods and the Populists
By: Jonathan Harris

Most Republicans like to trace their political heritage from Ronald Reagan through Theodore Roosevelt all the way back to Abraham Lincoln, sometimes tacking Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson (both Democrats) on as the first philosophical conservatives. However, an honest look at history will unveil mutually exclusive irreconcilable differences between all of these men, and I'm not referring to the way in which they ate a sandwich- I'm talking about fundamental governing beliefs. When we take into account the way in which each of these men actually governed we quickly find that on the right sit Thomas Jefferson and Ronald Reagan, with Andrew Jackson somewhere in the middle, and Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln sitting in the same section as Woodrow Wilson and FDR. Yes, you heard me right! Lincoln was really our first progressive president- a man before his time, but who ultimately paved the way for the progressive era. In fact, Woodrow Wilson, though he harbored strong feelings of support for the South (he was born in Virginia), absolutely adored Lincoln for his methods- the way in which he circumnavigated the constitution. Wilson effectively took Lincoln's philosophy and replicated it thereby tearing the constitution to shreds even more. We could spend all day talking about the connection between these two, and their attempts to undermine American Law but my purpose in this piece is to instead pit the two supposed "giants of conservatism," Reagan and Lincoln, against each other in order to see who the real proponent of limited government is.

First a pop quiz. Below are listed three quotes. One is the voice of Ronald Reagan, another the voice of Abraham Lincoln, and the third, a figure who shall remain nameless until you've decided which ones to attribute to Reagan and Lincoln. Let's begin.

The states that make up the American Union are mostly in the nature of territories. . . formed for technical administrative purposes. These states did not and could not possess sovereign rights of their own. Because it was the Union that created most of these so-called states.

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

The Union is older than the States and, in fact created them as States. The Union, and not themselves separately, procured their independence and their liberty. The Union threw off their old dependence for them and made them States, such as they are.

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

All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal government.

If you said the first quote belonged to either Lincoln or Reagan you were wrong. It is actually an excerpt from a book by the name of "Mein Kampf" written by Adolf Hitler (It is a little known fact that Hitler eliminated the Wiemar Republic comprised of States by federalizing them). The second quote is by Abraham Lincoln, and the third, you guessed it, Ronald Reagan. Now for our second question on the quiz. Which one of the three does not belong? If you said, "Ronald Reagan" you are absolutely correct. Reagan is the only one of the three who believed that the Federal Government is a creation of, and therefore accountable too, the States.

Let's briefly examine the arguments for and against State Sovereignty. Lincoln's argument stems from the idea that the states weren't states themselves before they adopted the Constitution, and that all proceeding states to be adopted certainly had no standing in claiming any kind of "sovereignty." He stated, "The States have their status IN the Union, and they have no other legal status." Of course, states do have the constitutional right to separate from the Union if the Federal Government becomes to abusive- but let's consider the history behind the ratification of the Constitution. Was it not delegates from "States" who gathered together in Philadelphia? What entities ratified the Constitution? Was it not the States? Indeed, the Constitution itself reads, "We the people of the United States. . ." Those who want to advocate the demolition of state sovereignty emphasize the word "people," but most don't know that the word "people" was only inserted because the original draft which read, "We the people of the states of the States of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, etc." was infeasible. The constitution had not been ratified by the states listed and therefore it would be insulting to keep such language. Instead the broader term "United States" was adopted, which proved beneficial since Rhode Island was a holdout.

The reason Lincoln supported the idea of a perpetual national government, was so he could undermine the state's ability to control its own proceedings. The tenth amendment was literally torn to bits as critical State officials in the North were jailed, suspicious local newspapers were disbanded, States were federally created (i.e. West Virginia) by the executive or taken over (i.e. Maryland, Tennessee, Missouri) through martial law, peaceful seceding states were conquered, and the list goes on. The more one looks at the issue the more Lincoln looks a lot like Hitler and Reagan becomes an entirely different figure altogether. So I ask you the question, "Are you a 'Reagan conservative,' or a 'Lincoln Republican'?"

Abraham Lincoln: The Great Discriminator

2010-04-20T11:45:00.000-07:00

His Views on Race, Slavery, and Their Implications Towards His War
By: Jonathan Harris

Ask a group of average elementary school students in our nation what the 16th president's greatest achievement was and they're likely to parrot back in robotic synchronization, "He freed the slaves." The view that Lincoln picked up the torch of Thomas Jefferson's "all men are created equal" assertion, and then passed it on to Martin Luther King Jr. and Barack Obama (his political descendant) is after all, common knowledge. Less common is to find someone who's actually studied Lincoln's writings and primary sources to find out what he really believed on the subject of racial equality. Below is a comprised look at what our 16th president thought when it came to these crucial subjects. I warn anyone reading this to beware- the implications of the truth will cause you to question the motives behind the War Between the States which is a very unpopular thing to do. If you care about the truth and the misuse of a lie I encourage you to read on.

According to Ebony magazine editor Lerone Bennett, Jr., “On at least fourteen occasions between 1854 and 1860 Lincoln said ambiguously that he believed the Negro race was inferior to the White race.” Some of Lincoln’s quotes will sound truly remarkable to the ears of average Americans who’ve been told their whole lives of the anti-racism of Lincoln. In an 1858 debate in Ottawa Illinois with Stephen Douglas Lincoln said these words:

I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a 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. I have never said anything to the contrary.

In another debate Lincoln rhetorically asked, “Free them and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this. . . we cannot then make them equals.” So much for the 16th president’s “all men are created equal” reference in the Gettysburg Address. It should be noted that Lincoln’s views were no different than many Americans at the time. Before black codes were ever enacted in the South, many Northern states expressed their racism in state laws. The Revised Code of Indiana for instance, prohibited Negroes and mulattos from even coming into the state.

All contracts with Negroes were null and void; any white person encouraging Negroes to enter the state was subjected to a $500 dollar fine; Negroes and mulattos were not allowed to vote; no Negro or mulatto having even one-eighth part of Negro blood could legally marry a white person – an act punishable by tens year’s imprisonment and a fine of up to 5,000; any person counseling or encouraging interracial marriage was subject to a fine of up to 1,000; Negroes and mulattos were forbidden from testifying in court against white people, from sending their children to public schools, or from holding any political office.

Such laws were common in almost every Northern state as of 1860. No wonder the underground railroad's final stop was Canada and not Massachusetts. Foreign observer Tocqueville noted that “the prejudice of race appears to be stronger in the states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists; and nowhere is it so intolerant as in those states where servitude has never been known.” Lincoln’s home state of Illinois senator Lyman Trumbell summed up this sentiment in the statement, “Our people want nothing to do with the Negro.” The South on the other hand, due to its agrarian cotton economy did want something to do with the Negro. And the coffers of Northeastern capitalists (who almost entirely financed the slave trade from the ports of Boston and New York) were amply supplied by meeting this demand.

Most standard American textbooks highlight the stressing regional differences between the North and South preceding the “Civil War” by crowing the “Free Soil” movement as the most guilty culprit in pitting both regions against each other; however, the motivation behind the Free Soilers is often left either assumed or misrepresented. It is doubtless that many abolitionists, both violent (John Brown and the Secret Six) and non-violent, were in favor of free soil as a way to stop the extension of slavery for noble reasons, but many more including Lincoln had motives which we would not find to be so honorable. Commenting on the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 Lincoln stated:

Whether slavery shall go into Nebraska, or other new territories, is not a matter of exclusive concern to the people who may go there. 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 within them. Slave States are places for poor white people to remove from; not to remove to. New free States are the places for poor people to go to and better their condition.

Inherent in Lincoln's words is a concern for the "free white people." The extension of slavery meant that poor whites would be put out of work due to competition from blacks, a reason which partially helped bring about the demise of the institution in the North. Lincoln's confidant and 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." Other than providing jobs for white laborers, the Free Soil Movement also desired to bring about the demise of Southern representation in Congress by discontinuing the expansion of the slave population in more states (Each slave represented 3/5 of a person according to the Constitution which gave Southern states an edge in Lincoln's mind). Lincoln not only wanted the "free" states untainted by Negroes, but he desired to see the whole United States become a white man's land. In his Cooper Union Speech of 1860, he advocated the peaceful "deportation" of blacks so "their places [would] be filled up by free white laborers."

During the1861 inaugural address Lincoln affirmed: "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." This statement would seem to be in contradiction to the "Emancipation Proclamation" issued less than two years later which supposedly "freed the slaves." But did the "Proclamation" really free the slaves? The confiscation acts (which allowed slaves to be categorized as "contraband" so as to either be freed, or in some instances be enslaved again by the federal army) were already in effect, and none of the union slave states or enemy slave states under federal control were required to emancipate. The New York World, among myriads of other newspapers worldwide saw right through Lincoln's move.

The president has purposely made the proclamation inoperative in all places where we have gained a military footing which makes the slaves accessible. He has proclaimed emancipation only where he has notoriously no power to execute it. The exemption of the accessible parts of Louisiana, Tennessee, and Virginia renders the proclamation not merely futile, but ridiculous.

So what was the motive behind the proclamation if it wasn't freeing the slaves? Simply put, it was a war measure designed to keep anti-slavery European powers out, and possibly encourage slave insurrections in the South.The U.S. Army was in a very desperate situation, and if anti-slavery nations Britain or France agreed to ally with the Confederacy the war would have continued to favor the South. If however a new purpose was introduced (i.e. ending slavery), even if it was sincere or accurate, the executive could cast the war in terms of a "moral crusade." The proclamation was a rousing success though it did not free one slave.

Though I have not intended to uncover in this piece the true motives behind Lincoln's War, hopefully you can at least see that they weren't about slavery. Far from being a noble crusade, the "War of Northern Aggression" as so many Southerners and Constitutionalists like to call it, was fought to keep the South from leaving along with their tax money which financed infrastructure projects in the North. While the federal government's cause and methods were far from being noble, there were many Northern soldiers however who did feel they were doing the slaves a service, and they should not be forgotten (even if they're government did the slaves a great disservice). Lincoln's actions while president were reprehensible (i.e. suspending habeas corpus, jailing thousands of political opponents, shutting down hundreds of newspapers who disagreed, authorizing "total war," and declaring a war and passing laws without the consent of congress) and far worse than even the usurpation President Obama has attempted to enact, but he is forever remembered as an American hero even by folks on the right (probably because he was the first Republican president).The only thing that makes him seem noble is this myth that he somehow freed the slaves and valued equality. Nothing could be further from the truth. Political tyranny is viewed through the lens of moral superiority, and therefore granted legitimacy. It's time we unhinge ourselves from his legacy, or else we are in danger (as many have already) of becoming "big-government conservatives," using Lincoln's tools for our own "moral" crusades. The fact is, his tools cannot ever be used for moral crusades because they are immoral in and of themselves.

The Confederados

2010-04-11T14:10:00.000-07:00

Live Free or . . . Move!

Rather than submitting to the horrendous oppression which accompanied reconstruction, as many as ten to twenty thousand Confederate cotton planters traveled to Brazil at the invitation of Emperor Dom Pedro II in years following the War for Southern Independence. Today their unreconstructed descendants make up the "Confederado" population of Brazil. Fond of the Southern Cross and their uniquely American heritage, every year the Confederados celebrate the Southern aspects of their culture. It is worth noting that the racial problems Dixie is so often stereotyped for are nonexistent in the areas surrounding "Americana," the Confederate settlement- further supporting the idea that it was the North's undignified misuse of blacks as political tools during reconstruction which poisoned race relations in the South.

How to Debate a Yankee

2010-04-09T23:34:00.000-07:00

Learning From the SVC's Mistake
By: Jonathan Harris

As most of you probably know, last week the newly elected Republican governor of the state of Virginia made what shouldn't have been a controversial declaration honoring the month of April as "Confederate History Month." The two previous Democratic governors have withheld from issuing such a decree, but Bob McDonnell has reinstated the practice much to the joy of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Unfortunately, a couple days later found McDonnell backpedaling under heat from "Civil Rights" organizations who castigated him for daring to honor the "racist" defenders of Dixie. Both the Son's of Confederate Veterans and the Southern Legal Resource Center have posted some well thought out responses.

As I believe, and I'm sure many of my readers do too, the South has been the anchor for the United States. Even today it is the last real bastion of conservatism, and without the "Bible Belt," the moral degeneration would melt faster than a snowball headed for hell. The Confederate heritage of the South cannot be ignored. The condition that blacks are in today is a direct result of the way the Yankee conquerors have treated them, the economic condition of the South is only now beginning to recover from Sherman's march over a century ago, and the federal involvement every state has suffered from has its origin in Lincoln's treatment of the South. Our first presidents have come from the state of Virginia, liberty was one on her shores of Yorktown, and lost on at her courthouse of Appomattox - it's her heritage which is under attack today.

Unfortunately, the bedrock of American liberty has almost no one to defend her, save the members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and a few other small Southern organizations. Unfortunately, the SVC is not a political organization, and therefore its membership is not savvy to talking points and action words. The members act as if the U.S. is still living in 1950, a time when both sides of the War Between the States were respected. Today, a typical SVC member possesses a great amount of knowledge concerning battlefields, campaigns, and individuals, but not as much when it comes to the political or social aspects of the wartime South (Frank Conner also points this out in "The South Under Siege.") A lot of knowledge goes a short way when it's not organized properly. And a good stigma will always defeat a lousy dogma.

Brad Bowling, though I'm sure his views are accurate and his intentions pure, could not seem to shake his frustration and lack of coherence while debating liberal hack Roland Martin on Anderson Cooper 360. Martin, though he obviously knows almost nothing about the War for Southern Independence, possesses the high ground. Most folks in America are conditioned like zombies to repeat the mantra, "The South fought for slavery," and, "Abraham Lincoln fought to free the slaves." Martin does a great job with sounds bites staying on point and continually pounding the slavery talking point into the ground as it were. Bowling on the other hand has lots of knowledge, but no way of communicating it within such a narrow time frame. He therefore gives mixes messages confusing probably almost anyone watching who doesn't understand the true causes behind the "Civil War."

My solution for the SVC and every Southern organization is simple- get some talking points and form them into soundbites. We have uphill to climb, so we have to be three times as good at communicating our views. First, we must pick our talking point. In the AC360 debate, I believe Bowling should have picked this to be his thrust: "The Confederate Soldier defended Virginia from a harmful invasion, therefore he should be honoured." As long as that point was being pounded as equally as Martin's "slavery" point, the debate could have been won. Self-defense is the action directly connected to the highest form of inalienable rights - yes, even higher than liberty itself. You can have life without liberty, but you can't have liberty without life. As a distant second I would choose the "liberty" talking point (i.e. the South fought to preserve her liberty) as a refutation of Martin's point that the south cared only about slavery. Unfortunately, in our pluralistic politically correct culture in order for the SVC to survive they must change their ways and become aggressive with their words. Our Confederate ancestors gave their lives for ours. The least we can do is defend their lives by upholding their true memory, even when the governor of Virgina shirks from this responsibility. Unfortunately, in this day and age that means verbally challenging our opponents when provoked.

The video below shows the way the debate I believe should have gone. I've placed myself in Bowling's shoes to see what my talking point idea would look like when introduced. Obviously we can't see Roland's reaction to what potentially could have been said, but that's what the imagination is for!

Was Lincoln a Christian?

2010-02-19T13:27:00.001-08:00

The Unregenerate Faith of the 16th President
By: Jonathan Harris

On March 27th of 2004 Dr. H. Rondel Rumburg formally debate Dr. D. James Kennedy on the subject of Lincoln’s personal faith at Liberty University’s Civil War Seminar. Dr. Kennedy, certainly a heavy-weight in the evangelical world, took the position that in fact Lincoln was a Christian, and that he was “putty in the hands of the almighty” through “studying the Scriptures.” Dr. Rumburg, an author and member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans took the opposite side claiming that indeed Lincoln was not a Christian. This work is a transcript of Dr. Rumburg’s response, and will leave little doubt in the mind of any reasonable person that Lincoln was indeed unregenerate. Rumburg starts off by stating his premise that

. . .a Christian is a regenerate person who has repented of sin and savingly believed on Christ Jesus as Lord and Saviour, who alone can save from sin, and then, as an act of obedience, that believer follows his Saviour in life.

Drawing upon various Biblical references, among them Matt. 7:16,19, John 3:7, John 1:12-13, etc. Rumburg supports his view of Soteriology setting up what proves to be the death blow to Kennedy’s assertion. Fourteen separate lines of reasoning are used to either cast doubt or prove conclusively that Lincoln could not have been a Christian. First and foremost among his arguments are perhaps the first hand observations made by close friends and associates. I will not endeavor to list all of them, but perhaps a portion will serve to grant the reader a taste into Rumburgs argument.

Mary Todd Lincoln [Lincoln’s Wife]: “Mr. Lincoln had no hope and no faith, in the usual acceptance of those words. He never joined a church. . . he was never a technical Christian.”

William H. Herndon [Law Partner and Friend]:“I have never seen the name of Jesus mentioned by Mr. Lincoln.” “Lincoln was not a Christian in any sense other than that he lived a good life and was a noble man.”

Judge David Davis [Friend, Lincoln’s Estate Administrator, Chief Justice Supreme Court Nominee]: “He had no faith, in the Christian sense of the term.”

Among other quotations, Dr. Rumburg proceeds to expose Lincoln’s personal actions as well. He allowed his wife, after the death of their son Willie, to conduct seances in the White House which proved to be, “more comforting than the visits of Presbyterian Clergymen.” A personal friend, Jesse W. Fell describes Lincoln’s faith as “the Fatherhood of God, and the brotherhood of man.” This loose doctrinal statement more in keeping with Unitarian and Transcendentalist views, explains why Lincoln would not join New York Avenue Presbyterian Church due to their strict Confession of Faith. Lincoln only told the Pastor Dr. Phineas D. Gurley that he would endeavor to keep the two great commandments (Love the Lord, and Thy Neighbor). In fact, according Lincoln’s bodygaurd and personal friend Ward Hill Lamon,

[He] was never a member of any church, nor did he believe in the inspiration of the Scriptures in the sense understood by evangelical Christians. . . Overwhelming testimony out of many mouths, and none stronger than out of his own, place these facts beyond controversy. . . When he went to church at all, he went to mock, and came away to mimic.

Lincoln admirers such as Dr. James Kennedy like to focus on the 16th presidents references to God (though he never mentioned Jesus) and Biblical quotations, but forget that even Satan himself is good at quoting Scripture (out of context – much like the Gettysburg Address) and referencing God in a less than worshipful way. If Lincoln was truly a Christian, his suspension of habeas corpus in which tens of thousands of political rivals, military leaders, and newspapermen were imprisoned, his shutting down of hundreds of Northern newspapers, his affirmation of total war in which thousands of civilians were raped, murdered, and vandalized (even burning churches and impounding Bible’s as contraband), and his refusal to negotiate a peace deal, speak volumes more than his statements about God. As the Apostle Matthew stated: “So then, you will know them by their fruits.”

I encourage any serious student of history to get a hold of this pamphlet by Dr. H. Rondel Rumburg. Christians have immortalized Lincoln and attempted to pair him with modern Christian concerns such as abortion in an attempt to further their legitimacy. At the same time progressives have successfully harnessed the legend of Lincoln for their own centralized government schemes (appropriately). As the Apostle Paul says, “What agreement has the temple of God with idols?” It’s time we stop paying homage to a modern day idol (Just look at Lincoln’s monument, Mt. Rushmore, the Five Dollar Bill, etc.) and instead support our causes upon their own ethical merit. Otherwise we will continue to buy into more government control based on Lincoln’s legacy, and futilely fight a losing battle by trying to enlist our enemies hero in our very ranks.

The Right to Secede

2010-02-07T11:52:00.000-08:00

How Our Most Basic Right is. . . Right!

By: Jonathan Harris

Trending Toward Secession

Since the election of Barack Obama, a growing number of patriots have “woken up” as radio talk show host Glenn Beck likes to put it. The tea party movement has become the face of a new movement for fiscal accountability and constitutional limitations. As tea party candidate and senate seat hopeful Rand Paul said on CNN two days ago,“The Tea Party Movement is about constitutional government!” People are starting to realize just how far off course our republic has drifted upon reading the founding documents of America. State sovereignty, nullification, and even secession are once again dinner conversation topics resurrected from their long absence from American political discourse. Though the progressive hijackers of academia have for over a century worked tireless hours attempting to bury such notions as state sovereignty, the truth is suddenly gaining a foothold. The State Sovereignty that "died at Appomattox" is living once again.

While secession still remains an increasingly divisive topic (no pun intended) due to accusations of racism and anti-patriotism against anyone who so much as hints at the possibility, it should be known that such a notion is not the possession of a fringe group, but rather is a birthright all Americans share. Some public figures have taken up the cause beside Governor Rick Perry in defense of this noble American entitlement (in the true sense of the word). Senator Ron Paul, Judge Andrew Napolitono, and Glenn Beck have all made sympathetic remarks in favor of secession, and it’s starting to become mainstream. In an April 2009 poll of 106 listeners of the Sean Hannity Show, 44.34% stated that secession was not “anti-American.” A July 2008 Zogby poll in which 1,209 Americans were questioned concluded that one out of every five (20%) American adults believe that, “any state or region has the right to peaceably secede from the United States and become an independent republic.” Over 18% said they would support a secession movement in their own state. Perhaps not so surprisingly, the percentage of secession advocates was highest in the south regionally. However, ethnically speaking, blacks were the most likely to support a state movement. Almost every area of the country has some kind of local secession movement. The four most notable groups include “The League of the South,” a Neo-Confederate group which has been increasing its membership as of late, “The Alaska Independence Party”, which former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s husband was a member of, The “Second Vermont Republic,” which maintains 13% of its home state’s support, and the Texas Nationalist movement which has received the most press in the past year. Rick Perry’s April 15th 2009 comments have done much to put secession back on the table in the minds of many conservatives.

"Texas is a unique place. When we came into the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that. My hope is that America and Washington in particular pays attention. We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what may come of that."

Of course, if you’re an anchor on MSNBC this could perhaps cause you to have conniptions as Chris Matthews did. But if you’re a Middle American who’s fed up with deficit spending and unconstitutional governance, Perry’s words were a breath of fresh air. In a recent poll of 2,003 Republicans, the Daily Kos/Research Center showed that 33% of Southerners answered "Yes" to the question, "Do you believe your state should secede from the United States?” while the national average for a “Yes” answer was 21%. Putting this number in perspective – it was only 40-45 % of white Americans who supported the Patriot’s cause in the first American war for secession – the War for Independence. As the writer for the League of the South’s blog commented, “So we're half-way there, folks.”

Justifying Secession

Even if you personally don’t believe your state would be better off without federal intrusion, an honest account of history demands at the very least an approving nod to its legality. Secession was and is a brilliant mechanism whereby tyranny is checked. If you’ll recall, the founders set up our federal government upon the notion that unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it. Calvinism held sway in both American religious and political philosophy. In order to stifle the propensity of man toward acquiring power and using it for selfish ends, checks must be put in place to purposely make the government dysfunctional, and therefore render it unable to amass power. It was the Virginian Thomas Jefferson who stated:

“An elective despotism was not the government we fought for, but one which should not only be founded on true free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among general bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.”

In elementary school every child is taught there are three major branches of government which all have checks and balances on each other – the Executive, the Judicial, and the Legislative. However, today most children aren’t taught about the greatest check of them all: the state governments. Although state power has been slowly eroded by the reconstruction and seventeenth amendments as well as several supreme court decisions, there was a time in our nations history when secession was almost universally accepted as legitimate. This is the reason Lincoln had to sell his decision to invade the South by claiming they fired the “first shot.” (even though no one died in the battle, Lincoln was the aggressor, and it wasn’t the “first” shot) It had to be a rebellion, not secession, in order to justify using Federal arms to the American public. “A View of the Constitution” by William Rawle (which advocates secession as a possibility) was standard curricula at West Point before 1860. It’s important that we as patriots stand up for the same rule of law our founders believed in. Below I have stated reasons for why secession is still a viable option, and completely within the realm of legality.

1. The Constitution Allows Secession

During the Constitutional Convention, a debate emerged regarding the creation of new states from preexisting ones (i.e. like West Virginia being created from Virginia – even though that was done by Lincoln unconstitutionally). John Adams records Governor Morris of Pennsylvania’s (who actually wrote the constitution) two cents in the convention minutes. He stated:

“If the forced division of the States is the object of the new System, and is to be pointed against one or two States, he (Morris) expected, the gentlemen from these would pretty quickly leave us.”

i.e. Governor Morris assumed that secession itself was an assumed privilege the sovereign states held. But why was he able to make such a remark? The answer boils down to three things: A. The Tenth Amendment, and B. The Articles of Confederation, and C. The Ratification Papers. The Tenth Amendment clearly states,:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

This begs the question, “Where in the constitution does it talk about the federal government being able to kick states out of the union?” The answer is, “It doesn’t.” The question of secession is therefore a question left up to the individual states. They alone have the power to leave. In addition, a quick comparison between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution will clearly show some key differences. One of them is that the Articles didn’t allow secession. Article XIII states:

“And the articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the Union shall be perpetual;. . .” it goes on to say, “. . . nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them (the articles) unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.”

The idea of perpetual union (i.e. an unending contract) could not be overturned unless all states unanimously decided it could. Interestingly enough, the Constitution does not invoke the idea of a “perpetual union,” and therefore contrasts itself with the concept of an unending contract. States could end their contract with the federal government whenever they wanted. The Ratification Papers attest to this. Virginia’s ratification agreement with the federal government read:

“. . . the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression.”

The state of New York included a similar provision. The purpose for joining a republican form of government had everything to do with benefiting the states themselves. Pennsylvanian James Wilson, a delegate to the constitutional convention encouraged his state to ratify the constitution by stating:

“. . . I am sure that our interests, as citizens, as states, and as a nation, depend essentially upon a union. This Constitution is proposed to accomplish that great and desirable end. Let the experiment be made; let the system be fairly and candidly tried, before it is determined that it cannot be executed.”

In the words of Ronald Reagan, “All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the states; the states created the Federal Government.”

2. Historical Precedent Implies Secession

When the colonists fought against Britain, they wrote their own pact, the “Declaration of Independence,” to "secure these [inalienable] rights. . . the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it [Government], and to institute new Government." King George had disbanded their legislative governments and imposed his own rules, even at times jailing representatives through the authority of the royal governors. Today of course, such abuses happen consistently without anyone blinking an eye (think back to Judge Roy Moore and the Ten Commandments). The colonists, outraged as they should have been, declared themselves free of Britain's unjustified rule. It was no long acting within its constitutional powers, and therefore was illegitimate. When the colonists won, it wasn’t the country of “America” that King George surrendered to but each individual state in the Treaty of Paris. Subsequently, each state retained its sovereignty under the Articles of Confederation (though it could not secede) and under the Constitution.

During the War of 1812 New Englanders seriously considered secession at the “Hartford Convention” in response to the war and Virginia’s political domination. Some wanted to join Canada, others wanted to form their own government. No one seemed to bat an eye or claim, “You guys are way out of line!”

When the South lost the war for their independence Jefferson Davis was not tried for treason simply because of the embarrassing situation it would create. If the supreme court couldn’t convict him, it would fully expose the true motives for Northern aggression and render the whole war essentially unjustified. During his imprisonment and trial (which was thrown out later) the foreign press was not amused – even Pope Pius IX send Davis a crown of thorns. Conveniently, President Johnson declared amnesty for all Confederates toward the end of 1867 which excused a trial in the minds of the North. No lawyer could convict Davis of doing something which was completely legal.

Throughout our nations history, popular sovereignty has remained on the forefront of our foreign policy. We “liberate” communist, Islamic, and other second and third world nations in the name of self determination, however on the home front we have acted like hypocrites since our sympathetic position on the Southwest’s secession from Mexico in the 1840s. The Russian federation deserves to be liberated from its contract with the Soviets, but the various “satellite nations” of America somehow do not deserve the same treatment. Southerners, North Easterners, Mid Westerners, and Westerners all designate various national identities in the U.S. and should be afforded the same opportunities if we are to be consistent.

Common Sense Legitimizes Secession

In July of last year, president of the Texas National Movement Daniel Miller asked Glenn Beck on his program, "Who would ever enter into some sort of contract where one of the parties broke the contract and the contract was still enforced and you had to live under that abuse?" Glenn Beck's answer was short and to the point, "No one." Under the Articles of Confederation, in which states maintained an incredible amount of sovereignty the Federal government was incapable of breaking a contract having almost no power. However, under the U.S. Constitution the threat became greater, and state's would have been foolish to enter into death wish. The equivalent would be a woman who marries a man who turns out to be abusive and unfaithful and then is kept by force in her contract and is required to fulfill her marital prerogatives. Were the American people really that unwise? Of course not!

What Now?

In conclusion, it should seem evident that secession is an American tradition started during the very war that gave birth to our nation. The right to secede is a right which keeps the federal government from becoming a tyrant. It is the last refuge of any free people, but a refuge which must be defended nonetheless. Without the ability to leave tyranny, we are forced into slavery, which is exactly what’s happening in modern America. The Tea Party movement provides some hope that this issue will become a serious issue once again as people began to seriously look at the Constitution and our original secession pact The Declaration of Independence. When the government is threatened by the prospect of losing control and tax revenue it becomes willing to negotiate. That was the whole point of the right to secession, and that right hasn’t evaporated, it’s just been buried. Looking back over our centuries of existence, “experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” (Thomas Jefferson) Educate yourself with the facts. Relearn your American history, and let others know about our rights as Americans. . . all of them.

In the words of Confederate President Jefferson Davis

“Truth crushed to the earth is truth still and like a seed will rise again."

Texas Secession!

2009-06-26T18:07:00.000-07:00

Governor Perry and Secession

2009-06-08T06:59:00.001-07:00

Gov. Perry makes controversial comments.

The Left-wingers repudiate him.

Right-wingers miss the point.

Glenn Beck gets it right.

Mitt Romney and The Confederate Flag

2008-06-04T09:53:00.000-07:00

Mitt Romney's Opinion on the Confederate Navy Jack

A Response to Mitt Romney's Response