The truth will make us free

... but facing it can be extremely painful. After World War II, many Germans realized that they could not move on until they accepted responsibility for having made possible the Nazi regime. They made a special effort to educate themselves on the truth of what happened, and became a strong nation again -- this time a positive force for freedom in Europe. This is not a common accomplishment. The Japanese continue to struggle with the same war; and Americans remain in denial about atrocities committed by our own troops in any war.

One of the truths about the War between the States that is particularly painful for me as an Ohioan is the character of Gen. William Tecumsah Sherman, a native of Lancaster who, by embracing the concept of "total war" made himself a mass murderer -- not only of Southerners, but also of Plains Indians after the war. He was ably aided in this effort by another Ohio-born general, Philip Sheridan (from Somerset in Perry County), who wrought vast destruction in the Shendandoah Valley of Virginia, and in the West. To justify these acts as "military necessity" is to say that the end justifies the means, a position that is never morally defensible.

"These are My Jewels," The lady on top is Cornelia, representing Ohio

Evidence that we are in denial? Statues of both men appear in the monument "These Are My Jewels" in the Ohio Statehouse lawn, along with that of Edwin Stanton (from Steubenville), who acted as a virtual dictator of the United States with Congressional support. President Andrew Johnson was little more than a figurehead. [The other four figures on the statue are Gens. Ulysses S. Grant (from Point Pleasant and Georgetown), Rutherford B. Hayes (native of Delaware, Ohio, later of Fremont) and James A. Garfield (from Mentor), all later to become President of the United States; and Ohio Governor, Secretary of the Treasury, and later Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, a resident of Cincinnati prior to entering Lincoln's cabinet.]

Detail. Left to right: Gens. William T. Sherman, Ulysses S. Grant, and Philip Sheridan

No one wants to face the shameful acts of one's own people; but until we do, we will not embrace truth. As long as we choose to live in lies, we will find ourselves enslaved by them.

Truth about the War between the States

When I first ran into H. K. Edgerton about two years ago, I, like many who have been raised on the politically correct interpretation of the war, was mystified to see a black man who was proud of his Confederate heritage. As I have come to know Mr. Edgerton through his writings, however, his position has come to make perfect sense; especially when one considers that one of the primary purposes of Confederate independence was to essentially maintain the Constitution for its states as it was before that war.

Following is an e-mail from Mr. Edgerton that gives us a little-known, but badly-needed perspective about that war:

On Tuesday, June 14, 2011, the Asheville Citizen Times newspaper would carry on it's front page a story about a Black man who had traced his ancestry and found that his great grandfather had served in the Confederate army, and had received a pension for his service. Nothing uncommon about this, but he would relate that he was so surprised to find this out , and further exclaimed that he could not understand why his relative had joined the Confederate army, and further didn't his ancestor know that the Union army was coming to save him. The paper would go on to say how this was a revelation in light of the ruckus that some pedant who had exclaimed in Virginia that there was no such thing as a Black Confederate soldier. Some more poppycock.

After reading this, my first reaction, and probably that of anyone in the know would be to look at this man in disgust at the revelation of his ignorance. However, as a Christian Southerner with first hand knowledge of how the Federal government quickly established the Public school System, sent it's northern school teachers south after the war to dumb down our Southern populace, and arguably the nation about the real reasons the honorable people of South took up arms against a man who illegally invaded their homeland, raping, burning, murdering innocent defenseless old men, women and children; "total war policy against a defenseless civilian  population. And then systematically excluded from written history the place of honor and dignity earned by not only the Black confederate soldier, but also that of the millions of of Southern Bondsmen, Bondswomen, Freedmen, and Freedwomen who from 1861 to 1865 loyally served and supported the Confederate cause in however humble and noble a capacity.  And  further gave to the North an unwarranted since of virtue for ending the evil economic institution of slavery that they and the whole of the civilized world was complicit in.

Even though the Southern armies had surrendered, the North had not finished their conquest. They began a deliberate policy of poisoning the minds of the former slaves against their former Masters. The White South was ready to do right by their former slaves. They accepted the fact of freedom, even though it was not intent of the North, and were prepared to make provision for the new freedman within the limits of an impoverished and devastated South. The North spread anarchy and hatred through their secret Black societies called the Union or Loyal leagues. By the misrule of the Carpetbag governments, and unknowledgeable Blacks , they spread corruption across the defeated South.

The average Black Confederate understood his duty as God gave him the light to perform it. He performed his duty without expectation of reward or promise of freedom, but knew that if he worked and struggled and fought hard for the Confederate Cause as a loyal subject, the White people of the South would do right by him. Unfortunately for the nation, the North instituted a plan of divide and conquer , coupled with economic strangulation of the South, while duping, bribing, and pandering to a few poverty pimps who willingly to this very day do their bidding because they fear the day when Southern Whites, and Southern Blacks will rekindle the love that they found for each other in lieu of the economic institution of slavery that the whole world was complicit in.

Déjà vu all over again...

J. D. Longstreet, writing for the Freedom Fighter's Journal, points out that there is a very close parallel between the times in which we are currently living, and the years immediately preceding Mr. Lincoln's War. Both then and now, states are passing nullification resolutions to prevent the enforcement of harmful and misguided federal laws. Both then and now, the people bucked a smug media that insisted that this could not be done. Both then and in the near future (if nothing changes) the people will resort to secession -- even if it means war -- to reclaim their freedom:

Look. This is serious business. I have read “smirking” reports in the mainstream media concerning the states and nullification. I expect you have seen them and heard them, as well. Here’s the truth about that: Those same kinds of reports by the press were made in the mid 1800’s and we all know what happened in April of 1861.

I don’t think the folks in the mainstream media, living their sheltered lives in the metropolitan areas on the east coast and the west coast, have any real idea of the American rage sweeping the nation between their respective coasts. They certainly give no evidence of it, if they do.

I am not beating a drum for the break-up of the United States. I am trying to make the point that if the people of America are not allowed to live and breathe free, that break-up will happen whether anyone beats a drum for it, or not! Fanning the flames of a prairie fire is not required for a little grass fire to become a huge firestorm. It requires only a spark – and sparks are flying all across this land.

Media folk may snicker at the folks in the aforementioned states if they choose. But remember, it has happened before on this very soil.

Mr. Longstreet's article shows a deep understanding of both the current issues and the history of the pre-1861 era. It is well worth reading.

The Sesquicentennial: WHY?

Not surprisingly, the 150th anniversary of the war that continues to tear this country asunder is being debated. On the one hand, unionist and "politically correct" historians like Mark Potok at the Southern Poverty Law Center (as reported in the BrightonPittsford [New York] Post) are stressing the  war's purpose as the abolition of slavery; while "revisionist" historians like Thomas Woods and Thomas DiLorenzo, are stressing other causes, such as the desire for financial hegemony by New York bankers (a desire quite fulfilled by now, by the way), and a desire to turn the South into a colony to their interests (also largely achieved, but unraveling).

Mr. Potok writes:

Freeing the slaves may not have been Lincoln's original intent, but it became a major aim of the war, as any serious student of Civil War history knows. And the right to own slaves was, most certainly, the primary reason the Southern states seceded from the Union.

Nice, neat, simple, and not quite right. I can agree that freeing the slaves became a major aim of the war, but it was not the major aim of the war. And any serious student of what is inaccurately called the "Civil War" *  knows from the history of the preceding forty years, the issues were far more complex than just maintaining what one historian has called the "Peculiar Institution." 

It is one thing to say that commemorations of Confederate history attract racists. They undoubtedly do. But it is quite another, and very inaccurate, to say that everyone who wishes to commemorate Confederate history is a racist. After all, the South was invaded. Many poor and middle class people (including my great-great-grandfather in Virginia) saw families broken and impoverished, and homes destroyed, by a Union Army practicing the most horrible forms of destruction known up to that time. And Mr. Potok's analysis certainly does not account for the African-Americans who gave their blood to the Confederate cause, as Champion of Liberty H. K. Edgerton reminds us.

It also fails to account for the Peace Democrats ("Copperheads") in New York City and the Midwest who too often were just as racist as the Southerners at whom Mr. Potok points his finger; but who clearly saw that "Lincoln's War" would begin the systematic destruction of the Constitutional order that continues to this day.

The truth is, the war arose from all of these causes; plus the absolute unwillingness by Lincoln and the Northern financiers to arrive at the kind of reasonable compromises that peacefully ended slavery in Britain, France, and Brazil. There were Southerners, including Alexander Stephens (whom Mr. Potok cites unfavorably), who preferred to remain in the Union. If Lincoln had proposed some plan to buy freedom for the slaves, so that the economic cost to the landowners could have been mitigated, the war probably could have been avoided. But this is not what the Northern radicals wanted. So the rest, as they say, is history.

* Technically, a "civil war" is a conflict between two factions seeking control of a national government. The war we are remembering was one between two independent nations (and the Confederacy was in fact independent, even though its independence was never recognized under international law). My Dec. 20 post describes why none of the common names for this war is truly neutral. The most accurate is probably the "War for Southern Independence," but its connotation is strongly pro-Confederate.

The Sesquicentennial of WHAT?

Today marks the 150th anniversary of South Carolina's secession from the union, which marks the logical beginning of observances remembering the war that ensued. Naming that war, however, is very tricky because the common names used for it are biased for one side or the other. In order from extreme unionist to extreme Confederate, we can call it: War of the Rebellion, Civil War, War Between the States, War for Southern Independence, War of Northern Aggression.

In fact, it was a war between two nations (one of which was unrecognized by anyone else) known as the United States of America and the Confederate States of America. In terms of international law, the Confederate States of America was de facto an independent nation (meaning that it functioned as one), but was not de jure (meaning that it was not accepted as such by other nations. This would have been accomplished for the Confederacy if it had executed a treaty with Britain or France, or if it had signed its longed-for Treaty of Peace with the United States).

Technically, it was not a "civil war" because that term refers to a war for control of the national (federal) government. The Confederates did not want to take over the United States Government -- they just wanted a nation of their own.

The "War for Southern Independence" is perhaps the most accurate name, but seems to reflect a moderately strong pro-Confederate bias. "War of the Rebellion" is also technically accurate, but reflects a very strong pro-Northern bias. I usually call it the War between the States, which is technically incorrect, but is descriptive and mildly pro-Southern.

So, take your pick, and we'll know what your bias is. Or, we could start calling it the "War of 1861", which is completely neutral but not very descriptive.

Today in history

150 years ago today, Alexander H. Stephens, who would later become Vice President of the Confederate States, delivered this address in support of the Union, to the Georgia legislature. It is a beautiful speech, which interestingly reflects my opinions stated Oct. 1. Here are a couple of passages:

In the first, Mr. Stephens is calling institutions those public and private organizations that maintained the culture and economy of the nation:

It was only under our Institutions as they are, that they were developed. Their development is the result of the enterprise of our people under operations of the government and institutions under which we have lived. Even our people, without these, never would have done it. The organization of society has much to do with the development of the natural resources of any country or any land. The Institutions of a people, political and moral, are the matrix in which the germ of their organic structure quickens into life, takes root, and develops in form, nature, and character. Our institutions constitute the basis, the matrix from which spring all our characteristics of development and greatness. Look at Greece: There is the same fertile soil, the same blue sky, the same inlets and harbors, the same Aegean, the same Olympus-- there is the same land where Homer sung, where Pericles spoke -- it is, in nature, the same old Greece; but it is "living Greece no more." (Applause.)

Descendants of the same people inhabit the country; yet what is the reason of this mighty difference? In the midst of present degradation we see the glorious fragments of ancient works of art-- temples with ornaments and inscriptions that excite wonder and admiration, the remains of a once high order of civilization, which have outlived the language they spoke. Upon them all, Ichabod is written -- their glory has departed. Why is this so? I answer this, their institutions have been destroyed. These were the fruits of their form of government, the matrix from which their grand development sprung; and when once the institutions of our people shall have been destroyed, there is no earthly power that can bring back the Promethean spark to kindle them here again, any more than in that ancient land of eloquence, poetry and song. (Applause.) The same may be said of Italy. Where is Rome, once the mistress of the world? There are the same seven hills now, the same soil, the same natural resources; nature is the same; but what a ruin of greatness meets the eye of the traveller throughout the length and breadth of that most down-trodden land. Why have not the people of that heaven-favored clime the spirit that animated their fathers? Why this sad difference? It is the destruction of her institutions that has caused it. And my countrymen, if we shall, in an evil hour, rashly pull down and destroy those institutions which the patriotic hand of our fathers labored so long and so hard to build up, and which have done so much for us, and for the world; who can venture the prediction that similar results will not ensue? Let us avoid them if we can. I trust the spirit is amongst us that will enable us to do it. Let us not rashly try the experiment of change, of pulling down and destroying; for, as in Greece and Italy, and the South American Republics, and in every other place, whenever our Liberty is once lost, it may never be restored to us again. (Applause.) [Emphasis added]...

This paragraph echoes what I wrote Oct. 1, when I said, "I anticipate that several nullification bills will be introduced and passed. If these and all else fail, I have little doubt that the liberty movement in Ohio can be persuaded to support secession – but such talk is clearly premature at this time."

I am for exhausting all that patriotism demands, before taking the last step. I would invite, therefore, South Carolina to a conference. I would ask the same of all the other Southern States, so that if the evil has got beyond our control, which God in his mercy grant may not be the case, we may not be divided among ourselves; (cheers) but if possible, secure the united cooperation of all the Southern States, and then in the face of the civilized world, we may justify our action, and, with the wrong all on the other side, we can appeal to the God of Battles, if it comes to that, to aid us in our cause. (Loud applause.) But do nothing, in which any portion of our people, may charge you with rash or hasty action. It is certainly a matter of great importance to tear this government asunder. You were not sent here for that purpose. I would wish the whole South to be united, if this is to be done; and I believe if we pursue the policy which I have indicated, this can be effected.

In this way, our sister Southern States can be induced to act with us; and I have but little doubt, that the States of New York, and Pennsylvania, and Ohio[!], and the other Western States, will compel their Legislatures to recede from their hostile attitude, if the others do not.

And people wonder why I'm a secessionist...

Eric Foner editorial in The Nation, February 11, 1991 (quoted by Thomas DiLorenzo in LewRockwell.com -- Prof. DiLorenzo's article is well worth reading, by the way):

In an editorial in the February 11, 1991 issue of The Nation magazine entitled "Lincoln's Lesson," Foner called the breakup of the Soviet Union, which at the time was being wildly cheered by freedom lovers everywhere, as "a crisis" that threatened the "laudable goal" of creating a system that demanded "overarching loyalty to the Soviet Union" while at the same time allowing separate republics to exist. No "leader of a powerful nation," Foner wrote, should allow such a thing as "the dismemberment of the Soviet Union."

He concluded that "The Civil War was a central step in the consolidation of national authority in the United States," which he of course views as a great event. One cannot adopt socialism – in the United States or anywhere else – without a highly centralized, monopolistic government. "The Union, Lincoln passionately believed, was a permanent government . . . and . . . Gorbachev would surely agree."

Well, President Gorbachev didn't agree, and on Christmas Day 1991, the Soviet Union was no more. Power is dangerous, especially when pursued for its own sake. If centralization is a necessary step to creating socialism, then it logically follows that we must decentralize to avoid it.

Virtual buckeye to Rebellion.

Telling the truth about Lincoln

Continuing Glenn Beck week at The Ohio Republic:

Historian and persistent Lincoln critic Thomas DiLorenzo explains (in LewRockwell.com) how Mr. Beck has distorted history in his defense of Abraham Lincoln -- which is, at best, ironic, given the often controversial truth Mr. Beck has expressed on other historical subjects.

Specifically, Prof. DiLorenzo cites these falsehoods:

• Mr. Beck refers to the Confederate Constitution as the "Slaveholders' Constitution." As Mr. DiLorenzo points out, and I can confirm from my own reading, the Confederate Constitution was almost identical to that of the United States, Where it differed, it further limited the powers of the federal government by limiting its President to one six-year term, giving its President a line-item veto (a power that state governors were beginning to receive in state constitutions at the time), outlawing protectionist tariffs and subsidies to corporations, and removing the "General Welfare" clause.
• Mr. Beck echoes the widely-held misconception that the War between the States was about slavery. It was not. It was about states' rights. Granted, the Confederates used states' rights to protect slavery -- but the difference is important, because states' rights covers a whole lot of territory that has nothing to do with slavery -- and as Prof. DiLorenzo points out, the strongest defense of slavery at the time came from Lincoln himself, in support of the Corwin Amendment. Lincoln didn't care about the slaves -- he wanted only to preserve the Union for the benefit of the New York bankers who supported him!
• Mr. Beck has "adminrably" (to Prof. DiLorenzo) attacked the notion of "collective salvation" in every context except Lincoln's. As Prof. DiLorenzo points out, the spirit of the age in the North was of collective salvation -- by purifying the lives of the people as a whole through the temperance movement, abolition of slavery, and the abolition of Roman Catholicism.

Glenn Beck urges his listeners not to take his word for it, but to research the facts for themselves. I agree. Especially when it comes to the facts about the War between the States, which Mr. Beck insists on distorting in the service of neoconservative statism.

War is no defense against domestic tyranny

Old Rebel at Rebellion preaches eloquently on the DC shell game -- focusing our attention on imagined threats abroad, while taking away our liberties at home:

When politicians, editorial writers, and other government mouthpieces claim our freedom depends on the Commander-in-chief waging war on hapless peasants thousands of miles away, they're saying things that were meant to be applauded, not analyzed. Because if you think about it, as Jack Kenny does, such claims make no sense. After all, the truth is that the real threat to our freedom is the central government, something the Founders knew, but we have forgotten -- which is why the Bill of Rights begins with "Congress shall make no law ...". And the Founders were right, as Kenny illustrates with the following examples:

"... when Congress abridges the freedom of speech and of the press, as with the Sedition Act during World War I, soldiers fighting abroad are no defense against that assault on freedom. When the Supreme Court presumes to tell us when, where, and under what circumstances "We the people" may offer a public prayer, the soldier is in no position to defend the free exercise of religion. And when a President of the United States claims the authority to lock up suspected terrorists, including American citizens, indefinitely and without trial, the soldiers at his command are no defense against the usurpation."

Now that our attention's been focused on eeeevil Islamo-meanies in Iraq and Afghanistan, we're letting the government nullify the Bill of Rights -- in the name of protecting us.

How long can this scam go on?

The longer it goes on, the wiser the people get to it. If the 2010 elections don't clean up the Congress, the nullification battles will begin in earnest. If the nullification battles don't clean up DC, the map of North America will be plastered with new nations, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all of us are created equal.

What the War between the States was really about

Here is a concise explanation of why Mr. Lincoln's war was fought. It was not about slavery -- it was about secession, or "preserving the Union." It was written by Timothy Cotton in "How I See It", a feature in the Culpeper (Virginia) Star-Examiner.

The issue that brought about the Civil War was not the evils of slavery, but of secession. The moral question had long been acknowledged by all sides, and in fact Virginia was among the first of several states to outlaw the slave trade. The Confederate Constitution addressed it long before the Union one, and ironically it was Lincoln’s invasion that halted the debate on how to rightly abolish it. The issues that precipitated secession in 1861 were much the same as those which brought about a declaration of secession in 1776.

Secession was a result of the federal government overstepping the boundaries set forth in the Constitution. Theses boundaries were established as a safeguard against those issues that led to the first secession.

In tracing the history of the argument, we need to look back at the debates of both the Northwest Ordinance and the Missouri Compromise. We can see that the “extension of slavery” into new states was an issue that highlighted the bigger one. Contrary to popular opinion, this did not mean more slaves in more states. The slave trade was already abolished, and debates were beginning on how best to abolish the institution entirely. The issue was whether slaves could be moved by those settling to the new states.

This discussion was cut short by war. Because that discussion was cut short and the war took place, full equality for the African-American was held back by Jim Crow and federal meddling. Consequently it took almost 150 years to accomplish what African-Europeans and African-Brazilians accomplished much sooner. And another result of that war was setting into motion the gradual federal dismantling of the Constitution, which we are seeing is nearly completed.

Tea Party civics and the logic of lawyers

Now comes Joseph Becker, who in writing an opinion piece for the National Law Journal, holds that the "[Tea] Party members' reading of the 10th Amendment to deny broad power to the federal government is without support in legislative history or Supreme Court case law."

The summary is correct. It doesn't. However, there's a flaw in Mr. Becker's logic, as we shall see presently. He begins by citing the response of the First Congress to anti-federalist objections that the Tenth Amendment should deny the federal government all powers not expressly delegated to it by the Constitution. In the debates, James Madison countered, "it was impossible to confine a Government to the exercise of express powers; there must necessarily be admitted powers by implication."

Mr. Becker continues:

The proposal was rejected. Chief Justice John Marshall, in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), thought this bit of negative legislative history profoundly significant: It meant that the federal government had implied powers inferable from those actually granted. A wooden reading of the amendment, favored by grand simplifiers of the Tea Party, would not disclose this hidden truth.

A "wooden" reading? Do I detect a hint of bias? Here is what the distinguished New York attorney says about Tea Parties:

The party's affection for the 10th Amendment exudes something else: an aroma, not of tea but of the foul smell of secession. In Texas, the air is particularly heavy with the scent. It is apparently not enough that the calamitous Civil War was fought to put an end to such talk. Nor, it seems, is it significant to that state's current governor that, as a legal proposition, the Constitution prohibits secession: This is an "indestructible union," said the Supreme Court in Texas v. White (1868), a post-War holding that the purported secession by Texas (ironically) was a nullity. The principle is now indubitable.

I'll get to Texas v. White in a minute.

Mr. Becker continues by citing U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story in what he called a "dismissive" construction of the Tenth Amendment, quoting the good Justice in 1833 as writing that the amendment "could only 'reserve' that which existed before." A state cannot reserve a power that never existed.

This argument is logically sound, except for one thing. The thirteen original states, Vermont, Texas, Hawaii, and (technically) California, were de jure independent nations prior to their ratifications of the Constitution. Every state is required as a condition of admission to ratify the Constitution. This is usually done -- as it was in Ohio in November 1802 -- in the form of an ordinance by the new state's Constitutional Convention. This suggests to me that for every state, for the brief moment between the adoption of its initial state Constitution and the passage of its ratification ordinance, was de facto an independent nation, with full sovereignty. In other words, all the powers that apply to independent nations were "reserved" to the states prior to their ratification of the U.S. Constitution, if only for a brief moment. I am not suggesting here that any state other than those I named above even thought of this (though four of the original thirteen did expressly reserve the right of secession in their ratification statements). Nor am I suggesting that any of them had any desire in that moment to bolt from the union. Nor am I suggesting that they were in any condition to do so if they had tried. But this is a legal discussion, and as a matter of constitutional law and procedure, this appears to be the truth to me.

Mr. Becker closes by pulling out Texas v. White, a U.S. Supreme Court decision that was written in the heat of Reconstruction, at a time when the United States had completed its conquest by force of another nation, the Confederate States of America. The Confederate States used the established processes of law to secede; but the unionists wanted to use the law to cement the military victory. In other words, he who uses Texas v. White as the basis of an argument against secession is being hypocritical. Why? Because he is asserting on the one hand, that we are a nation of laws, and the Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the law. On the other hand, as I just wrote, he is stating that might makes right. Now which argument should we expect from a professional who has sworn to uphold the law as an officer of the court?

Let me remind the reader of a contrary argument, made by Judge Harris in the case of Chancely v. Bailey and Cleveland, 37 Georgia Reports 532 (1868) * While it expresses the minority opinion of that court, I believe it states the truth about the adoption of the U.S. Constitution:

If any prominent advocate of the Federal Constitution had … intimated an opinion, that by ratification of the Federal Constitution, the states surrendered their separate individuality and sovereignty as States, such was the extreme jealousy for the maintenance of State sovereignty, [that] such an opinion… would have led to the prompt and overwhelming rejection of that instrument.

The intent of the framers of the Constitution and of those who attended the conventions to ratify it is quite clear and a matter of public record. They did not make the right of secession explicit, because they believed that rights are given by God, not any government; and "whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government..." The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, but here in Ohio (and many other states), we have a Constitution that asserts the same right (Article I, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution).

This Court finds in favor of the Tea Parties. Case dismissed.

* On page 350 of the link.

Virtual buckeye to Bill Miller at Secession and Nullification News and Information.

Ralph Nader: Libertarian from the left

Ralph Nader has posted a new and timely warning about the ruin we are about to experience as the result of corporate greed. That's nothing new, of course; but the way he states it sounds a lot like those of us who have supported Tea Parties and nullification.

From CommonDreams.org (reproduced in full):

The twin swelling heads of Empire and Oligarchy are driving our country into an ever-deepening corporate state, wholly incompatible with democracy and the rule of law.

Once again the New York Times offers its readers the evidence. In its February 25, 2010 issue, two page-one stories confirm this relentless deterioration at the expense of so many innocent people.

The lead story illustrates that the type of massive speculation—casino capitalism, Business Week once called it—in complex derivatives is still going strong and exploiting the weak and powerless who pay the ultimate bill.

Titled "Banks Bet Greece Defaults on Debt They Helped Hide," the article shocks even readers hardened to tales of greed and abuse of power. Here are the opening paragraphs: "Bets by some of the same banks that helped Greece shroud its mounting debts may actually now be pushing the nation closer to the brink of financial ruin."

"Echoing the kind of trades that nearly toppled the American Insurance International Group /AIG/, the increasingly popular insurance against the risk of a Greek default is making it harder for Athens to raise the money it needs to pay its bills, according to traders and money managers."

"These contracts, known as credit-default swaps, effectively let banks and hedge funds wager on the financial equivalent of a four-alarm fire: a default by a company, or in the case of Greece, an entire country. If Greece reneges on its debts, traders who own these swaps stand to profit."

"It's like buying fire insurance on your neighbor's house-you create an incentive to burn down the house," said Philip Gisdakis, head of credit strategy at UniCredit in Munich.

These credit-default swaps increase the dreaded "systemic risk" that proliferates until it lands on the backs of taxpayers, workers and savers who pay the price. And if Greece goes, Spain or Portugal or Italy may be next and globalization will eventually bring the rapacious effects of mindless speculation to our shores.

Greece got into financial trouble for a variety of reasons, but it was widely reported that Goldman Sachs and other big banks showed them, for generous fees, how to hide the country's true financial condition. Avarice at work.

Note two points. These derivatives are contracts involving hundreds of billions of dollars and are essentially unregulated. These transactions are also essentially untaxed, unlike Europe's value added tax on manufacturing, wholesale and retail purchases. The absence of government restraints produces unlimited predation.

As astute investors in the real economy have said, when money for speculation replaces money for investment, the real economy suffers and so do real people. Remember the Wall Street collapse of 2008 and who is paying for the huge Washington bailout.

The other story shows that the Presidency has become a self-driven Empire outside the law and unaccountable to its citizens. The Times reports "how far the C.I.A. has extended its extraordinary secret war beyond the mountainous tribal belt and deep into Pakistan's sprawling cities." Working with Pakistan's counterpart agency, the C.I.A. has had some cover to do what it wants in carrying out "dozens of raids throughout Pakistan over the past year," according to the Times.

"Secret War" has been a phrase applied numerous times throughout the C.I.A's history, even though the agency was initially created by Congress right after World War II to gather intelligence, not engage in lethal operations worldwide.

Unrestrained by either Congress or the federal courts, Presidents say they can and do order their subordinates to go anywhere in the world, penetrate into any country, if they alone say it is necessary to seize and destroy for what they believe is the national security. American citizens abroad are not excluded. Above the law and beyond the law spells the kind of lawlessness that the framers of our constitution abhorred in King George and limited in our country's separation of powers.

Because our founders would not tolerate the President being prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner, they placed the war-declaration and appropriations authorities in the Congress.

Both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama believe they have unbridled discretion to engage in almost any overt or covert acts. That is a definition of Empire that flouts international law and more than one treaty which the United States helped shape and sign.

Equipped with remote and deadly technologies like drones flying over Pakistan and Afghanistan by operators in Nevada, many civilians have been slain, including those in wedding parties and homes. Still, it is taking 15,000 soldiers (U.S. and Afghan) with the most modern armaments to deal with three hundred Taliban fighters in Marja who with many other Afghans, for various motivations, want us out of their country. Former Marine Combat Captain Matthew Hoh described these reasons in his detailed resignation letter last fall.

Mr. Obama's national security advisor, Ret. General James Jones estimated that there are about 100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan with the rest migrating to other countries. And one might add, those whose migrate are increasing their numbers because they cast themselves as fighting to expel the foreign invaders.

So many capable observers have made this point: occupation by our military fuels insurgencies and creates the conditions for more recruits and more mayhem. Even Bush's military and national security people have made this point.

The American people must realize that their reckless government and corporate contractors are banking lots of revenge among the occupied regions that may come back to haunt. We have much more to lose by flouting international law than the suicidal terrorists reacting to what they believe is the West's state terrorism against their people and the West's historical backing of dictatorships which oppress their own population.

America was not designed for Kings and their runaway military pursuits. How tragic that we have now come to this entrenched imperium so loathed by the founding fathers and so forewarned by George Washington's enduring farewell address.

Where are "We the People"?

Where, indeed?

Virtual buckeye to Rob Williams at Vermont Commons.

Secession: Freedom's Greatest Ally

David Kretzmann at Freedom Chatter has been reading a subversive book by Thomas Woods: 33 Questions About American History That You're Not Supposed to Ask. He comes up with a stunning revelation -- the War between the States was not about slavery!

He quotes a letter from British Lord Acton, who was the leading libertarian of his day, to Robert E. Lee:

I saw in State Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. The institutions of your Republic have not exercised on the old world the salutary and liberating influence which ought to have belonged to them, by reason of those defects and abuses of principle which the Confederate Constitution was expressly and wisely calculated to remedy.

I believed that the example of that great Reform would have blessed all the races of mankind by establishing true freedom purged of the native dangers and disorders of Republics. Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our
progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo. — Lord Acton (Emphasis added by Mr. Kretzmann.)

Mr. Kretzmann includes quotations of Abraham Lincoln, familiar to most readers of this blog, about the purpose of that war being the preservation of the Union at all costs.

He then observes:

Today many find the idea of secession immoral and totally unacceptable largely based on what they learn about the Civil War in school. Textbooks and teachers are quick to blast the South’s secession, yet they omit the fact that the U.S. itself exists because we attempted to peacefully secede from Great Britain.

Secession is perhaps the greatest weapon of peace against a tyrannical, centralized authority. Without the possibility of state secession or nullification, what does the federal government have working against its power? As Thomas Jefferson stated, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” How can the states, and the people thereof, possibly resist that “natural progress” of government expansion if they are forcefully bound within a central government that may not serve their interests, and possibly even works against them?

How, indeed? Recently, I have been emphasizing that secession is a last resort. The legislative program I recommended yesterday has two purposes: First and foremost, to preserve the Union as it was intended by our Founding Fathers -- but failing that, to help prepare Ohio for life as an independent nation.

Daniel Webster, in his Second Reply to Hayne (1830), called for "liberty and union, now and forevermore, one and inseparable." That's fine, but when liberty and union work to cross-purposes, liberty must prevail.

Secessionist classic now online

Alexander H. Stephens' book, A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States, has been posted online at constitution.org. In a series of conversations ("colliloquies") originally published in 1868, the Confederate Vice President explains the relationship between the Federal Government and the States from the Constitution itself, the writings of the Founding Fathers, and the ratifying debates. He also discusses the views of Daniel Webster and John C. Calhoun, and relates it to the Confederate cause during the War Between the States.

The .html file is not terribly easy to read, being a direct scan from the original, which requires some adjustment to reading the footnotes as they appeared at the bottom of each page in the original. It also contains a number of helpful appendices, including the Confederate Constitution. On the other hand, the book is difficult to find, and is expensive to purchase (I bought mine about ten years ago for $80.00).

It is excellent reading for anyone who wishes to understand the Constitutional and legal bases for State sovereignty.

Quotation of the day

A bit of history from Thomas J. DiLorenzo, Hamilton's Curse (2008). I could quote the whole book, but there are copyright issues...

"Despite all the Hamiltonians' efforts, the Jeffersonians more or less prevailed for decades. The government remained relatively small and decentralized. By the mid-1850s tariff rates were as low as they would be for the entire nineteenth century, and federal subsidies for 'internal improvements' were all but nonexistent. The Bank of the United States was dismantled in the 1830s. The American banking system was dominated by state-chartered banks that issued currency backed by gold and silver on demand and that therefore did not inflate their currency beyond what their specie reserves justified. It was not a perfect system, of course, but two highly reputable economic historians, Jeffrey Hummel and Richard Timberlake, have made compelling cases that it was the most stable banking system the United States has ever had. (Emphasis DiLorenzo's)

"In short, the Hamiltonian economic agenda had been resoundingly defeated time and again. The Hamiltonians had failed to persuade many of their fellow citizens of the alleged virtues of big, centralized government that would primarily benefit the wealthy and politically connected. There was a good deal of support for this agenda in New England and parts of New York, but it was viewed with great suspicion in most other regions of the country."

Keep in mind that it was during this period that the Ohio Constitution was written (1851). While heavily amended, it is still in effect.

All right now, Democrats, pay attention:

"This all changed in the first years of the War between the States. The Republican Party, which now controlled the government, had inherited the Hamiltonian agenda from the Whigs. No one was more committed to the Hamiltonian cause than President Abraham Lincoln..."

American politics has gone downhill ever since.

The truth about Abraham Lincoln

Keith Lehman and Mark Alexander at the Lighthouse Patriot Journal give a chapter-and-verse exposé of Abraham Lincoln. I could not have said it better myself. Lincoln's "preservation of the Union" was accomplished by ignoring the Constitution (to put it charitably). The War between the States was unnecessary (Britain and France freed their slaves in 1848 and 1852, respectively, without bloodshed; as did Brazil in 1889); and the war as conducted, was unnecessarily brutal. "Jim Crow" was as much as anything a reaction to Northern brutality and the imposition of racial integration by force.

In any event, the War between the States was not about slavery -- it was about New York bankers wresting control of the American economy by imposing tariffs that crippled Southern exporters. Those bankers are still in control -- and look where it's getting us.

Lincoln's arguments against secession -- refuted

Fellow Toastmaster George Desnoyers assembled an excellent speech that summarizes four arguments against secession that were promoted by Abraham Lincoln, refuting each. The arguments cited were:



1. That secession is anti-majoritarian. Mr. Desnoyers notes that secession will create two new majorities where one existed previously. In the case of the South during the War Between the States, each majority would have been happy within its own territory.



2. That secession tends toward anarchism. That is, that under the right conditions, there will be secessions from secessions from secessions from... well, you get the picture. He points out that the Declaration of Independence explains why this has not happened, and is not likely to happen in the future.

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

3. That reserving rights to the States could not include "destroying the government." Secession does not destroy the government for those who remain under it. If the secessionists had destroyed government, who put all those men in arms to fight each other during the War Between the States?



4. Finally, President Lincoln argued that the Constitution was merely a continuation of the union formed under the Articles of Confederation, which argued that the union was "perpetual". To use this as an argument against secession requires an ignorance of the nature of the union at that time. The Constitution was written precisely because the thirteen States were each independent nations, and acted like independent nations. The Constitution's call for a "more perfect Union" was intended to more capably defend against foreign invasion and to strengthen trade among the States.



On February 12, Americans will observe the 200th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's birth. This would be an excellent time for us to set aside the idolatry many Americans have of him, and expose his statements and actions to the intellectual and moral scrutiny that they deserve.

Abraham Lincoln: a cautionary note

Here's a good question, from John Stoeffler, writing for the Suburban Journals in the St. Louis area:

"He discriminated against certain groups and believed they should be deported. He favored a strong controlling central government. He jailed newspaper editors and judges and had his military commanders close down those newspapers whose editorials disagreed with his policies. He had one legislator* removed from office and banished from the country. He confiscated private property and firearms. Can you guess the name of this tyrant?

"Was it Saddam Hussein or North Korea's Kim Jong Il? Was it Adolf Hitler, Mao Tse Tung or Josef Stalin? No, he was one of America's most lionized presidents, Abraham Lincoln.

"Shocked? You should be, especially in view of a number of those in the media who, before he is sworn in as our next president, are comparing Obama to Abraham Lincoln."

President-elect Obama has expressed a great deal of admiration for the style and policies of Abraham Lincoln. This is understandable -- after all, Mr. Obama is from Illinois, and I am sure there is much about President Lincoln that would appeal to him.

However, before we move the Lincoln idolatry into high gear, we should heed this cautionary note.

Did President Lincoln free the slaves? Well, sort of. He freed the slaves in the Confederacy. Mr. Stoeffler quotes a London newspaper at the time: "The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States."

As a member of the Illinois legislature, he urged his colleagues to appropriate money to remove all free blacks from the State of Illinois. The following year, in the Lincoln-Douglas debates, he said, "There is a physical difference between (blacks and whites) which ... will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality" As President, he had "no purpose to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists ... and [he had] no inclination to do so."

President-elect Obama's inaugural theme is said to be taken from President Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, "A New Birth of Freedom." Perhaps Mr. Obama should take note that when Maryland was preparing to vote on a resolution to let the South secede peacefully, President Lincoln arrested the leadership favoring the motion and prevented the assembly from even debating it. So much for free speech and peaceful assembly.

"A New Birth of Freedom"? Is this part of the change the President-elect promises, or will it prove to be Orwellian irony? We shall soon see.

* Congressman Clement Vallandigham, of Dayton, Ohio.

Against the degradation of the States

On two previous occasions (Oct. 12 and Oct 17, 2007), I have given quotations from William McMillan Corry, “Against the Degradation of the States,” speech delivered in Canton, July 4, 1863. Here is a longer excerpt defining the relationship between the States and the Federal Government as envisioned in the United States Constitution. (Emphasis shown is in the original. Items in brackets are my explanatory notes).

“[The U.S.] Constitution is as much the Constitution of Ohio as the State Constitution, and because of the will of the people of Ohio, and not of the will of any other people. On that will of Ohio, and the conjoint wills of her sister States, the Federal Constitution becomes the common bond of union. It is not the Constitution of Ohio because it is the Constitution of the Union, but vice versa. And the Federal Constitution is within its sphere the law of both States and Territories …

“The State of Ohio will perceive how much of her own dignity and character are involved in this doctrine of the Federal system. She will shudder at the danger in which the contrary doctrine [that of the States being creatures of the Federal Government] involves herself as much as the other States. The moment she abandons her sacred duty, under her own social compact, of defending her citizens and herself from encroachment upon undelegated rights, or from interference with the sovereignty of the States, she consents to sink to the condition of a dependent corporation. The framers of our system resisted at every stage all such attempts in the [Constitutional] Convention [in 1787]. Edmund Randolph proposed it; Patterson proposed it. They wanted to give the Federal government the power to annul acts of the States which it thought repugnant to the Constitution, and the corresponding power of coercing obedience; but their efforts were made in vain, because the States never intended to allow their agent that power…

“The compact by its own terms furnishes the limit of Federal powers, and CONSENT is the only foundation of the system; the consent, each for herself, of the States, and as of course, no matter what other States may choose to do, or leave undone. We cannot say that the powers of the general government are unlimited, nor can we say that force can ever be substituted for consent. It follows that each of the parties, the States, must, in their last resort, decide on the question, whether an undelegated power [a power not delegated to the Federal Government by Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution] has been exercised; and also, that an one of the States, may if she please, withdraw from the association. To keep her there by force, is to fly in the face of the system…

“Mr. Lincoln [and now Mr. Bush] and his advisers are proceeding upon an opposite theory of the Constitution. They hold that the Federal Union stands on a social compact of the whole American people, as the State of Ohio stands upon a social compact of the people of Ohio. It is not, they say, the agreement of thirty-odd States, but of thirty millions of people; and the States, [relative to] the general government, are not States, but counties only… The principal reliance of the nationalists is upon the language of the preamble to the Constitution: “We, the people of the United States… do ordain, and establish this Constitution for the United States of America,” which they say means a single community – the American people. But that language was not originally used. It was: “We, the people of Massachusetts, Virginia, New York,” etc., etc., “do ordain,” etc. “But … as it could not be known which States it would be, who made the first nine [the ratifications of nine states being necessary to enact the Constitution], the present phrase was substituted. In fact the non-approving States kept out of the Union for some years [Government under the Constitution began March 4, 1789. North Carolina did not ratify until November 1789, Rhode Island in July 1790, and Vermont in March 1791]… The States are sovereigns, and sovereigns may, of legal right, do what they please, where they have not specifically bound themselves either to time or place, which is not pretended, as a man may retire from any association, no matter how numerous or powerful, under similar circumstances.”

To my knowledge, the only contract voluntarily entered that cannot in any way be exited from in this life, is that of joining the Mafia. It is inconceivable and ridiculous to think that our Founding Fathers had any such idea.

Interestingly, it is Vermont which appears closest to becoming the first State to leave the Union. Here is a new paper from the Middlebury Institute offering a justification for Vermont’s secession.

Happy Secession Day!

Party on, Charleston!

I also wish to remind our readers that this is a very important weekend. Saturday, April 12th is the 147th anniversary of the firing on Fort Sumter, located in Charleston harbor, South Carolina, at which time the confederates demonstrated the deadliness of their resolve to protect their States' Rights and popular governments from Federal intrusion.
Sunday, April 13th, is Thomas Jefferson's birthday. Long a proponent of limited constitutional government and an honest, asset-based currency, it was he who left us a gift in the form of his collected writings. We should all return the gesture by heeding his warnings before it is too late.