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.

"Breaking up is hard to do"

Or maybe not.

Rebellion has posted a link to an interview on National Public Radio (of all places) on Parag Khanna's new book, How to Run the World: Charting a Course to the Next Renaissance, which argues that letting minorities break away from one-size-fits-all central governments is the best path toward peace.

Rebellion continues:

Different cultures embrace different standards of social arrangements, and forcing others to conform to one, "universal" standard only worsens conflicts between peoples. Left to chart their own course, says Khanna, allows them to preserve their traditional way of life, and to create a compatible governmental structure.

The result will be a world where all peoples will be able to live in conditions most conducive to their own happiness, which will lead toward greater harmony and mutually beneficial relations with other peoples.

Old Rebel's comment is one that I can easily echo: "Wow. I'm still not used to being mainstream. It's fun, though slightly disorienting."

Obamacare is a Constitutional right?

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Houston, Texas) said so on the floor of the House yesterday, as reported by American Spectator:*

“The Fifth Amendment speaks specifically to denying someone their life and liberty without due process," she said in a speech on the House floor moments ago. "That is what H.R. 2 does and I rise in opposition to it. And I rise in opposition because it is important that we preserve lives and we recognize that 40 million-plus are uninsured.

She continued, "Can you tell me what’s more unconstitutional than taking away from the people of America their Fifth Amendment rights, their Fourteenth Amendment rights, and the right to equal protection under the law?”

Jackson Lee mentioned the names of several people who she said would be helped by the national health care law, including a schizophrenic, a dialysis patient, and somebody whose mother cannot otherwise get dental care. “I know they would question why we are taking away their rights,” she said.

She went on to declare, “I’m prepared to stand, extend a hand of friendship, standing on the Constitution to enable us to provide for all the citizens of this country. This bill has been vetted. This bill is constitutional and it protects the Constitutional rights of those who ask the question: ‘Must I die? Must my child die, because I am now disallowed from getting insurance?'"

So according to Rep. Jackson-Lee's logic, we have to keep all our entitlements, because to take them away is to deny people their Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. And when the federal government finally acknowledges its bankruptcy and has to cut back or eliminate some of these entitlements, how would the distinguished Congresswoman from Texas reconcile her interpretation of the Constitution with fiscal reality?

* I am reporting from the American Spectator because it has the most complete account, but it has also been reported in the Dallas Morning News blog, FoxNews, NewsBusters, and other sites.

We need to round up corporate agriculture, not crops

I am not particularly well informed on agricultural issues; but I am in favor of sustainable farming, which means to me that we need to be careful what we use for fertilizers and herbicides. Jeffrey Smith, at the Institute for Responsible Technology, has written an interesting, and fairly scary, article about a "Sudden Death Syndrome" (SDS) that affects crops on land repeatedly treated with glyphosate (the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide). The article is well-illustrated, for us non-farming types. The illustrations provide documentary evidence of the claims made in the article.

According to Mr. Smith's research, such herbicides are not only responsible for SDS, but have led to crops lacking in nutrients. Glyphosate has entered our diets through corn, soybeans, meat, and milk, and has been associated with a number of human health issues, including a sharp increase in the incidence of Alzheimer's Disease since the 1990s. In support of that claim, the article notes that one of the primary triggers of Alzheimer's is a lack of copper and magnesium in the diet. A test of glyphosate applied to a Roundup-resistant alfafa (called "Roundup Ready") showed a 20% loss in the copper content and a 26% loss in the magnesium content the year following application of the herbicide.

Mr. Smith wants the Secretary of Agriculture to deny approval for Roundup Ready alfalfa. Approval of the strain will continue to support manufacturers of potentially dangerous genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

I am sure professional agronomists can find room for argument in the studies presented; but for the layman, it provides one more example of how large-scale government tends to protect the corporation at the expense of the individual. Decentralism will strengthen local governments and peer pressure; which I suggest would actually prove more effective at dealing with such issues.

Common sense on the debt ceiling

U.S. Senator Pat Toomey (R-Pennsylvania) explains to the Wall Street Journal how the United States can meet its fiscal obligations without raising the debt ceiling. He notes that about 67% of federal expenditures can be met without further debt, which is ten times the amount needed to pay interest on the existing debt.

Sen. Toomey grants that, "[w]ithout the ability to borrow the other third, spending cuts would be sudden and severe: Projects would be postponed, some vendor payments would be delayed, certain programs would be suspended, and many government employees might be furloughed." However, to raise the debt ceiling without getting both discretionary and entitlement spending under control, he contends, would be even worse.

I question whether it is even possible to get federal spending under control, given the entitlements, our national politics, and the depth of the debt crisis. But if it is possible, we must begin somewhere; and Sen. Toomey has suggested a good place to start.

What is "racism", really?

The following questions appeared in an anonymous comment in Rebellion. The first three questions (about Communism) have answers that will vary with personal opinion; and I, for one, do not wish to get into a shouting match with readers over whether Dr. King was or was not a Communist. He obviously favored governmental solutions to problems, and was therefore "liberal" as we currently understand the term, and he had at least one Communist (Bayard Rustin) on his staff. In the absence of an organizational affiliation, one must judge "Communism" on the basis of a person's commitment to Marxist-Leninist or Maoist ideas. Dr. King clearly espoused communitarianism, which is an integral part of the culture of both Africans and African-Americans, which stresses that the local community should be the engine for solving social problems. In my opinion, it is not valid to extrapolate that communitarianism into support for state capitalism, dictatorship of the proletariat, or any of the other central tenets of Communism.

I should add, before someone else does, that Rebellion, being a secessionist site favoring restoration of the Southern Confederacy, is sharply critical of Dr. King's plagiarism in college and of his personal morality, and is strongly opposed to observance of Martin Luther King's Birthday as a holiday. Christian faithful know that God has used some very imperfect instruments for carrying out his will -- and I suspect that Dr. King was one of those. While this reduces Dr. King's value as a role model, it does not erase the good that  his leadership accomplished while he was among us. Nor do these facts erase the thought-provoking value of the questions that follow:

Who was more Communist, MLK Jr. or Obama?

How Communist does someone have to be before people stop calling you racist for calling the person Communist?

Are there any other Communists that have a national day of recognition/holiday?

Why do those that claim to oppose slavery support modern day slavery by buying slave made products from China etc. ad nauseam?

Why do those that oppose racism here not object to the racism of American jobs going to China which is pretty much a one race society?

Why do Hispanics here and in Mexico etc. not complain about the American jobs that went from here, then to Mexico, that then went to China? Isn't that racist?

Why are white people the only people guilty of racism?

Why have American Indians and the jobs they have lost due to "outsourcing" been left completely out of the equation?

Why can it not be mentioned that illegal aliens pouring into the country displaces/replaces U.S. Hispanics, American Indians, Whites, Blacks, Orientals etc., etc.?

Why won't anyone use the word replacism since that is what's happening?

Champions of Liberty

Last year, on Martin Luther King Day, I honored three African-Americans for their outspoken support for state sovereignty and libertarian causes. Both of this year’s Champions of Liberty are well-established bloggers who are outspoken about the need for self-reliance.

Elizabeth Wright

Elizabeth Wright publishes Issues & Views, which she describes as “A black conservative's place for independent thinking and common sense -- A little oasis for those who got caught up in the momentum of the civil rights movement, but failed to discern the false from the true.” A resident of New York City, Ms. Wright began Issues & Views as a hardcopy newsletter “to counter notions of victimization and collective entitlement prevalent in the black community.” She writes that her “conservatism was derived from the wisdom of earlier generations of American blacks, like Booker T. Washington, who attempted to steer their people towards greater economic self-reliance. The newsletter also challenged ideologues who misused ‘civil rights,’ in order to deny basic rights to others and to impose politically correct mandates. Editorials were committed to principles of free speech, with the First Amendment paramount.” Like last year’s honoree H. K. Edgerton, she has defended respect for Confederate heritage.

She is also outspoken in support of free speech and a sensible foreign policy. Her comment on the Wikileaks controversy neatly ties both issues together:

We should view the WikiLeaks controversy in the larger context of American foreign policy. Rather than worry about the disclosure of embarrassing secrets, we should focus on our delusional foreign policy. We are kidding ourselves when we believe spying, intrigue, and outright military intervention can maintain our international status as a superpower while our domestic economy crumbles in an orgy of debt and monetary debasement.

Most importantly, her message stresses self-reliance and truth over victimization, “political correctness” and hatred. A message that applies equally to everyone, regardless of race, but one that is especially needed and wanted from the black community.

William N. Grigg

William Grigg is a modern muckraker, and that’s meant to be a compliment. A resident of Payette, Idaho, he thoroughly researches his topics and writes (often at considerable length) on governmental abuses of deadly force, among the police and in the military, in his blog Pro Libertate. His most recent contribution (Jan. 10) is entitled “The Cult of Sanctified Violence,” in which he contrasts government’s treatment of violent citizens with its own unrestrained violence in Pakistan. Mr. Grigg uses rather unusual language (referring to ordinary citizens as “Mundanes,” and calling Rep. Peter King, House Homeland Security Chairman, as a “former bagman for the IRA,” * for example), in support of some interesting points. In this post, he attacks the cult of “state worship”:

Hundreds of civilians have likewise been massacred in the ongoing "surge" in Afghanistan, many of them in nighttime raids by "Special Operations Forces" -- that is, death squads -- whose behavior is not easily distinguishable from that of Jared Loughner. At least a hundred thousand civilians have been annihilated in the continuing war in Iraq, which was inaugurated for reasons just as delusional as anything that percolated in Loughner's distressed mind.

For those who worship at the altar of the omnipotent State, mass murder of this kind is an exercise in sanctified violence. In a 2009 interview with Foreign Policy magazine, Bill Clinton -- who has repeatedly denounced  "anti-government" speech as a form of criminal sedition -- defined terrorism as “killing and robbery and coercion by people who do not have state authority." (Emphasis added.) What this means, of course, is that "killing and robbery and coercion" by duly authorized agents of the State isn't terrorism, it's policy. 

You see, bombs and drones may demolish homes, but only "anti-government" words can harm us. This is why one of the political elite's most urgent priorities is the control and criminalization of anti-government speech.

He is a staunch defender of the Second Amendment right to own weapons. This attitude may be a byproduct of his research into the abuses of police departments in specific investigations, such as those in Denver and Kenosha, Wisconsin. In these posts, Mr. Grigg conducts his own interviews.

His posts also contain unusual and detailed historical references. He compares an incident in which Rep. Allen West, then a candidate for Congress, once used a motorcycle gang for “security” to eject certain Democrats from a rally, to Nazi efforts to bring down the Weimar Republic in Germany. In his Jan. 10 post, he traces the “sanctification” of violence to an 1863 serman by Rev. Henry W. Bellows, who

extolled the U.S. President as a literally messianic figure; his text was the messianic prophecy of Isaiah 9:6, which contains the phrase "and the government shall be upon his shoulder." Those who condemned Lincoln's crimes against the Constitution, he insisted, were made of the same wretched stuff from which were formed "the enemies of our Saviour, who were always flinging in his blessed face the authority of the Mosaic law."

Bellows granted that Lincoln violated the Constitution in countless ways, but maintained that just as Jesus was the incarnate Lawgiver, Lincoln should be regarded as the living Constitution. Were the actual written document to prove an insuperable impediment to Lincoln's divine mission, "the sooner it were abandoned, the better."

See any parallels to the present day?

Mr. Grigg has courageously stood up for the Constitution and the people at a time when too many people refuse to stand up for themselves. If we (the people) do not enforce the Rule of Law against our rulers, we will allow our rulers to become a law unto themselves – one in which there are no safeguards against abuse.

* Referring to past fundraising efforts by Rep. King in support of the Irish Republican Army in Northern Ireland.

Ohio Project update

Commenters to my post on Wednesday about HB 11, to require General Assembly approval before implementing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") were disappointed that no bill in the Ohio General Assembly has yet addressed the mandatory purchase of insurance.

I anticipate that there will be several state sovereignty-related bills in this session of the Ohio General Assembly. There seems to be some opinion there that the Ohio Project should be left alone to complete its petition and place it on the ballot, which is shared by the Ohio Freedom Alliance, the lobbying arm of the liberty movement in Ohio.

As of Nov. 17, the Ohio Project has collected over 250,000 signatures, not including a blitz last Election Day. They are required to have 385,245 valid signatures, and have set a goal of 577,868. They have collected the minimum 5% of the vote from the 2010 gubernatorial election in the requisite 44 counties.

Virginia introduces honest money bill

Rebellion reports that Virginia State Representative R.G. Marshall yesterday introduced HJR 557, to create a joint subcommittee to study whether Virginia should consider establishing an alternative currency to that issued by the Federal Reserve Bank. The whereases are quite lengthy. Here is the Now therefore part:

That a joint subcommittee be appointed to study whether the Commonwealth should adopt a currency to serve as an alternative to the currency distributed by the Federal Reserve System in the event of a major breakdown of the Federal Reserve System.

The joint subcommittee shall consist of eight legislative members who shall be appointed as follows: five members of the House of Delegates to be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Delegates in accordance with the principles of proportional representation contained in the Rules of the House of Delegates and three members of the Senate to be appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules. The joint subcommittee shall elect a chairman and vice-chairman from among its membership.

In conducting its study, the joint subcommittee shall call or hear from such witnesses and take such other evidence as it deems appropriate and shall consider recommendations for legislation, with respect to the need, means, and schedule for establishing such an alternative currency.

If enacted, the joint subcommittee will have to submit its report to the General Assembly by November 30, 2011.

Legislation to allow silver or gold to be used as an alternative currency for the payment of taxes ("Honest Money") is being researched in Ohio.

Montana legislator wants to add teeth to state's firearms nullification bill

In April 2009, the Montana legislature passed a bill that exempted from federal law all firearms both manufactured and sold within the state, which is not interstate commerce within the meaning of the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8.

Now, Bob Unruh at WorldNet Daily reports that State Sen. Greg W. Hinkle (R-Thompson Falls) has introduced SB 114, which would require federal employees to obtain the county sheriff's permission to  make arrests, searches, and seizures. With some exceptions, federal officials violating this act would be subject to prosecution. The act specifically states that federal employees do not have the authority of a county sheriff within Montana. The act applies to all federal law enforcement activities within the State of Montana, except on federal lands. It is not limited to firearms enforcement. If a county sheriff is under investigation, the federal official must obtain permission from the state attorney general.

Mr. Unruh notes that this is an example of a "sheriffs first" bill, which is being talked about in several states.

This bill is downright gutsy. It will be interesting to see how the legislative process plays out on this bill. Stay tuned.

(Because of the time required to maintain a status report of legislation in other states, I will not be keeping a spreadsheet of state sovereignty and nullification resolutions this year. Readers desiring this information should check the Tenth Amendment Center site).