MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Jefferson Davis’

A President’s Refusal To Accept the Election Results – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on November 10, 2020

If President Trump succeeds with his lawsuits against the blatantly obvious, massive vote fraud that has taken place, the Democrats will no longer be dancing in the streets guzzling champagne.  They will escalate the kind of violence that they have orchestrated for the past six months or so, and it will likely be orders of magnitude worse.  They will have become the new Party of Lincoln.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/11/thomas-dilorenzo/a-presidents-refusal-to-accept-the-election-results/

By Thomas DiLorenzo

The original union of American states was a voluntary union, not a coerced one held together by violence, mass killing, and terrorism as with say, the Soviet Union.  The citizens of the “free and independent states,” as they are called in the Declaration of Independence, sent delegates from their communities to the constitutional convention that resulted in the delegation of eighteen specific powers from them (Article 1, Section 8)  – the citizens of the independent states – to the federal government for their benefit and for their mutual advantage.  The federal government was to be the agent of the citizens of the states, who everyone acknowledged as the principals. 

Three states – New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia – specifically wrote in their ratification documents that these delegated powers “may be resumed by the people” of those states at any time, and for any reason determined by them, if they were to conclude that the federal government was behaving in a way that was not “necessary to their happiness.”  Since they were accepted into the union, it was assumed by everyone that all states had the exact same rights to secede from the union.  Secession was assumed by no one to be dependent on permission by any other state or states.  They took their own language about the “free and independent states” in the Declaration of Independence seriously.

The New York ratification document of July 26, 1788 says:  “That the Powers of Government [in Article 1, Section 8] may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness, that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same . . .”

The May 29, 1790 Ratification document of Rhode Island was very similar:  “That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness . . .”  And, the June 26, 1788 Virginia Ratification document reads:  “. . . 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 and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will . . . ”

This of course is why there was no talk of forcing New Englanders back into the union under threats of waging total war on the civilian population of the region, bombing and burning its cities into smoldering ruins, destroying their economy with naval blockades, and launching a full-scale invasion when the New England Federalists plotted to secede for fourteen years after the election of Thomas Jefferson as president.  Secession (from the British empire) was “the” principle of the American Revolution, declared Massachusetts Senator Timothy Pickering, George Washington’s secretary of state and secretary of war and the leader of the 1801-1814 New England secession movement.  The movement culminated with the Hartford Secession convention of 1814 when they decided to remain in the union after all and attempt to politically dominate and plunder the South with tariffs instead of seceding from it.

By 1860 the population of the North was more than double that of the South, and the lopsided congressional representation that that created emboldened the North to plunder the South with the heavily-protectionist Morrill Tariff, passed by the House of Representatives during the 1859-60 sesion, before any state had seceded.  The tariff on mostly manufactured goods, which more than doubled the average tariff rate from 15% to 33%, was heavily discriminatory against the agricultural South.  Then, in his first inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln threatened “invasion” and “bloodshed” in any state that refused to pay this newly-doubled federal tax.   (In the same address he assured the world that he had no intentions whatsoever to disturb Southern slavery, and even endorsed the Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, which had passed the Republican-controlled House and Senate, that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with slavery).

In his first inaugural address Jefferson Davis announced that the South was an agricultural society that traded with the entire world, that the Confederacy intended to pursue a policy of free trade with all the countries of the world, and that it would defend itself from Northern invaders who intended to stop them from doing so.

So when the Southern states seceded, they did so in full knowledge of the New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia ratification declarations that had been assumed by all the states.  Like the New England Federalists of the past generation, each Southern state sent delegates from each community to their respective secession conventions to vote on whether to “reassume” the powers delegated to the central government or not.  Virginia first on April 4, 1861 voted to remain in the union, but then when Lincoln launched an invasion of all the Southern states the vote was reversed, 130-22 in favor of secession.  The South Carolina convention voted unanimously for secession with 169 delegates; and so it went.

In other words, the votes taken at the Southern secession conventions, like the votes taken at the 1814 Hartford secession convention, were fully in keeping with the Constitution and the state ratification documents.  The citizens of the states were the masters, not the servants, of their own central government.  There would never have been a federal constitution had the founders believed that the union was what Murray Rothbard once called a “one-way venus flytrap” from which there could neve be any escape no matter how tyrannical the central government might become in the future.

The Republican party, led by Abraham Lincoln refused to accept the results of these legal and constitutional elections and committed the very definition of treason by waging total war on the entire Southern population for four long years.  Understanding that there was always a danger that a future government could become tyrannical, the founders defined treason in Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution as:  “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”  The key words here are “their” and “them.”  The words “United States” in all the founding documents is in the plural, signifying the free and independent states and not something called “the United States government in Washington, D.C.”  Levying war against “them” meant against any state or states, which of course exactly what Lincoln did when he refused to abide by the votes taken at the Southern secession conventions.   Assuring the world that his invasion and waging total war against his own country had nothing to do with slavery but with “saving the union,” Lincoln’s war resulted in as many as 850,000 war-related deaths according to the latest research; the effective destruction of the American system of federalism; the establishment of totalitarian tyranny in the Northern states during the war with the nearly total abolition of civil liberties there; and the failure to do what all the rest of the world – including the Northern U.S. states – did about slavery and end it peacefully. 

There is a lot of talk of another Civil War in America these days.  The reason for such talk is all of the violence that has been organized by what is effectively the military wing of the Democrat National Committee – Antifa and Black Lives Matter.  They have rioted, looted, committed serial acts of arson, and even murdered.  No one expects conservatives to behave in such a manner should demented Joe Biden prevail.  If President Trump succeeds with his lawsuits against the blatantly obvious, massive vote fraud that has taken place, the Democrats will no longer be dancing in the streets guzzling champagne.  They will escalate the kind of violence that they have orchestrated for the past six months or so, and it will likely be orders of magnitude worse.  They will have become the new Party of Lincoln.

The Best of Thomas DiLorenzo Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo [send him mail] is a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. His latest book is The Problem with Lincoln.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Why the Civil War Wasn’t About Slavery – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on July 15, 2020

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/07/no_author/why-the-civil-war-wasnt-about-slavery/

By Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr.,

From the 1870s to the late 1950s, there was an unofficial truce between the North and South. Each side recognized and saluted the courage of the other; it was conceded that the North fought to preserve the Union and because Old Glory had been fired on, and the Southerner fought for liberty and to defend his home; the two great heroes of the war were Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee; and the South admitted that slavery was wrong but never conceded that it was cruel.

Around 1960, the Democratic Party—led by Lyndon B. Johnson—advanced the modern incarnation of identity politics. It worked very well for them. In the election of 1956, 75% of African-Americans voted Republican. By 1964, more than 90% of them voted Democrat, and they have been doing so until 2020. As part of their effort to control and manipulate the black vote, the Leftists and their myrmidons advanced the myth that the Civil War was all about slavery. It wasn’t. It was, in my opinion, about money, more than anything else. Now, at this point, I know some of my liberal friends will bristle up and say: “It was too all about slavery!” Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but let me ask you this: What was slavery about?

ANSWER: It was about money.

The “it was all about slavery” argument is an oversimplified and infantile claim that has duped many people. Those who subscribe to this flawed theory ignore one undeniable fact: history is messy. It is almost never as simple as the modern Left would have you believe. Oh, sure, slavery was an issue, but it was certainly not the only issue and not even the dominant one. Listed below are eleven others:

1. The Question of What Kind of Government Would We Have? Would we follow the Alexander Hamilton’s big government/commercial state model, featuring a strong, centralized government, a chief executive with almost royal powers, a Senate elected for life, high tariffs to encourage manufacturing at the expense of agriculture, a strong National Bank to control the currency, and high public land prices to generate income for Washington, D.C., to finance internal improvements (especially canals and roads in the North), selling public lands at high prices would also have the advantage of keeping the new waves of immigrants from Europe in the cities. Because they could not afford to buy land and therefore could not farm, they would have to remain in the cities, providing a ready pool of cheap labor for big business.

The alternative was the small government, “governs best which governs least” philosophy of Thomas Jefferson. This viewpoint was adopted by his intellectual heirs, John C. Calhoun and Jefferson Davis, among others. The Hamiltonian model was adopted by Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln, who embraced Clay’s “America System” ideas as his political North Star.

One never hears about this nowadays because it is largely a dead issue. It was settled at Appomattox. Big government won. And it is still winning. This is why one can say that, when it comes to the Civil War, in a sense, both sides lost.

2. Northern corporate greed. Northern corporations liked high tariffs (taxes) on goods the South imported, because it reduced competition with European manufacturers and allowed them to charge higher prices for often substandard goods. The tax revenue went to Washington, which used it to subsidize Northern industries (both directly and indirectly) at the expense of Southern agriculture. Cotton was especially lucrative. In 1859, the value of exported cotton totaled $161,000,000. The value of all Northern exports combined was just over $70,000,000. By 1860, the Federal budget was $80,000,000. Seventy million of that was paid by the South. One section, which amounted to 29% of the population, was paying more than 82% of the taxes. Of that, four out of five dollars was being used for internal improvements in the North. This was not good enough for Abraham Lincoln. He backed an increase in the tariff from 24% to 47% (and 51% on items containing iron). He got his way. This tariff rate was in effect until 1913.

3. Northern hypocrisy. The North also had slaves. It is an actual fact that Massachusetts had slavery 78 years longer than Mississippi. They freed their slaves by a process called manumission, which was designed so that the Northern master didn’t lose any money. Wall Street continued to finance Southern plantations, and thus slavery, until the Civil War. The Northern bankers wanted slaves as collateral and preferred them to land. Very often, “Massa” used the money he borrowed from Northern banks to purchase more slaves. The Northern bankers thus financed slavery.

Also, it did not escape the attention of the Southern editors that the slave fleets did not headquarter in Southern ports. They operated out of Boston, Massachusetts, and Providence, Rhode Island, joined later by New York City. The Lincoln regime did nothing to restrict these Northern shipping interests. Nor did this stop with the war. It continued until 1885, 20 years after Lee surrendered, when Brazil became the last nation in the New World to outlaw the international slave trade. Southern editorial writers hammered home all these points in the 1840s and 1850s, when charges of Northern hypocrisy were quite common in Southern newspapers.

4. Abolitionist terrorism. The greatest fear most Southerners had before 1861 was the slave revolt along the lines of that experienced by Haiti in 1791. Many abolitionists called for them, and some of them financially supported John Brown’s terrorist attack on Harpers Ferry in 1859. Frederick Douglass and W. E. B. DuBois called the shots fired here and the first shots of the Civil War. They were probably right.

5. Republican willingness to protect terrorists. The John Brown terrorists who escaped to the North were incarcerated. The states with Republican governors refused to extradite them and let them go. The South looked upon this as a preview of what they could expect from a Republic president. When John Brown seized Harpers Ferry, Democratic President Buchanan sent in the Marines. The Southern leaders asked if they could expect the same from a Republican president? The answer was no.

6. The Federal budget grossly favored the North (see Number 2 above).

7. Cultural differences. These are too complex to innumerate here, but they still exist. Because of television, they are less pronounced than they were in 1860, but they are still there.

8. Political power. Because of immigration, the demographics caused a power shift in favor of the North. By 1860, the South felt (with considerable justification) that it was doomed to become an economic colony of the North if it remained in the Union, so it did not.

9. Constitutional Issues. After large sections of New England threatened to secede five times between 1803 and 1860, Lincoln and his cronies suddenly decided that the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (somehow) did not apply to the South in 1861, and that the powers not delegated to the states or the people somehow did not count when it came to secession. But after the war, the Federal government refused to bring Jefferson Davis (or any other Southern leader) to trial, even though he demanded it, because as Senator Sumner (a radical Republican) wrote to Chief Justice Chase: “because by the Constitution, secession is not treason.”

10. Nineteenth-Century Fake News. In 1832, a motion to abolish slavery failed in the Virginia legislature by a vote of 58 to 65. Four years later, the legislature made it a crime even to advocate abolition. The difference? Northern abolitionist propaganda, which was often hateful, salacious, and untruth. It made the slavery issue sectional. In the 1830s, anti-slavery societies in the South outnumbered those in the North 106 to 24. By 1850, there were no anti-slavery societies in the South—zip, zero, nada.

11.Economic Issues After Secession. The Confederacy set its tariff rates at 10%. (If it was good enough for God, it was good enough for them.) There was no way Lincoln’s 47% tariff could compete with that for foreign trade. Lincoln legitimately feared the Northern economy would crash into a recession, if not a depression, and the Federal Government would lose 82% of its tax base, so Washington would be in desperate straits. Because Northern public opinion did not support a war (many Northerners said “Good riddance!” to the South), Lincoln had to walk a political tightrope. He had to instigate a war and make it appear that the South started it by maneuvering Jefferson Davis into firing the first shot. The slick corporate lawyer was up to this as well, but that is a story for another time.

When one has written an entire book about a subject like the causes of the Civil War, it is difficult to condense it into 1,500 words or so. Suffice it to say that the onset of the Civil War was much more complex than the average American today thinks it was. For those astonished by the facts I have mentioned above, I hope you are inspired to do further reading on the subject. To paraphrase Harry Truman: the only thing new is the history you don’t know.

 

Be seeing you

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Education Is Offensive and Racist and so is America – PaulCraigRoberts.org

Posted by M. C. on June 13, 2020

America is said to be a superpower, but its inhabitants collapse in excruciating pain over a mere word. The pain felt by mental and emotional weaklings is so severe that it has caused universities to overthrow academic freedom.  At UCLA, once a university and now a propaganda ministry, a faculty member is under investigation for reading Martin Luther King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” to the class he teaches. 

They are having a fit over Jefferson Davis, who for 3 or 4 years of his life was president of the Confederate States of America. Much more of Davis’ life was spent serving the United States of America as a military officer, a US Senator and as US Secretary of War (they were more honest in those days; today they call it “defense”).  Davis was a West Point graduate. As an officer in the US Army he fought for the US empire in the Mexican-American war. It was Davis who led the sucessful charge on the La Teneria fort in the Battle of Monterrey.  He was married to the daughter of US President Zachary Taylor. He argued against secession.  These are the reasons that there is a statue of him.

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/06/12/education-is-offensive-and-racist-and-so-is-america/

Paul Craig Roberts

Years of teaching blacks to have grievances against white people for things that happened centuries ago have come to fruition. Rioting and looting are not enough, the violent thugs and ignorant woke creatures are pulling down historic monuments in public parks and defacing public buildings while police and public authorities stand down.

In Richmond, Virginia, a statue eight feet tall of Christopher Columbus in a public park has just been pulled down and rolled into a lake by a group of thugs.  Why?  “Columbus represents genocide.”  What the barbarians mean is that by discovering America, Columbus exposed the inhabitants to invasion from abroad, which is what the US has been undergoing since 1965.

Who hasn’t suffered invasions?  Why of all the countless invasions in history is European entry into the new world so upsetting.  Columbus wasn’t looking to invade any country.  He was testing a theory and hoping to find a shorter route to the spice trade.

Any number of Confederate memorials are being pulled down.  Not even Robert E. Lee will be spared.  Are public authorities  so stupid that they do not understand that their acquiescence to lawlessness and destruction of property lets the genie out of the bottle?

The new word for racist is white.  By definition a white person is a racist.  The two words are synonyms.  Every stature of every white person is a statue of a racist and can be pulled down. The Republican-led Senate Armed Services Committee has amended the defense bill to require the US military to rename bases named after anyone who served under the Confederate flag. They don’t understand that as white is a synonym for racist, all whites, including Union officers, are racists. All US military bases will have to be named after blacks or it will be racist.  Grant and Lee were both white and served together fighting for American empire in the war against people of color in Mexico. The only difference between Grant and Lee is that in addition to fighting for American empire against Mexico, Grant also fought for American empire against the South.

History is also being pulled down.  Future historians will be perplexed to find no signs of the racism on which the NY Times says America was founded.

Ignorance is everywhere. RT describes Columbus as “another notorious figure in the history of slavery.”  What!? The year 1492 was long before the black Kindgom of Dahomey created the black slave trade and long before there were any colonies needing a labor force.  But facts no longer matter.  Truth is whatever is emotionally satisfying.

America is said to be a superpower, but its inhabitants collapse in excruciating pain over a mere word. The pain felt by mental and emotional weaklings is so severe that it has caused universities to overthrow academic freedom.  At UCLA, once a university and now a propaganda ministry, a faculty member is under investigation for reading Martin Luther King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” to the class he teaches.  The letter (April 16, 1963) was King’s reply to black pastors who expressed their concern to him about his arrival as an outsider to their community to stir up confrontation when they were working to negotiate the achievement of the same goals peaceably. King’s answer was that confrontation sharpens the issue and will aid their negotiations. Creating a crisis, King told the pastors, fosters tension and forces a community to deal with the issue.

What did the professor do wrong by reading King’s own explanation of his strategy?  The professor is in trouble because King in his letter used the word “nigger” and in reading King’s letter to the class, the professor read the word “nigger.”  OhMyGod, a white man said “nigger.”

Oh, the hurt, the offense!  University administrators have denounced the professor. To keep the controversy going students are urged to come forward with complaints. A town hall will be held to outline future next steps.

Think about this for a minute. According to reports “numerous students plead (sic ) with Professor Ajax Peris to not use the n word.”  But it was King, not Peris, who used the n word. What is the message here?  Does it mean that a white person cannot read out loud Martin Luther King’s letter?  If the professor wanted students to be aware of the letter, would he have to bring in a black guest lecturer to read the letter?  Would the professor still be accused of insensitivity if he gave  Martin Luther King’s letter to the students as a reading assignment?  Does it mean that King himself committed an offense by using the n word?

The professor also showed the class a documentary about lynching. The documentary had graphic descriptions that distressed and angered the students.  Do we have here the plight of what sounds like a leftwing professor trying to rile up blacks against whites and finding that he cannot succeed because the necessary words and images cause them paroxysms of pain?

In our oh-so-sensitive-times, no one is concerned about giving offense to Southerners.  White Republican senators are leading the charge to rename military bases. Not to be outdone, black members of the House want to remove what they call Confederate statues from the vicinity of the Capitol as part of the protest against police violence in Minneapolis. They are having a fit over Jefferson Davis, who for 3 or 4 years of his life was president of the Confederate States of America. Much more of Davis’ life was spent serving the United States of America as a military officer, a US Senator and as US Secretary of War (they were more honest in those days; today they call it “defense”).  Davis was a West Point graduate. As an officer in the US Army he fought for the US empire in the Mexican-American war. It was Davis who led the sucessful charge on the La Teneria fort in the Battle of Monterrey.  He was married to the daughter of US President Zachary Taylor. He argued against secession.  These are the reasons that there is a statue of him.

Davis, like Robert E. Lee, and so many others from Southern states spent their life in service to the United States. They rallied to the Confederacy only because Lincoln invaded their states.  People are so ignorant today, especially those who go around shouting “racist,” that they are unaware that in those days people regarded their home state as their country.  The US Constitution gave governing power to the states, reserving to the states all powers not ennumerated to the federal government.  All of this was changed by Lincoln’s war which consolidated power in Washington and eventually turned largely independent states into vassals of Washington.

Robert E. Lee, a West Point Graduate, spent his life in the US military fighting wars for the US empire. He served as Superintendent of the United States Military Academy. He was so highly regarded that he was offered a Union command in Lincoln’s war. Lee’s response was that as a Virginian, he could not lead an army to invade his country.  If the US was going to invade Virginia, he would have to resign his commission in the US Army.

An ignorant person once wrote in CounterPunch that Lee had 200 slaves.  Lee had no plantation. He spent his life fighting against Indians and Mexicans for the American empire. It did not occur to the peabrain at CounterPunch what a person fighting Indians on the frontier and Mexicans in Mexico would do with 200 slaves.  But as I have often observed, it you are out to demonize someone—Trump, Putin, or Lee—you say whatever does the job.

Lee had to take a leave from the US army for 2 years in order to settle his father-in-law’s estate, which had land holdings and slaves on one side of the ledger and massive debts on the other. The aim was to emancipate the slaves. Knowing that, some slaves pushed it before it could be done. They were punished, and ever since it has been used to blacken Lee who had fiduciary duties.

The current line is that Confederate memorials “pay tribute to white supremacy and slavery,” as the most ignorant Barbara Lee (D, CA) put it.  So, according to a person regarded by people in California of sufficient intelligence and integrity to represent them in Washington, a Southerner who resists the invasion of his country is a white supremacist.

As has been proven so many times, the so-called “Civil War” was fought over economics, not slavery. Lincoln himself intended to send the blacks back to Africa, judging them unfit to live among white people.  Lincoln said over and over that the war was fought to preserve the Union. He gave assurances to the South that they could have slaves as long as they stayed in the Union and paid the tariff. Historians have researched the letters and diaries of participants on both sides of the war and found that soldiers were not fighting for or against slavery. The North was fighting for the Union, and the South was fighting because the South was invaded.  There is a famous book in which the contents of the wartime letters and diaries are recorded.

Yet the real documented history has been replaced with a false made-up history that serves the sole purpose of creating dissention and hatred in a vulnerable and fragile multicultural society.

As I recently wrote using Richard Weaver’s title, ideas have consequences. The stand downs of police and public authorities while criminals loot and destroy are consequences of the false history that has been created for the United States.

The United States is a Tower of Babel from which white people should flee. The state of collapse is advanced. With mayors and governors refusing to protect property from black looters, President Trump threatened to call out the US military.  His own Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, and his own Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, Mark Milley, quickly informed the US military that their duty was to the Constitution, not to the President. The two made a show of this to undercut President Trump and to present him as a tyrant for trying to fulfill his constitutional obligation to protect private property and the lives of citizens.  Apparently, both Esper and Milley are too dumbshit to understand that it is a constitutional duty to protect property.

Trump is not Establishment, but his government is. Trump is a President surrounded by his enemies. Trump attempted to be a president of the people, but the Establishment will not permit it.  Trump will be the last president who attempts to represent the American people.  All future presidents will have learned the lesson in advance. An American president serves the ruling elite and no one else.  The elite have worked long and hard to acquire a divided population that cannot unite against them.  They have succeeded.

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »