Lying to Our Children and Ourselves (II)

Written in the pages of our own sometimes inglorious history is the true facts, obscured by those who wish to govern by force and intimidation and see individual freedom and liberty as an impediment in their path to power, money and glory.

As a people, we can choose to deny our history, warts and all, or we can ignore it to our own detriment and to any chance for liberty for the citizen of today, or our posterity. Regardless of the path taken, the truth is the truth; no amount of obfuscation or false hero worship can change that.

We can embrace the comfortable lie known as political correctness, but to do so requires a moral and ethical price a truly free people cannot afford to pay. Political correctness is nothing but a denial of the truth and is a very frangible defense against the eventual onslaught of reality.

We can continue to ignore the truths of our history, but it does not alter reality in the least. How can we deal with any of our problems, present and future, if we refuse to acknowledge the historical lessons of the past?

The Constitution of our founders, as ratified, contained the tools needed by a people determined to live free without the encumbrances and violations of individual rights witnessed when government follows the inevitable path and becomes despotic and tyrannical.

To boil down the motives of Lincoln and his Republican Party leadership one must understand that to rob, destroy and murder a group of people and to avoid condemnation for that act, it is vitally important that the group so targeted must somehow appear to be the villains and deserving of such actions.

The unconstitutional, tyrannical government of 1861-2016, their house servants, better known in polite circles as the Mainstream Media and various and assorted shills and sycophants who inhabit the leadership/membership of both major political parties would have us all believe this country’s Second War of Independence was visited on the people of the South because the inhabitants of those states were prejudiced against people of color. Again this flies in the face of true history.

Seven Southern states seceded between December of 1860 (South Carolina) and February 1 of 1861. (Texas) Four states, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee, did not secede until Lincoln unconstitutionally ordered up 75,000 volunteers to invade the states that had, at that point in time, seceded “because laws were being opposed and obstructed.” Lincoln ordered up these troops after Fort Sumter had been fired upon by Confederate Forces.

When Lincoln offered to make slavery constitutional in perpetuity, (Corwin Amendment) the Southern states still refused to rejoin the Union. This proves, beyond any question the war was not about slavery. Lincoln was willing to place the issue of slavery outside of the control of Congress in order to protect the increased flow of money gained with the recently passed Morrill Tariff into the coffers of the central government, the majority of which, like the previous tariffs, went into improvements in the North.

In actuality, when it comes to the resupply of Fort Sumter, Lincoln was advised by many in his cabinet such an act would be foolhardy and could lead to war.

“No answer could be made to this point, and the President saw that he was misled, and immediately ordered the reinforcement of Fort Sumter. . . It is impossible to exaggerate the importance and merit of this act . . . . It was (undertaken] by Lincoln with only the support of a single member of the Cabinet and he represented no State, and was the youngest and least distinguished member; and he was opposed by all the others, who were the leaders of the Republican Party and the representative men of the great Republican States. Lincoln himself was inexperienced, and those who opposed the stand he took had not only great experience in public affairs, but they were regarded by Lincoln himself as his superiors. [He resolved] to stand by his convictions . . . .” ~Letter from Montgomery Blair to Samuel Crawford, May 6, 1862

Most interesting is the Ordinance of Secession from the state of Virginia. In this proclamation, the State of Virginia was legally exercising an option that was made part of their ratification document of 1788, which by any definition constituted a contract or compact between the people of the state of Virginia and the central government. Here is the wording of that contract which was signed by the people of Virginia’s representatives on June 25, 1788.

“We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will…” (Emphasis added) Virginia Document ratifying the US Constitution, June 26, 1788

Now, copied below is an excerpt of the Ordinance of Secession constituted and signed by the people’s representatives of the State of Virginia on 17 April 1861.

“AN ORDINANCE to repeal the ratification of the Constitution of the United State of America by the State of Virginia, and to resume all the rights and powers granted under said Constitution.

The people of Virginia in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression, and the Federal Government having perverted said powers not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slave-holding States:

Now, therefore, we, the people of Virginia, do declare and ordain, That the ordinance adopted by the people of this State in convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and all acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying and adopting amendments to said Constitution, are hereby repealed and abrogated; that the union between the State of Virginia and the other States under the Constitution aforesaid is hereby dissolved, and that the State of Virginia is in the full possession and exercise of all the rights of sovereignty which belong and appertain to a free and independent State.

And they do further declare, That said Constitution of the United States of America is no longer binding on any of the citizens of this State…” ~Convention of Virginia, April 1861 [Vote 132, 201 Yea, 37,451 Nay on 23 May 1861.]

Very plainly stated, in legal terms, ratified by a vote of the people of the state of Virginia, their ratification contract with the central government of the United States was repealed, not because of slavery but because the central government had broken the contract by exceeding the powers delegated to them in the original ratification contract. In very simple terms, the consent of the people of Virginia to be governed by the central government was withdrawn with prejudice.

Yes, the term “slave-holding states” was included in this Ordinance of Secession, but one must remember that slavery was indeed constitutional in 1861 as previously stated by President Lincoln in his First Inaugural Address and had been since the founding of the country. The flag of the United States Government had flown over the institution of Slavery for 73 years at that point in time. Most obviously Slavery was/is not morally correct and, in fact, reprehensible, but neither are many of the unconstitutional acts of our central government today. The illustrations of this fact are too numerous to mention.

Venturing forth into the arena of doing the wrong thing for the right reason(s), especially, allowing government and its employees any latitude outside the proper restraints of our Constitution are always devastating.

There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end, it leads to death.  ~Proverbs 16:25

Again, referencing Article IV, Section II of the Constitution, if Virginia had the right to withdraw from their compact or contract with the central government then so did the other 10 states which voted on Ordinances of Secession, or any of the states for that matter.

In Early 1861, many of the newspapers of the North agreed with the right of the states to secede/nullify. The precedent had been set with the New England states who threatened to secede because of the Louisiana Purchase, the Hartford Convention of 1814 and the New England states who refused to participate in the War of 1812.

“[W]e sympathize with and justify the South…their rights have been invaded to the extreme limit possible within the forms of the Constitution.” ~Albany (NY) Atlas and Argus, November 1860

“[F]anatics and demagogues of the North waged war on the institutions of the South”   ~November 1860 Concord (NH) Democratic Standard

“We believe that the right of any member of this Confederacy to dissolve its political relations with the others and assume an independent position is absolute — that, in other words, if South Carolina wants to go out of the Union, she has the right to do so, and no party or power may justly say her nay.” ~Cincinnati Daily Press, November 1860

Perhaps the above will help the doubting Thomases come to grips with the reality that Lincoln shut down over 300 Northern newspapers along with arresting, according to the Columbia Law Journal, over 38,000 US Citizens without due process for daring to oppose his actions. In fact, Fort Lafayette in New York Harbor became known as the “American Bastille.”

Such actions should and can be associated with other political tyrants and despots in history. Lincoln actions closely resemble more modern tyrants such as Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot and Idi Amin Dada. Hitler did, after all, mention Lincoln’s actions favorably in Mein Kampf.

“[T]he individual states of the American Union . . . could not have possessed any state sovereignty of their own. For it was not these states that formed the Union, on the contrary, it was the Union which formed a great part of such so-called states.” ~Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, pg. 566

“[T]he Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence . . . by the Articles of Confederation in 1778 . . . and establishing the Constitution. . . . It follows from these views that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union . . .” ~Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, 4 March 1861

Please read thoughtfully and carefully the below  excerpt from Hitler’s magnum opus, Mein Kampf, and contemplate if the government system described by Hitler resembles at all the form of government we live under today in our country. A system of government where the states rights have been destroyed.

“National Socialism as a matter of principle must lay claim to the right to force its principles on the whole German nation without consideration of previous federated state boundaries, and to educate in its ideas and conceptions. Just as the churches do not feel bound and limited by political boundaries, no more does the National Socialist idea feel limited by the individual state territories of our fatherland. The National Socialist doctrine is not the servant of individual federated states, but shall some day become the master of the German nation. It must determine and reorder the life of a people, and must, therefore, imperiously claim the right to pass over [state] boundaries drawn by a development we have rejected” (p. 578). (Emphasis added)

Also, does the political system described above, by Hitler, resemble what we commonly call Reconstruction in the Southern states from 1865-1877? Was the Central Government led by the Radical Republicans “master’ over the people and did it “determine and reorder” their lives?

(Author’s note: This concludes Part Two. In Part Three, I will address the insanity that is the bigoted hatred toward the people of the South, their heritage and their symbols fostered by the Central Government, its employees, house servants, shills, willing dupes and useful idiots.)