Tag Archives: Civil War

Erasing History, Diplomacy, Truth, and Life on Earth, by Paul Craig Roberts and Stephen F. Cohen

You can make up fake history and news, but you can’t make up reality. From Paul Craig Roberts at paulcraigroberts.com:

One of the reasons that countries fail is that collective memory is continually destroyed as older generations pass away and are replaced by new ones who are disconnected from what came before.

Initially, the disconnect was handled by history and by discussions around family tables. For example, when I was a kid there were still grandparents whose fathers had fought for the Confederacy. They had no slaves and owned no plantations. They fought because their land was invaded by Lincoln’s armies. Today if Southern families still know the facts, they would protect their children by not telling them. Can you imagine what would happen to a child in a public school that took this position?

Continue reading

Advertisements

Modern Civil War Without Guns — So Far! by Jack Minzey

Are we already in a civil war? Jack Minzey says yes. From Minzey at Monty Peterin’s World, economicnoise.com:

Does our country run the risk of a civil war? Is such a horrible event even possible today?

The answers are “Yes” and “Yes.” Furthermore, a case can be made that we are already in such a civil war.

I received the following via email. The main piece was written by Jack Minzey, a person  I was unfamiliar with.  His take on this issue seems unique and accurate! According to him,  we are already in a Civil War whether  we recognize it or not.

If the late Mr. Minzey is correct, it is only a matter of time before current conditions turn  violent or parts of the country attempt to  secede. The divisions are so pronounced that it is difficult to see how they are solved within the current political  framework and consistent with our Constitution.

Here is the email:

Recently Jack Minzey sent what was to be the final chapter in the long line of books and treatises which he had written. Jack passed away Sunday, 8 April 2018. Professionally, Jack was head of the Department of Education at Eastern Michigan University as well as a prolific author of numerous books, most of which were on the topic of Education and the Government role therein. This is the last of his works:

Civil War

How do civil wars happen?

Two or more sides disagree on who runs the country. And they can’t settle the question through elections because they don’t even agree that elections are how you decide who’s in charge.  That’s the basic issue here. Who decides who runs the country? When you hate each other but accept the election results, you have a country. When you stop accepting election results, you have a countdown to a civil war.

The Mueller investigation is about removing President Trump from office and overturning the results of an election. We all know that. But it’s not the first time they’ve done this. The first time a Republican president was elected this century, they said he didn’t really win. The Supreme Court gave him the election. There’s a pattern here.

What do sure odds of the Democrats rejecting the next Republican president really mean? It means they don’t accept the results of any election that they don’t win. It means they don’t believe that transfers of power in this country are determined by elections.

That’s a civil war.

There’s no shooting. At least not unless you count the attempt to kill a bunch of Republicans at a charity baseball game practice. But the Democrats have rejected our system of government.

This isn’t dissent. It’s not disagreement. You can hate the other party. You can think they’re the worst thing that ever happened to the country. But then you work harder to win the next election. When you consistently reject the results of elections that you don’t win, what you want is a dictatorship.

To continue reading: Modern Civil War Without Guns — So Far!

America’s Civil War, by Justin Raimondo

A civil war rages between America’s ruling class and its supporters, and everyone else. From Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com:

It’s here, it’s real, it’s now – and I know what side I’m on

For nearly twenty-five years I have been writing in this space about war: that is, the wars we have waged against other countries. I’ve heard every possible rationalization for these conflicts, from “weapons of mass destruction” to “he’s killing his own people” to babies being bayoneted in their incubators and on down the line.

Now that I’ve reached a milestone in my career as a chronicler of this kind of folly, and thought I’d seen it all, I’ve come upon something entirely new and that totally outdid my experience and expectations: civil war in America.

Oh, and you should hear the rationales! They make George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Richard Perle come off like paragons of honesty and rectitude.

According to a coalition of forces including the Democratic party, the FBI, the CIA, and most of the “news” media, the country has been taken over by Vladimir Putin and the Russian State: President Donald J. Trump is an instrument in their hands, and the independence of the United States has been fatally compromised: the President and his top aides are taking their orders from the Kremlin.

This wouldn’t even pass an elementary course in formulaic script-writing, not to mention that gigantic plagiarism problem such a project would pose: it’s been done to death. But a lack of originality isn’t something that would stop our spooks, as dogged as they are.

Our intelligence agencies are at war with the executive branch of government, and they have been ever since Trump triumphed in the Electoral College and decisively defeated Hillary Clinton. The FBI/CIA/Deep State have been trying mightily to reverse the election results since that moment, to no avail.

To continue reading:

After the Confederates, Who’s Next? by Patrick J. Buchanan

Let’s get this statement out of the way: slavery was evil. However, there was more at stake in the Civil War, or the War of Northern Aggression as it’s called in the South, most notably the right of states to secede and to resist invasion. The explanations for why states cannot be allowed to secede flounder on their own convolutions, especially in light of the fact that the American Revolution was a secessionist movement. Certainly most of the founders supported the right of states to leave the US. No set of political arrangements can ever be set in stone. The attempt to wipe the Confederacy from American history denies history, truth, and recognition of valid principles that animated many of those in the South who took up arms. From Patrick J. Buchanan at buchanan.org:

On Sept. 1, 1864, Union forces under Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman, victorious at Jonesborough, burned Atlanta and began the March to the Sea where Sherman’s troops looted and pillaged farms and towns all along the 300-mile road to Savannah.

Captured in the Confederate defeat at Jonesborough was William Martin Buchanan of Okolona, Mississippi, who was transferred by rail to the Union POW stockade at Camp Douglas, Illinois.

By the standards of modernity, my great-grandfather, fighting to prevent the torching of Georgia’s capital, was engaged in a criminal and immoral cause. And “Uncle Billy” Sherman was a liberator.

Under President Grant, Sherman took command of the Union army and ordered Gen. Philip Sheridan, who had burned the Shenandoah Valley to starve Virginia into submission, to corral the Plains Indians on reservations.

It is in dispute as to whether Sheridan said, “The only good Indian is a dead Indian.” There is no dispute as to the contempt Sheridan had for the Indians, killing their buffalo to deprive them of food.

Today, great statues stand in the nation’s capital, along with a Sherman and a Sheridan circle, to honor these most ruthless of generals in that bloodiest of wars that cost 620,000 American lives.

Yet, across the South and even in border states like Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri, one may find statues of Confederate soldiers in town squares to honor the valor and sacrifices of the Southern men and boys who fought and fell in the Lost Cause.

When the Spanish-American War broke out, President McKinley, who as a teenage soldier had fought against “Stonewall” Jackson in the Shenandoah and been at Antietam, bloodiest single-day battle of the Civil War, removed his hat and stood for the singing of “Dixie,” as Southern volunteers and former Confederate soldiers paraded through Atlanta to fight for their united country. My grandfather was in that army.

For a century, Americans lived comfortably with the honoring, North and South, of the men who fought on both sides.

But today’s America is not the magnanimous country we grew up in.

To continue reading: After the Confederates, Who’s Next?

An Answer to Trump: Could the Civil War Have Been Avoided? by Ivan Eland

The Civil War could probably have been avoided, but President Lincoln didn’t try very hard to do so. From Ivan Eland at antiwar.com:

Well, OK, I guess the president learned his American history at Trump University. In an interview with the Washington Examiner, he recently seemingly confused Andrew Jackson’s behavior during the nullification crisis in 1832 with the Civil War, which didn’t occur until 16 years after Jackson died in 1861. The two events do have some similarity – with Jackson’s threatening to use force against South Carolina for trying to nullify federal tariff law and threatening to secede from the union (nullification of federal laws writ large) being antecedent to southern states, led by South Carolina, seceding after Abraham Lincoln got elected in 1860 on the Republican platform of stanching slavery’s expansion westward. Trump, perhaps reflecting his own “tough guy” negotiating tactics, seemingly believes that the Civil War could have been avoided by Jackson, Trump’s favorite president because he was also an angry populist, working things out.

Yet despite Trump’s fuzziness on details, he sometimes can intuitively bring up legitimate questions that the establishment fails to ask (for example, why does the United States continue to pledge to defend rich allies who now could more than afford to defend themselves against usually poorer neighbors). In the interview with the Examiner, Trump queried: “Why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?”

Of course, the standard nationalistic historical narrative in American school textbooks enshrines Abraham Lincoln as a demi-god who saved the union and freed the slaves. Any questioning of this equally questionable version of history leads to suspicions of Confederate flag-waving sympathies or even racism. As a descendent of Quakers from a blue Northern state (both in 1861 and oftentimes now), my criticism of Lincoln comes from the other direction.

Was the worst war in American history – which killed 750,000 troops on both sides, including 40,000 African American soldiers, and 100,000 civilians – really worth it to give slaves only nominal freedom and another century of heavy oppression at the hands of bitter Southern whites? Martin Luther King said, with only a little exaggeration, that a form of slavery still existed at the time of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. After the war, the white South enacted black codes, which required “freed slaves” to work for their former masters for a pittance, a system of vagrancy laws under which African Americans were arrested and had to work off their sentences, and Jim Crow segregation of the races. If all this newfound “freedom” wasn’t enough, white Southerners, angry at having lost the war, resorted to terrorism against African Americans through attacks by the Ku Klux Klan and other white vigilante groups. In short, the white Southern resentment over losing the war exacerbated the American racial divide, which continues today.

To continue reading: An Answer to Trump: Could the Civil War Have Been Avoided?

Long Live the Flags of Dixie! by Antonius Aquinas

Understanding the Southern point of view concerning the Civil War does not make one a racist, anymore than understanding what motivated the German people to accept Adolf Hitler makes one antisemitic. In fact, the South had some pretty good reasons for secession and going to war that had nothing to do with slavery. From Antonius Aquinas at theburningplatform:

On May 19, the House of Reprehensibles passed a proposal that would essentially ban the display of Confederate flags from national cemeteries. The amendment was added to a Veteran Affairs spending bill.

Not surprisingly, House Speaker Paul Ryan allowed the measure to be voted upon in hopes of not disrupting the appropriations process. Yes, by all means Paul, the redistribution of taxpayers’ confiscated wealth should take precedent over a draconian attempt to eradicate a heroic symbol of the country’s past. Hopefully, Ryan will be ousted this November as both Speaker and Congressman for not only his consistent sell out to Obummer and the Democrats on the budget, but his lack of understanding and appreciation of what is arguably the most important period of American history.

In a certain sense, the Confederate flag should not be displayed in national cemeteries or for that matter flown alongside those of the Union. The two are representations of dramatically opposed political ideologies. Liberals and political opportunists of all sorts have deliberately smeared the South’s attempt at secession as being entirely over the issue of slavery. The “Civil War” (which that struggle has become known by) is now seen through Politically Correct hindsight.

A civil war, in the truest sense, is a conflict between factions attempting to gain control of a government typically for their own aggrandizement. The bloody conflict between the North and South was not that, nor was it solely over slavery although the institution played a role in it.

The Confederacy wanted no part of the Washington establishment at the time, which it believed had become too tyrannical, and attempted to secede from it. The remaining states of the North, under the “leadership” of Abraham Lincoln, prevented this at the cost of more than 600,000 lives, the vast destruction of property, and the impoverishment of a people who simply sought to rule themselves.

The South’s action was nearly identical to what the colonies, North and South, did some 80 years previously in breaking away from the British Empire and becoming free and independent states under the benign rule of the Articles of Confederation.

As America’s Founding Fathers saw their liberties violated by King and Parliament, Southerners witnessed similar tyrannies and wisely anticipated more federal oppression with the election of Lincoln.

This interpretation has been ably supported by scholarship, though the view is rarely acknowledged in academia or in the mainstream media. In an essay from an insightful collection titled Secession, State and Liberty, Donald Livingston persuasively describes the ideological content of the Declaration of Independence, the revolution it inspired, and its influence on the South’s leadership.

He writes: “Overall, the Declaration is an argument designed to justify the secession of the new self-proclaimed American states from the British state. . . [It] is a document justifying the territorial dismemberment of a modern state in the name of the moral right of a people to self-government.”

To continue reading: Long Live the Flags of Dixie!

 

Historical Truth, by Walter E. Williams

The history of the Civil War that gets taught in schools has only a nodding relationship with the truth. History is indeed written by the winners. From Walter E. Williams, on a guest post at theburningplatform.com:

We call the war of 1861 the Civil War. But is that right? A civil war is a struggle between two or more entities trying to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more sought to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington sought to take over London in 1776. Both wars, those of 1776 and 1861, were wars of independence. Such a recognition does not require one to sanction the horrors of slavery. We might ask, How much of the war was about slavery?

Was President Abraham Lincoln really for outlawing slavery? Let’s look at his words. In an 1858 letter, Lincoln said, “I have declared a thousand times, and now repeat that, in my opinion neither the General Government, nor any other power outside of the slave states, can constitutionally or rightfully interfere with slaves or slavery where it already exists.” In a Springfield, Illinois, speech, he explained: “My declarations upon this subject of Negro slavery may be misrepresented but cannot be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand the Declaration (of Independence) to mean that all men were created equal in all respects.” Debating Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said, “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”

What about Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation? Here are his words: “I view the matter (of slaves’ emancipation) as a practical war measure, to be decided upon according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion.” He also wrote: “I will also concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition.” When Lincoln first drafted the proclamation, war was going badly for the Union.

London and Paris were considering recognizing the Confederacy and assisting it in its war against the Union. Amazon, Kindle, and Nook links are on the blog roll on the right.

The Emancipation Proclamation was not a universal declaration. It specifically detailed where slaves were to be freed: only in those states “in rebellion against the United States.” Slaves remained slaves in states not in rebellion — such as Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri. The hypocrisy of the Emancipation Proclamation came in for heavy criticism. Lincoln’s own secretary of state, William Seward, sarcastically said, “We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.”

Lincoln did articulate a view of secession that would have been heartily endorsed by the Confederacy: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. … Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.” Lincoln expressed that view in an 1848 speech in the U.S. House of Representatives, supporting the war with Mexico and the secession of Texas.

Why didn’t Lincoln share the same feelings about Southern secession? Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our nation’s history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?

To continue reading: Historical Truth

For a novel that doesn’t follow the approved version of history on the Civil War, see The Golden Pinnacle, by Robert Gore. Amazon, Kindle, and Nook links are on the blogroll on the right.