Awhile back I had a conversation with someone at work, a Millennial no less, and he grudgingly admitted that he saw my point in the articles I write, but there was no going back to the way things were in America. I have to grudgingly admit that he may be right; but that doesn’t mean I have to watch this madness in silence; and madness is exactly what it is. After all, what else would you call people who refuse to accept facts simply because these facts make them feel uncomfortable, or contradict currently held beliefs?
I hate to be the bearer of bad news people, but ignorance, especially self-imposed ignorance, is not a virtue; it is not something to be proud of. Those who are willfully ignorant may as well be forced to wear T-shirts that say, “Hey, look at me, I’m stupid; I’d rather believe a lie than the truth.” At least if they did that they would identify themselves and I wouldn’t waste my time trying to present them with anything as confusing as the facts.
Nowhere is this madness more on public display than in regards to the beliefs held by those who are pushing to have every monument, statue, and emblem representing the Confederacy removed from public view. Not only does this set a very dangerous precedent, the beliefs held by these people are based on total lies. But that’s just it, most people are not only too lazy to seek out the truth, most people won’t accept it when it is handed to them on a silver platter.
In a court of law both the prosecuting and defense attorneys provide facts which attempt prove the guilt or innocence of the person standing trial. It is up to the jury to weigh the evidence and reach a verdict regarding the defendant’s guilt or innocence. If people cannot do the same thing in their political discussions, or discussions about the history of this country, then I may as well just put a bullet in my head before I take my chances with a jury consisting of 12 morons who cannot come to an informed decision based upon facts and evidence.
Maybe I have to put it in bold letters for ya’ll, but:
THE CIVIL WAR WAS NOT FOUGHT OVER SLAVERY!!! THEREFORE THESE IMAGES YOU ARE BANNING, AND STATUES THAT YOU ARE TEARING DOWN DO NOT REPRESENT SLAVERY AND RACISM!!!
If this were a trial, and I was an attorney, that would be, what you call, my opening argument; the position which I intend to prove by presenting facts which support my position. The prosecution argues that the Confederate Battle Flag, statues of Civil War heroes such as Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, and any other monument which represents the failed Confederacy are images which represent racism, slavery, and bigotry; I intend to prove them wrong.
The prosecution argues that the Civil War was fought between two sides; one side wishing to free the slaves, and the other which fought to keep them. As slavery is an abomination, that would logically make those fighting for the liberation of those held in bondage the ‘good guys’, and those seeking to keep those held in bondage the ‘bad guys’. But that would only be true if that were the real reason for which the two sides were fighting; correct?
War, especially in the years of open range warfare where two sides faced off across an open battlefield and shot muskets and cannons at each other until one side had lost too many men to continue to do battle, was a regular slaughter house, and the Civil War was no exception. Over the course of that war over half a million Americans, both on the North and the South, lost their lives, with untold others maimed for life.
Therefore, one would think that if there were any option other than war, the two sides would grasp it before fighting a war which would cost them both dearly. So, if the Civil War was fought to free the slaves, then wouldn’t it seem logical that if a way to keep the slaves without war were presented to the South, that they would grasp at it before going to war?
Well, such an option was presented to the South in the form of a Constitutional Amendment known as the Corwin Amendment. The Corwin Amendment, which states, “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.” had passed both Houses of Congress and was on its way to the States for ratification when the Civil War broke out.
In fact, Abraham Lincoln himself spoke of this amendment in his Inaugural Address, “I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service … holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”
So if Lincoln was acting as Commander in Chief of the Union Army, and the Civil War was, as the prosecution argues, fought to free the slaves, why would Lincoln be found supporting a Constitutional Amendment which would have made slavery permanent across the United States? It simply does not make any sense.
In fact, in that same Inaugural Address where Lincoln is found to support an amendment making slavery permanent, he also is found declaring, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” Although Lincoln would later break his own promise when he issued his Emancipation Proclamation, this clearly proves that at the onset of the Civil War there was no clear proof that the North was fighting to free a single slave.
I suppose to settle this once and for all it is best we go directly to the words of the man responsible for the Civil War; the man who raised an army of 75,000 to invade the States which had peacefully seceded from the Union without ever firing a shot; Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln states, in a letter to Horace Greeley, “I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution.”
No mention of slavery there; but wait, there’s more. Lincoln then goes on to say, “If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it be freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union…”
Well, it certainly does not sound like the freeing of any slaves was Abraham Lincoln’s first priority, now does it? Therefore, if the North was not engaged in a war to free the slaves, then it stands to reason that the South was not fighting a war to keep them. So if slavery was not the issue for which the two sides were fighting, then what was?
The war was fought by a government, led by Abraham Lincoln, which sought to impose, by force if necessary, it’s will upon States which had chosen to separate from the Union and form a nation of their own; which by the way sounds strikingly similar to what our Founders did when they issued the Declaration of Independence way back in 1776.
For years, decades actually, the Southern States had been fighting a battle in Congress over tariffs, or as we know them today, taxes. You see, back then there was no income tax as we know it now; all the revenue which funded our governments operations came from tariffs; which is basically a tax assigned to imported and exported goods. For years the Congressional Republicans had been attempting to prevent the expansion of slavery into newly admitted States, not only because slavery was a crime against mankind, but also to retain their control in Congress? Why? Well the answer is simple, so that they could continue to impose tariffs which primarily were paid by the South, but which once collected went towards infrastructure projects which benefitted their supporters in the North.
This issue of burdensome tariffs had come to a head once before in the 1830’s and that period of our nation’s history is known as the Nullification Crisis, when John C. Calhoun resigned the Vice Presidency to run for Senate to more effectively protect his State, South Carolina, from these oppressive tariffs. Is it just me, or is it beginning to sound like the reason which led many of the Southern States to leave the Union was very similar to the reasons which led our Founders to issue their own Declaration of Independence?
Quite possibly the only thing which may have prevented an earlier secession of the Southern States was the fact that, in the years preceding the election of Abraham Lincoln, the presidency had gone to Democrats who kept the Republicans and their tariffs somewhat in check. But with the election of the Republican Abraham Lincoln, the South may have finally reached the point where they felt that they had no choice other than to separate themselves from the Union rather than submit to a government which no longer represented their interests.
And isn’t that, if I am not mistaken, exactly what our Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution was all about as well; a group of sovereign citizens deciding that to live under a government which taxed them without fair and equal representation was the very definition of slaves living under a tyrant?
So, cannot it be said that the Civil War was in fact, not a war fought to free any slaves, but in fact a Second War for Independence; and that the Union Army were assuming the role the Red Coats had played in the first American Revolution? Wouldn’t it then mean that the Confederate Army was assuming the role of the Continental Army which fought for their independence from a tyrant?
It might come as a surprise to some that Virginia did not choose to secede until AFTER Abraham Lincoln sent out a request for Virginia to provide troops to quell, what Lincoln called, the rebellion in the Southern States. In fact, Lincoln had offered command of his Union Army to none other than Robert E Lee; the same Robert E Lee whose statues are being torn down as we speak.
Both Lee as an individual, and Virginia as a State felt that Lincoln was overstepping his authority as President by calling from troops to invade States which had peacefully declared that they no longer wanted to be part of a voluntary Union of States under a centralized form of government.
Had not Lincoln raised an army to invade the South there would have been no Civil War, and hence no statues erected to honor those who fought, not to keep their slaves, but for the principle of a States right to leave a voluntary Union. Therefore, those who are currently arguing that these statues and monuments be torn down are acting upon false information and outright lies about the true reason the Civil War was fought. If you argue that these statues and monuments be torn down, you may as well argue that those monuments in our nation’s capital which are dedicated to our Founding Fathers be torn down as well; after all, it is the same principle for which Robert E Lee, Jefferson Davis, Stonewall Jackson, and all the other Confederate heroes fought.
And that, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is why I also declared that those fighting to have these monuments and statues torn down are setting a very dangerous precedent. For if they can have these statues torn down, what is to stop them from going after the statues and monuments dedicated to our Founders?
If you do not know the true history of your country, or the reasons for which its wars have been fought you are susceptible to all manner of guile and manipulation. The only way one can prevent themselves from becoming pawns and tools of those seeking to erase, or revise our countries true history is by acknowledging the truth.
I have never asked that you blindly accept that what I am telling you is the truth. I have always hoped that you would go out and do the research for yourself and find out what the truth really is. Only then can you have the conviction that your beliefs are based upon the truth and that you are not being used and manipulated to further an agenda that is harmful to both your country, and your rights as freemen.
But I am fearful that the truth no longer matters to people anymore. I am fearful that people would rather go on believing lies even when the truth is overwhelming in its opposition to these lies. If that truly is the case, then as I said, I would rather take a bullet to the head than to rest my faith on a jury of my peers regarding my innocence or guilt of crimes for which my government has absolutely no authority to punish me for.
As the Sixteenth American Jurisprudence states, “No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” Yet the Sixteenth American Jurisprudence doesn’t stop there, it also declares, “Any court, government or government officer who acts in violation of, in opposition or contradiction to the foregoing, by his, or her, own actions, commits treason and invokes the self-executing Sections 3 and 4 of the 14th Amendment and vacates his, or her, office. It is the duty of every lawful American Citizen to oppose all enemies of this Nation, foreign and DOMESTIC.”
Therefore, in conclusion, can it not be said that by supporting a government which oversteps its lawful authority, and by believing lies about the history of the greatest usurpation of power by our government in our nation’s history which are clearly proven by the facts, that you are neglecting your DUTY as citizens to oppose all enemies of the principles upon which our nation was founded? Cannot it be said that those fighting to have these monuments which honor those who fought, not to keep their slaves, but for a State’s right to secede from the Union are fighting against the very principles enshrined in our Declaration of Independence?
Like I said, I do not expect to change anyone’s mind by the facts I have presented here. All I can really hope to do is ensure that you are not found blameless when the time comes to judge the people of this country for what they’ve allowed to happen. You have been presented with facts which contradict your views and beliefs; it is now up to you whether you intend to go on believing lies, or to take that first step towards freeing yourselves from the shackles of tyranny.
I now rest my case and hand the decision over to the jury of public opinion.