I was asked the other day why I write so much about the Civil War. I suppose that’s a fair question, but had this person read any of the articles I have written on the subject, and had they been able to think, they may have figured it out for themselves. Seeing how neither of those two conditions were met I suppose I should explain why I harp so much about the lies you have been taught regarding the period known as the Civil War, and the period immediately following it, known as the Reconstruction Era.
Typically in a war one side declares war on the other and initiates hostilities. In the case of the Civil War, which side declared war? The South issued no formal declaration of war against the North; and if you’re thinking Fort Sumter was sufficient to justify the North’s building an army to attack the South you must ask yourself, did the South exist as a separate nation or was it still part of the Union and therefore the firing upon Ft Sumter was an attack against the Union.
The reason you must answer that question will become apparent later, but before you continue reading, answer this: When South Carolina fired upon Fort Sumter was it still part of the United States or was it part of a different nation; The Confederate States of America?
Aside from Fort Sumter, did the government of the Confederacy declare war on the North? The answer is a resounding NO; they simply left the Union and hoped to exist peacefully as their neighbors.
Therefore, the next obvious question is, did the North declare war upon the South? Again, the answer is no; there was no formal declaration of war issued by Congress stating that a state of war existed between the North and South.
The war began when Lincoln raised an army to invade the South and force their adherence to the Union. In fact, Lincoln never believed they had lawfully left the Union; that they were still members of it and that they were merely in a state of rebellion against the authority of the federal government.
The South viewed the war from a different perspective. It felt that it had done the exact same thing the original 13 Colonies had done, issued declarations of secession which were similar in nature to the Declaration of Independence. If you believe in the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence then you must believe that a State, or group of States, held the right to leave a voluntary union of States if the government of that union ceased to respect their sovereignty, their rights, and sought to oppress them. If you do not believe that, then you SHOULD NOT celebrate Independence Day; July 4.
What I’m trying to get you to see is that the views people have today on the Civil War are primarily based upon the outcome of the actual conflict; not the principles which led to the war. Had our Founders lost the war to Great Britain they too might be viewed by historians in the same light as the Confederacy is now viewed. But they won, and therefore they are considered patriots and heroes. In the case of the Civil War, the Confederacy lost, and therefore they are viewed as the ‘bad guys.’ But the principle they fought for was the same principle our Founders fought for in our war for independence; the right to sever the ties which bound them to an oppressive government and to establish a system of government that would best secure their rights and prosperity.
Our Constitution was a compact between the States, ratified by the people of the States in the various ratification assemblies which gave the central government certain powers; while the States retained all other powers. If the government was created by an act of the people, and if it was given certain specific powers, then does it not make sense that should the government overstep their just authority and make a tyrannical use of their authority, that a State should retain the right to return to its former status as an independent entity with no ties to a government that seeks to oppress them?
In fact, Virginia clearly stated that, “…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.”
Where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does it say that the government that document establishes can use force to compel a State to remain in the Union? It does say that it has the authority to call forth the militia to suppress insurrections, but an insurrection is rebellion against established authority of those States that are part of the Union. Technically the Southern States were no longer a part of the Union; having issued their declarations of secession; so by what authority did Lincoln raise his army and invade another sovereign nation?
Had Lincoln not raised an army and sent it across the Potomac there would have been no war. Had Lincoln abandoned all federal holdings on Southern soil to the States and not sought to resupply them there would have been no shots fired at Ft. Sumter and there would have been no war. Can you not see this?
When our government was first created it was established to represent two distinctly different entities; the great body of the people and the sovereign entities known as the States. If you had read Madison’s notes on the constitutional convention you would have seen how extensively this point was argued; and how close it came to shutting the convention down due to the conflicting beliefs over State Sovereignty under the proposed system of government they were attempting to establish.
The very nature of the Republic our Founders did establish is that government exists to represent those who select the members that comprise it; and it is bound by written law to confine its actions to the specific purposes for which it was established.
The laws passed by our government were only supreme over the States when they were in pursuance of the specific powers granted government by the Constitution. (See Article 6, Clause 2 of the Constitution) Although there were differing beliefs, beliefs which led to the formation of the first political parties as to whether or not the Constitution should be firmly adhered to or loosely interpreted, the fact is that the man responsible for our Constitution, James Madison, once said, “With respect to the two words “general welfare,” I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
In Federalist 45 James Madison expands upon that by saying, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
To cap it all off, a Constitutional Amendment was ratified which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
I think that makes it pretty clear that the powers given our government were for specific purposes and that to exceed them was a clear violation of the trust given government by those it represented; the people and the States.
It is this belief which led a sitting Vice-President to write the following in opposition to the laws signed by the President, “…that the government created by this compact [the Constitution for the United States] was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers…” (See the Kentucky Resolutions, Thomas Jefferson)
As government was established to be a representative body, it’s will was not the determining factor in deciding what laws it could enact and what it could impose upon those it represented; the Constitution was. Furthermore, as Jefferson also stated in his Kentucky Resolutions, “…and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”
If the government was given its authority by the consent of the people, for specific powers only, then when it oversteps its authority then cannot those who created government undo what they had done and abolish government? Therefore, if the States agreed to be a part of a union that would be governed by strict rules as to what their system of government could do, and then that government turned around and enacted laws which benefitted one portion of the nation at the expense of another, would it not be within their authority to remove themselves from such a situation?
As a representative body the government held absolutely no authority to compel obedience to unjust laws or compel adherence to a Union that was harmful to the interests of the States. When Lincoln raised an army to invade the South he sought to impose governments will upon those who created government. By this act he sought to elevate government from a position of being a servant to those it represented to their master.
It is this crucial point that you must understand if you are to understand why I harp so much on the importance of the Civil War. The real outcome of the Civil War was in the reversal of roles between government and those it governed; placing the servant of the people over the people who created government in the first place.
After Lincoln was assassinated the radical Republicans of Congress sought to punish the South for the war. They did so because it was their supporters, (the early special interest groups) who were most threatened by the secession of the Southern States. Had the South been allowed to secede a huge chunk of the money flowing into the treasury would have up and dried up; money that was being spent upon projects in the North which benefitted those special interests. Therefore they sought to punish the South for threatening their livelihood.
We are taught that the Reconstruction Acts were programs designed to help rebuild the South after the war. If I could choose the biggest lie I was ever taught in school, that would be the one; for it is a whopper. The Reconstruction Acts subjugated the South, divided it into military districts; each run by a former Union General. They declared that no one loyal to the Confederate States be allowed to hold any office or position; thereby eliminating almost every single person south of the Potomac River from holding any position. They also declared that before the States could return to their former status in the Union and be represented in Congress that they must ratify the 14th Amendment.
WAIT A MINUTE!!!!
Before they could return to their former status in the Union??? But, didn’t Lincoln believe they had never LEFT the Union; that they were only in a state of insurrection? How could Congress pass any law when there wasn’t a quorum of States in session in Congress?
Why is this so important? Well, it is important because of what the 14th Amendment did. Most believe the 14th Amendment was ratified to give rights to the slaves which had been freed by the 13th Amendment. That is another huge lie we have been taught. All the 14th Amendment did is place every man, woman and child into a state of servitude to the government.
So let’s take a moment to recap what I’ve just said. After the Civil War the Congress denied the people of the South a Republican form of government, a violation of Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution. How can they said to have had a Republican form of government when those governing them were not chosen by the people and they lived under military, (martial) law?
Then we have an amendment that was forced upon them before they would be allowed to resume their status as States of the Union; even though the government they had just fought a war against claimed they had never actually left the Union.
That all seems above board and legitimate to me…(And that was sarcasm by the way)
What the 14th Amendment did was create an entirely new category of citizen; the United States citizen. Prior to that there were only citizens of the States wherein the people resided. It also placed these United States Citizens under the jurisdiction of the government of the United States.
I don’t want to go into too much detail now, but by claiming to be a citizen of the United States, rather than a citizen of the State you reside, you are accepting the fact that you are a slave whose life, property, and labor is the price of your servitude.
What I have just explained only touches upon what really happened when Lincoln declared war upon the rights of a State to leave a voluntary union, and then afterwards the unlawfully amended 14th Amendment was accepted as part and parcel of our Constitution. I could write volumes on it, and even then I would only be touching upon the subject.
But in an attempt to sum it all up, the real outcome of the Civil War is that we saw our government go from one which was subservient to the will of the people and the States to one which became superior to the will of those who established it. It also saw the people go from a state of freedom to a state of bondage to where they were ‘subjects’ under the jurisdiction of a government of unlimited authority.
And this is where they get you, you believe you are free and that you have a representative form of government as established by the Constitution of 1787 because you are allowed to pick and choose those who hold positions within that government. Yet does that government confine itself to the powers granted it? Does it respect your rights? And finally, what happens when you resist the laws it passes?
You think you are free, but so does a cow who is free to wander the range and graze; but make no mistake about it, that cow belongs to the owner of the herd and will eventually be led to the slaughterhouse. Such is your status right now because you do not realize the importance of the Civil War and what happened to your true freedom; both during and after that conflict.
If people truly understood what happened both during and after the Civil War they would be hoisting Confederate Flags and burning the flag of the United States; they would be defacing statues and images of Northern leaders and Abraham Lincoln, not praising them as heroes who fought to free the slaves. Sure, the Civil War may have led to the emancipation of privately owned slaves, but what it ended up doing is turning the U.S. into one huge plantation which now has over 300 million slaves working for their federal and corporate masters.
THAT is why I harp so much on the Civil War; to dispel the lies you have been taught and open your eyes to what really happened.
You may be a ‘free range slave’ as I have taken to calling the people, but that can change if you stop believing the lie that by your voting anything is going to change. You see, there is one crucial point those in power do not want you to know; that being that even though they are tyrants their hold on you only exists because you continue to believe the lie. The more people learn the truth, the more their power over us lessens. If enough people were to learn the truth and simply withdraw their support for our government, then maybe, just maybe we would have a chance of restoring our Republic to the one established in 1789.
But that’s a big maybe…