-------- Original Message --------
| Subject: | the inescapable past |
|---|---|
| Date: | Wed, 13 Apr 2011 10:44:37 -0400 |
| From: | Bazz Childress <basilchildress@insightbb.com> |
| To: | undisclosed-recipients:; |
So why after all these years are we still arguing about 150 year old events?...must listen>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#42562618
and especially in the context of what's happening in the political and financial worlds today......Why is the need to keep the Southern voice quelled with the label of slavery et al so necessary?
It's really very simple - those who from the beginning and down to this very hour know that centering power, particularly financial power in Washington DC in the federal government (aka the federal supremecists) required and requires being dishonest about the issue of American slavery thereby branding the Jeffersonian republic of republics (state power supremacy) as evil......just listen to Rachel through the above link that devoted statist. and of course as her quest expounds it all comes down to racial hatred. We have a Confederate mindset shot through the whole country according to Rachel's quest.
Rather than slavery and race It's always been about money although all wars are about power and money which is to say the same thing..but they are not just about those two? things.
Nevertheless as Rachel says Confederate themes are back in vogue....not really Confederate but original America before 1865...the South just uniquely defended the principles of that original voluntary union....so they now apply the same denigration against the whole of the country as the guest says "and it's not just the South anymore? The ideas of Thomas Jefferson (state power supremacy) founded nullification and secession and they came about due to his fight with Alexander Hamilton over the constitutionality of the 1st United States central bank. Of course to advance her theme Rachel identifies nullification with Calhoun and his supposed love affair with slavery rather than as a man who loved the Jeffersonian republic of the founding over all else. That fight with permutations ended up with South Carolina's secession in December 1860...aided in no small measure by the Daniel Websters of the world who began to attach the issue to tariff and bank issue antagonisms beginning roughly 1830 (google the Haynes Webster debate)
The north then and as Rachel shows still today is willing to hide the massive robberies and a war of conquest - that to this very moment has money flowing into federal coffers for the benefit of the politically well connected who can use federal power to assure that flow is uninterrupted (think bank bailouts of 2008).......maintaining and enhancing that flow and control is exactly why Lincoln chose to go to war.....slavery and race is the veil behind which the thievery is maintained and conducted. and that party line view that it all was over slavery motivated by racial hatreds which is the conflation of French class and German racialist politics that control our vision and keep us in the federal prison in other words the foundation of that federal supremacy.....which is why Rachel's view is pounded over and over.... if we could ever learn a different story...where the South is seen to have been right....and the country at least according to Rachel and her quest is dangerously close to landing on such a dangerous and contemptible conclusion......federal power loses its control and legitimacy....and Lord knows to prevent that unprogressive result we can distort insult lie, whatever it takes to keep an all powerful Washington........
The party line interpretation
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/abe_ticking_clock_9MzasjVWWUzaus1YOlrdkK?sms_ss=email&at_xt=4da4c4b25e4b51b6%2C0
The newly minted Confederacy was only worried about preserving slavery and the stiffly ranked society that slavery created -- but in Lincoln's mind the issue was even larger: Secession was anarchy -- and no friend to democracy.
The national religion is being questioned.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo206.htmlBoth Lincoln and Congress announced publicly that their purpose was not to disturb slavery but to "save the union," a union that they actually destroyed philosophically by destroying its voluntary nature, as established by the founders. All states, North and South, became wards or appendages of the central government in the post-1865 era.
What Lincoln did say very clearly about war in his first inaugural address was that it was his duty "to collect the duties and imposts," but "beyond that there will no be any invasion of any state . . ." That is, if Southern secession made it impossible for Washington, D.C. to "collect the duties and imposts" (i.e., tariffs on imports, which had just been more than doubled two days earlier), then there will be an invasion. He followed through with this threat, and that is why there was a war that ended up killing 670,000 Americans, including some 50,000 Southern civilians, while maiming for life more than a million.
Secession does not necessitate war; nor was war necessary to end slavery. The rest of the world (including all of the Northern states ended slavery peacefully in the nineteenth century, as James Powell documents and describes in his outstanding book, Greatest Emancipations: How the West Ended Slavery.
Some numbers....of course today post 1865 the whole country is paying tribute to its masters whose armies sealed our fate on the battlefields of the 1860s... and where did all that money come from?....flowing into New England pockets....slave produced cash export crops.
South Paid Disproportionate Share Of Pre-1860 Budget
"Socialism of any type leads to a total destruction of the human spirit."
--Russian dissident and novelist Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008)
==================================================================
"Before the revolution [the South] was the seat of wealth, as well as hospitality....Wealth has fled from the South, and settled in regions north of the Potomac: and this in the face of the fact, that the South, in four staples alone, has exported produce, since the Revolution, to the value of eight hundred millions of dollars; and the North has exported comparatively nothing. Such an export would indicate unparalleled wealth, but what is the fact? ... Under Federal legislation, the exports of the South have been the basis of the Federal revenue.....Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia, may be said to defray three-fourths of the annual expense of supporting the Federal Government; and of this great sum, annually furnished by them, nothing or next to nothing is returned to them, in the shape of Government expenditures. That expenditure flows in an opposite direction - it flows northwardly, in one uniform, uninterrupted, and perennial stream. This is the reason why wealth disappears from the South and rises up in the North. Federal legislation does all this."
Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton, 1828; cited at page 49 of The South Was Right!, by James Ronald Kennedy & Walter Donald Kennedy
====================================
South Carolina Governor Robert Barnwell Rhett had estimated that of the $927,000,000 collected in duties between 1791 and 1845, the South had paid $711,200,000, and the North $216,000,000. South Carolina Senator James Hammond had declared that the South paid about $50,000,000 and the North perhaps $20,000,000 of the $70,000,000 raised annually by duties. In expenditure of the national revenues, Hammond thought the North got about $50,000,000 a year, and the South only $20,000,000.
When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Succession by Charles Adams
===================================
As Adams notes, the South paid an undue proportion of federal revenues derived from tariffs, and these were expended by the federal government more in the North than the South: in 1840, the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. They paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports. The South, in effect, was paying tribute to the North.
Edward Harding and Raymond Settle
--Russian dissident and novelist Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008)
==================================================================
"Before the revolution [the South] was the seat of wealth, as well as hospitality....Wealth has fled from the South, and settled in regions north of the Potomac: and this in the face of the fact, that the South, in four staples alone, has exported produce, since the Revolution, to the value of eight hundred millions of dollars; and the North has exported comparatively nothing. Such an export would indicate unparalleled wealth, but what is the fact? ... Under Federal legislation, the exports of the South have been the basis of the Federal revenue.....Virginia, the two Carolinas, and Georgia, may be said to defray three-fourths of the annual expense of supporting the Federal Government; and of this great sum, annually furnished by them, nothing or next to nothing is returned to them, in the shape of Government expenditures. That expenditure flows in an opposite direction - it flows northwardly, in one uniform, uninterrupted, and perennial stream. This is the reason why wealth disappears from the South and rises up in the North. Federal legislation does all this."
Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton, 1828; cited at page 49 of The South Was Right!, by James Ronald Kennedy & Walter Donald Kennedy
====================================
South Carolina Governor Robert Barnwell Rhett had estimated that of the $927,000,000 collected in duties between 1791 and 1845, the South had paid $711,200,000, and the North $216,000,000. South Carolina Senator James Hammond had declared that the South paid about $50,000,000 and the North perhaps $20,000,000 of the $70,000,000 raised annually by duties. In expenditure of the national revenues, Hammond thought the North got about $50,000,000 a year, and the South only $20,000,000.
When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Succession by Charles Adams
===================================
As Adams notes, the South paid an undue proportion of federal revenues derived from tariffs, and these were expended by the federal government more in the North than the South: in 1840, the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. They paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports. The South, in effect, was paying tribute to the North.
Edward Harding and Raymond Settle
No comments:
Post a Comment