Thursday, June 25, 2015


The complex of historical singularities in regard to the attempted secession of the Southern states from the Union, which had been voluntarily entered upon by acts of the legislatures of the original Sovereign states with the approval of the citizens of those states, remains poorly perceived. 

Prior to the Union, there were no citizens of the Union. Each sovereign state (formerly a British colony) had a constitution describing its organic laws. Each addressed the issue of citizenship. A citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia was not a citizen of the State of Maryland. After the Union was formed, national citizenship was determined by citizenship in a state of the Union. Recognizing the possibility of friction, the constitution provided that the citizens of one state be accorded equal status with those from another state of the Union in pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.

Slaves were not citizens. Each slave was calculated as a fraction of a person for voting purposes.

Regardless of the obsession with American slavery and its alleged evil, from a historical point of view based on known records, slavery in various forms has been a very common status. Generally, it has been viewed as a low, undesirable status. However, in the Mosaic Law provision had been made for a bondman to voluntarily retain that status within the household of his master. The sign of this voluntary bondman status was a clipped ear with ring.

Involuntary slavery must be a bitter fate for most. However, for the children of such slaves a cultural accommodation to the condition of slavery probably becomes the norm. There will always be born into a slavery environment men who will rebel, as was the case of Spartacus. 

In regard to the business of slavery Jews were prominent. They developed the lucrative system of West African slaves to Caribbean sugar plantations to Rhode Island rum manufacturers to West African slaves. In time African tribal leaders, perhaps kings, accepted rum kegs as full or partial payment for a batch of luckless slaves from another tribe. Jews figured prominently as ship owners working this trade.

It was Great Britain that interdicted and forbade the West African slave trade. Religious denominations such as Quakers were prominent leaders in the fight against the slave trade. They must have found some ready allies in Pennsylvania. At any rate the slave trade after 1808 became pinched in the United States. As supplies of slaves did not meet demand, the value of a young, healthy slave went up. After making such an investment, a plantation owner, possibly in debt to a usurer for the cash, proved loathed to give up his “property.” Such famous cases as Dred Scott prove this.

Since the United States did not have an intelligent way to create money for exchange-of-goods purposes, there seemed no easy way out. I believe that if Abraham Lincoln had thought about the possibility of issuance of non-interest-bearing legal tender paper, printed by the United States Bureau of the Mint, to buy the freedom of all the slaves “owned” in the slave states, he would have done it. The freed slaves could have been given lands on United States territory, where they would become citizens of the municipal power of the United States in the District of Columbia. The United States has legal jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, U.S. Territories, forts, depots, et al.

Furthermore, an industrial revolution was visible on the horizon which could make machines available to perform most of the burden in the fields. Already, the system of “wage slavery” was competing in some areas with chattel slavery.

I believe that Abraham Lincoln might have been able to overcome both forms of slavery, if he had lived long enough. However, that is speculation.

As referenced above, chattel slavery was usually “not free” to the slave owner. Whether the owner of one slave or of many, the owner had to figure in the costs of food, clothing, room, medical/health, old age, et cetera, to arrive at a profit or loss for operation of his enterprise. The unexpected loss of a slave by death might prove costly. I doubt if there were any insurance policies protecting the slave-owner from loss. He had to “eat it.” For many there might well be a debt obligation to a lender-at-usury.

This is not intended to paint a pretty picture but a likely typical one.
Where money is concerned, crime will find a way. 

I would expect that, as the value of healthy slaves increased, “slave rustling” would occur. I don’t think that kindness would be a first consideration. Today, there are “people smugglers” working the Latino border areas, but others operate on bi-coastal fronts. From news reports, the smuggled people experience much danger, including danger from their smugglers.

During the Ante-Bellum period in the South, “slave rustlers” got their “product” for free (more or less) and could sell them to unscrupulous slave owners, perhaps some distance away, at a lower price, which could still yield a good profit for the rustlers.  As for the contraband slaves, they might well be in peril and would certainly abide in a more brutish environment.

Since Abraham Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation ending slavery more than a year before the Confederate States surrendered, when the South’s surrender came, the slaves were suddenly in a state of freedom in a decimated country. Scarcity ruled. Quite soon the federal government became aware of an awkward situation: the freed slaves were not citizens of any states.
The solution to this awkward situation was to extend federal citizenship to the slaves. The seat of government of the United States was lawfully entered in the U. S. Constitution as the District of Columbia. Here, the municipal power of the U.S. Congress was executed. 

In the Insular Law Cases the Supreme Court decided that the “United States” was a trinity. One of these “United States” was entirely involved with the municipal power of Congress over the District of Columbia and federal territories. The Supreme Court separately decided that the U. S. Constitution did not constrain the “United States” when it acted on strictly municipal matters. Congress has sole legislative power in its domestic domain of the District of Columbia and federal territories.

Therefore, the solution to the issue of the slaves not being citizens of any state of the Union was to make them citizens of the “United States” – meaning the District of Columbia, federal territories, et al. These are sometimes referenced as “the several states of the United States,” including Guam, American Samoa, etc. Since the 14th Amendment provided for U.S. citizens to receive equality of treatment before the law, the former slaves were assured of receiving legal protection according to the constitution. However, de jure did not mean de facto.

Strictly speaking, Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation constituted a government “taking.” Hence, compensation was arguably owed to former slave-owners. The federal government apparently intended to argue that the property right in a slave never existed and was void. Using the constitution as a guide, the argument in favor of compensation for the freed slaves appeared to be the stronger argument.

This is where a rational money-creation system would have guided Abraham Lincoln to settle all claims with legal tender paper money. Further, the devastated South could have used the sudden influx of liquidity in their exchanges.

One of the most peculiar aspects of the Civil War was that the North, especially the Republican forces, argued that the Southern states could not secede from the Union, which they held to be an inescapable whole. In effect the North argued that divorce may be admissible between husband and wife, or between business partners, but not between the Union and a state, or the Union and a group of states. Northern states and the Southern states were wedded ‘til death do them part, according to this line of thought.
As history indicated, the South decided upon divorce from the Union anyway, and, as it was not mutually agreed upon, the nuptial bed had to be forced upon an unwilling mate. The war to restore the marriage soon began. The North was bigger and more brutal. In time the North beat the mate into submission. The marriage terms were accepted by the South. 

After a period of military occupation, the Southern states were allowed to “re-enter” the Union. They had to ratify the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments for this privilege. This they all did.

It is virtually doctrinal in law that acts done under coercion are void of force. For this reason alone the “ratified” 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments by the Southern states were arguably void acts.

Parenthetically, I have seen it asserted that Thurgood Marshall, while lecturing law students, said that the old constitutionally ordained United States died with the 14th Amendment ratification. If this was true, then the Republicans executed a crypto-constitutional convention to change fundamentally the organic law of the land. One can only wonder about what grim hand conducted this Penny Opera.

Yet, the requirement that the Southern states ratify these amendments as a condition of admittance to the Union - on a fully equal status with the other states – appears to be totally at odds with the earlier argument made by the North that the South could not legally secede from the Union. The logic of the earlier Northern argument was that the Southern states were indissolvably part of the Union. If they were part of the Union at all times during the Civil War, then they could not be constitutionally compelled to ratify any amendment brought before the state legislature at the end of the war. As with any amendment, the state legislature would consider the provisions and ratify it or not ratify it.

Further, the breaking away of West Virginia from Virginia, of which it was a part, was unlawful according to the U.S. Constitution. The fact that the North accepted the rogue portion of western Virginia as a ratified member of the Union indicated the facile wielding of power during the Lincoln Administration.

Had Abraham Lincoln directed that the government in “west Virginia” be recognized as the lawful government of the Commonwealth of Virginia, then he would have established a credible plan. After all, the North was basically asserting that a criminal coup d’état had occurred in the seceding Southern states, and the federal government was merely trying to remove the criminals in high places and restore the government to the people of the South. 
Needless to say, the Southerners were more unified on the secession movement than Northern strategists realized. 

If one accepted the Southern argument that they freely entered the Union, ceding certain stated powers to the central government, and, upon due consideration and lawful legislation, rescinded the cessions and dissolved all former connections, and, thus, were free to exit the Union, then each state that severed its relations with the Union was free to take its place among the nations of the world as a sovereign state. As sovereign states, they were also free to form new Unions with other states.

Due to irreconcilable differences, marriage may end between man and woman. The decision to marry again by one of the parties may benefit from the understanding of errors made in the previous marriage. So it may be with nations. The South entered into a mixed marriage with the northern states; wiser, Southern states sought to marry with their own kind by secession and then Union.

For approximately four years the Confederate States of America functioned as the union of all the Southern states. It included a well-considered representative government. If the State of Israel can be described as a “democracy,” then so was the Confederate States of America. It was led by a president. It was enthusiastically supported by its citizens.

Great Britain and France granted the CSA “belligerent status,” although no foreign nation extended it diplomatic recognition. It might be added that recognition of the CSA would probably be considered an act of war by Abraham Lincoln and his Republican Administration and supporters. 

The CSA vanished from the Earth in 1865, almost in a puff of smoke. 

Still, it has retained persistent support from segments of the people of the Southern states even into contemporary times in America.
This segment of Southern people have experienced increasing pressure in contemporary America. The most powerful pressure has been exerted by American globalists who were and are committed enemies of nationalism, whether Southern or American. Being basically a pan-plutocratic oligarchy, it controls money creation, international business, major media, the academic-intellectual-creative complex, and the war industry. Where they point their finger, the media outlets attack.

African Americans have spread out of the South to all parts of the Union. There has been a persistent theme of discrimination and “social” injustice wherever African Americans have gone and dwelled in large numbers. Although no American black since the defeat of the Confederate States of America has been a legal slave, and no contemporary black person has had any personal experience with slavery in the South, the issue of slavery in the South never seems too far from the minds of African Americans.

Although African American individuals have excelled in many different fields - and some have become billionaires, the focus of the vast majority of black people remains “prejudice” and “discrimination.”

African Americans have seen Latinos come into the U.S.A. and work their way up. In the Washington, D.C. area there are Latino restaurants everywhere. Major food chains feature Latino food. McDonald’s could reasonably decide to change its name to Senior McDonald’s on the basis of employees. Latinos have been hired by numerous construction companies and landscaping companies. Yet, rather than train young African Americans already here in America, many American companies chose to hire Latinos, who came to this country overwhelmingly uneducated and unfamiliar with American English. Why have so many black people been left behind?

There is reason to suppose that many African Americans suspect that white people have somehow managed to keep many of them down, while talking endlessly of diversity. There is reason to suppose that African Americans believe that they have been owed for a long time a special debt founded on slavery. This debt was evilly paid by drugs targeting African Americans, rather than positive economic investment.

In the frustrated eyes of black people, the sight of the Confederate flag makes them see red. It lives as a symbol of the promise denied them: That they would cross over into the Promised Land. For many it seems to mock their progress. Nevertheless, African Americans are a resilient people. 

In regard to the display of the Confederate Battle Flag in states, I defer to the will of the people of the state. I have heard that many people who display this flag “hate black people.” Some, no doubt, do. But, likewise, at least as large a number of African Americans hate white people and express that hatred violently. This is true, although the major media rarely touches on this point.

To recall the words of Rodney King, “Can’t we all just get along?”

The white southerners who support “what the Confederate flag stood for,” and the urban un/under-employed blacks who demand “justice now!” could almost be parallel categories. Both groups are ruled by glib politicians who tend to follow the advice of big money operating behind lobbying fronts.

African Americans will never advance by concentrating on removing Confederate Battle Flags. That doesn’t bother big money’s agenda. If black people broke the piñata where in big money dwells, then they might finally get the “social repair” that has eluded them, but they’d find the politicians adamantly opposed to them. Economic progress goes through stages that require organized force against shifty gates.

President Jefferson Davis observed the Confederate States of America just “dissolve” before him. In the words of Father Abram Joseph Ryan in “The Conquered Banner”: “…Furl it, fold it, let it rest,…” It is at best a fond memory for some – an escape from undesirable occurrences of today. 

The Confederate Battle Flag doesn't stand for "slavery." It is the war emblem for a wannabe nation born in a state of war and deceased in the same state of war. It died before anyone could accurately state what it might become. Yet, those four years of increasing holocaust humbled, shaped and tempered the survivors. Like the phoenix, the burnt South was reborn under occupation. The past lives on in the present, the present lives on in the future. Only hate dare interfere. 

As such, I propose that America allow citizens the right of dual citizenship in the U.S.A. and in the C.S.A. The Confederate States of America is an abstraction, or virtual, nation. It will never seek membership in the United Nations. However, if Jews can have dual citizenship in the U.S.A. and in Israel, based on ancestry, and if American Sephardic Jews can have dual citizenship in their present country and in Spain, due to ancestry, then why can’t U.S.A. citizens also have dual citizenship in America and in a virtual country of their ancestral past? 

People who hate Jews hate their symbols, their Israeli state, and their flag. People who hate Confederates hate their symbols, Dixie, music, and flag. 

People? Can’t we just get along?

Tuesday, June 23, 2015


Recently, a tragedy in a Charleston, South Carolina church involving the wanton slaughter of a group of Bible-studying Christians by a cowardly individual who believed himself a kind of revolutionary captured the nation’s attention. The shooter was a young white male, and his victims were African Americans.

Not since Charles Manson has America been treated to such a bizarre scheme to effect a revolution – or resurrect one. 

While some of his concerns may have had some validity, such as the disproportionate violence which has been visited upon white people, how in the world could he imagine that killing a large number of good people would ignite a revolutionary spark? Since the gathering at the church involved unarmed Christians bent on gaining a better understanding of Scripture, how could he suppose that their butchering by a gunman would favorably impress and motivate others who shared to some degree his unhappiness about the “state of the South?” Did such delusional thinking issue from too many encounters with drugs and alcohol? 

The shooter was arrested and will stand trial.

After the lamentations, the members of that church’s congregation forgave the shooter, leaving to God both his judgment and just punishment.

After the lamentations and forgiveness, an anger arose among many African Americans. In seeking an answer to “Why?” many African Americans recalled images of the shooter with some version of the old Confederate flag, and they saw the same flag flying on government property, or as part of a state flag, or included in some way – whether statue, pillar, frieze or other. A connection was drawn. Because African Americans saw the old Confederate flag as the emblem of a system of oppression that victimized black people for hundreds of years, they were inclined to view its influence as predictably evil and anti-African American.

Specifically African American organizations took the lead in demanding that the flag they despised be removed from governmental institutions, property and insignias. After the recent Charleston SC carnage, they were joined by white politicians, prelates, professionals, media personalities and ordinary people in support of the removal of the old Confederate flag from all governmental facilities, forms and figures.

The people involved in this movement spoke of getting rid of “hate” and allowing only positive expressions. “Take the red rag down!” shouted organizers before the South Carolina legislature. The term “red rag” was especially strong in its connotation of something filthy and disgusting. For this reason the marchers immediately compromised the politicians call for “positive” images. Hence, they had to reach to Ronnie Reagan and the Berlin Wall to uplift the gathered as well as the public at large.

At this point wise heads became alerted to the fact that the terrible slaughter might be transformed by ideologues into a political drama meant to set a few clandestine silos for launching new policies later. Opportunists rarely miss opportunities.

For example, the governors of Virginia and Maryland promptly joined the “flag-burning” party. However, if the Confederate flag was to be despised as a “hate” symbol and as “racist,” due to its association with the seceded southern States’ confederacy, which legalized slavery, then why not also attack the U. S. Constitution for America which also legalized slavery? Watch for politicians that front the New World Order crowd to suggest that perhaps it was time to construct a new constitution for America that would better prepare Americans for the problems – and promises – of the coming Century – and beyond. As such people are global government proponents, they would certainly want a new constitution that would more easily allow them to forge a union with the leading states of the globe.