YANKEE LIES PERSIST TO ASSUAGE AND CLOAK THEIR GNAWING GUILT BEFORE THE WORLD

Joseph Deutsch was kind enough to send me this little opinion screed from the Washington Post. 

Here is the link to the screed, follow by my response to it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-failure-of-reconstruction-was-a-ruthless-act-of-sabotage/2019/05/06/64f72e3a-7030-11e9-8be0-ca575670e91c_story.html?fbclid=IwAR0VD-IUUdw9x2ryFjhajCxg6h5lnLJTYW7HWi4YvlV0iSYKWS_QvKyMd5w&utm_term=.d1c94c8c1757

Joseph, there are so many distortions, misrepresentations, and bald faced lies in this screed it would take a small book to refute.

I'll just point out one thing. After the war Lincoln's henchmen went about the land declaring that their and Lincoln intention for the war was to make a man love his nation more than his home and state. Their intention was to destroy the federated nature of the Constitutional compact and create a consolidated, unitary, centralized command and control government. That is why England's greatest cheerleader for the north and lincoln's biggest fan was Karl Marx, who wrote endless articles in praise of Lincoln and how he repeatedly trashed the Constitution to accomplish his goal of centralization. Lincoln's cause (as the puppet of Yankee bankers, railroad magnets, and industrialists) was buttressed by hoards of Germans who flooded into the country to don Yankee blue. Why? Because they were part of the failed revolution of 1848 in Germany to created a consolidated, centralized military and economic power in Germany.

There are innumerable books, loaded with irrefutable documentation, that witness to the intent of Lincoln and his rats to reverse and destroy the federated nature of the Constitution. A few are "The South was Right," "The Real Lincoln," and "Lincoln's Marxists."

You cannot read "The Real Lincoln" (written by an economist) without understanding the war, for the north, was about money, centralized power, and the growth of empire.

I always have at hand a few quotes, two of them contemporary to the war, one of them from an abolitionist from Massachusetts, Lysander Spooner---no lover of the south by any means. Spooner, however, was an honest man and wasn't so stupid as to be unable to recognize slavery in its most virulent, cruel, and ineradicable form: government run slavery that turns the whole nation into the plantation of the ruling class.

These and countless other things clearly expose this piece of journalistic garbage as the total fantasy of a neo-Marxist---who even takes the trouble to cite Eric Foner--an openly declared Marxist--as authoritative.

Here are the quotes:

"The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals. No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle --- but only in degree --- between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure." – Lysander Spooner (Nineteenth-Century lawyer, abolitionist, entrepreneur)

"A war of coercion was Lincoln's creation and he had to violently subvert the Constitution to carry it out. His purpose? To establish a centralized state."

Donald Livingston, prof. of philosophy, Emory University

If centralism is ultimately to prevail; if our entire system of free Institutions as established by our common ancestors is to be subverted, and an Empire is to be established in their stead; if that is to be the last scene of the great tragic drama now being enacted: then, be assured, that we of the South will be acquitted, not only in our own consciences, but in the judgment of mankind, of all responsibility for so terrible a catastrophe, and from all guilt of so great a crime against humanity.

Alexander Stephens, VP CSA

The famous journalist, H. L. Mencken, was no lover of the South--but like Spooner, he had fits of honesty--something unique to a journalist and reporter. In his brief but significant essay on Lincoln we find this quote:

"But let us not forget that it [the Gettysburg address] is oratory, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it! Put it into the cold words of everyday! The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination — “that government of the people, by the people, for the people,” should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i. e., of the people of the States? The Confederates went into battle an absolutely free people; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and vote of the rest of the country—and for nearly twenty years that vote was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely any freedom at all."

The only error in Mencken's statement is the last sentence. In my mind the limitation of 20 years of government enslavement is a gross error and miscalculation. Twenty years after the war the enslavment of the ENTIRE people of the land by the Washington ruling class was just getting started. After the first 20 years it spread like a cancer to encompass both coasts and beyond. The only abatement of its growth was merely temporary, during the administration of Grover Cleveland. But under the slimy hand of the Progressives, Roosevelt and Wilson, it exploded. Since then not only are we unable to see a cessation of the people's enslavement by the centralized government, we cannot even see any slowing or limitation of its growth and scope. Lay all this at the large feet of Lincoln and his henchmen in the party of the Radical Republicans.

Far from a ruthless act of sabotage, the resistance to the so-called "Reconstruction" was a courageous act of resistance to centralized tyranny.

Even the president of the United States, Andrew Johnson, opined the abuses of the consolidators. Consider his complaint against the radicals in the Republican party in his State of the Union, 1867. Note carefully the eerie prophetic utterance with which my quote concludes.

"The continued disorganization of the Union, to which the President has so often called the attention of Congress, is yet a subject of profound and patriotic concern. We may, however, find some relief from that anxiety in the reflection that the painful political situation, although before untried by ourselves, is not new in the experience of nations. Political science, perhaps as highly perfected in our own time and country as in any other, has not yet disclosed any means by which civil wars can be absolutely prevented. An enlightened nation, however, with a wise and beneficent constitution of free government, may diminish their frequency and mitigate their severity by directing all its proceedings in accordance with its fundamental law.

When a civil war has been brought to a close, it is manifestly the first interest and duty of the state to repair the injuries which the war has inflicted, and to secure the benefit of the lessons it teaches as fully and as speedily as possible. This duty was, upon the termination of the rebellion, promptly accepted not only by the executive department, but by the insurrectionary States themselves, and restoration in the first moment of peace was believed to be as easy and certain as it was indispensable. The expectations, however, then so reasonably and confidently entertained were disappointed by legislation from which I felt constrained by my obligations to the Constitution to withhold my assent.

It is therefore a source of profound regret that in complying with the obligation imposed upon the President by the Constitution to give to Congress from time to time information of the state of the Union I am unable to communicate any definitive adjustment satisfactory to the American people, of the questions which since the close of the rebellion have agitated the public mind. On the contrary, candor compels me to declare that at this time there is no Union as our fathers understood the term, and as they meant it to be understood by us. The Union which they established can exist only where all the States are represented in both Houses of Congress; where one State is as free as another to regulate its internal concerns according to its own will, and where the laws of the central Government, strictly confined to matters of national jurisdiction, apply with equal force to all the people of every section. That such is not the present "state of the Union" is a melancholy fact, and we must all acknowledge that the restoration of the States to their proper legal relations with the Federal Government and with one another, according to the terms of the original compact, would be the greatest temporal blessing which God, in His kindest providence, could bestow upon this nation. It becomes our imperative duty to consider whether or not it is impossible to effect this most desirable consummation. The Union and the Constitution are inseparable. As long as one is obeyed by all parties, the other will be preserved; and if one is destroyed, both must perish together. The destruction of the Constitution will be followed by other and still greater calamities. It was ordained not only to form a more perfect union between the States, but to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." Nothing but implicit obedience to its requirements in all parts of the country will accomplish these great ends. Without that obedience we can look forward only to continual outrages upon individual rights, incessant breaches of the public peace, national weakness, financial dishonor, the total loss of our prosperity, the general corruption of morals, and the final extinction of popular freedom. To save our country from evils so appalling as these, we should renew our efforts again and again."

Finally, note this quote from within what I previously quoted of Johnson's SotU: 

"The expectations, however, then so reasonably and confidently entertained were disappointed by legislation from which I felt constrained by my obligations to the Constitution to withhold my assent."

Johnson withheld the assent to the 14th amendment. (The Southern republics readily and GLADLY voted unanimously for the 13th amendment. Reconstruction was a punishment by the radical Republicans upon the states that had rejected the 14th amendment--including New York.)

The 14 was ILLEGALLY ratified by the radicals Republicans, and to this day it does not belong in the US Constitution).

Those states who rejected it (which included several union states) did so because they understood the 14th amendment would give the Centralized government a transcendent and DIRECT authority over each individual citizen of the Sovereign States (making them no longer sovereigns)---an authority that supersedes the state citizenship, basically nullifying it. 

What's more the 14th amendment gives the federal government (now metastasized into a Unitary and Consolidated one) the power to act upon that nullification at the lawless, arbitrary, will-o-the-wisp whim of those holding centralized power.

All this (and more) Johnson clearly knew was compounding the lawlessness and the tyrannical intentions of the Radical Republicans, who, at that time, possessed plenary legislative power to countermand any refusal of the Executive to sign their abusive legislation into law.

By their efforts the Constitution has been made a document of lawlessness and tyranny.