by Diane Rufino, September 17, 2018
by Diane Rufino, September 17, 2018
by Diane Rufino, September 16, 2018
In 1791, Thomas Jefferson wrote an opinion on the constitutionality of a National Bank. It is an important commentary on the meaning and intent of the US Constitution, in particular the two general clauses – the General Welfare Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.
President George Washington’s Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton proposed the creation of a national bank. He advised that a national bank would “give great facility or convenience in the collection of taxes” and would facilitate the government’s assumption of the states’ Revolutionary War debts, thus serving the taxing power of the federal government. Not sure if such a bank was a constitutional exercise of government legislative power, Washington asked Hamilton and Jefferson, his Secretary of State, to articulate their positions.
And so, on Feb. 15, 1791, Jefferson submitted an opinion to Washington against the creation of a National Bank, explaining that it was not authorized by any specific delegation of power nor was it contemplated by any of the general clauses. In specific, he articulated that the “Necessary & Proper” Clause meant that Congress could take action only when it was necessary (and proper) to bring into effect any of the specifically enumerated powers; that is, without those means without which the grant of power would be meaningless. The clause did not mean Congress could pursue action that was merely convenient or helpful.” Jefferson said that all the functions of which Hamilton was concerned – the collection of taxes, the paying of war debt, etc – could all be carried into execution without a bank. Therefore, as a constitutional matter, he concluded that a bank was not necessary, and consequently not authorized by the “Necessary & Proper” phrase.
Hamilton’s opinion was different. He argued that the Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, created a legislature not only of specific powers but of implied powers as well.
In the end, the House and then the Senate approved a bill establishing a charter for the first National Bank, and President Washington, siding with Hamilton, signed it. The first Bank of the United States was built in Philadelphia.
Chef Justice John Marshall, the man credited with transforming the role of the Supreme Court, later chose to ignore Jefferson’s opinion and commentary when the constitutionality of the national bank came before the Court in 1819 – in McCulloch v. Maryland. His opinion in that case echoed Hamilton’s view that the federal government is indeed one of express AND implied powers, an issue that was DIRECTLY addressed and dismissed at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and again when states expressed concern in their ratifying conventions.
While this Opinion by Thomas Jefferson shows us how our federal judiciary willingly chooses to ignore four country’s most important and most credible authority on the meaning and intent of the Constitution when it is faced with the chance to assign greater power to the federal government, there is another reason why this opinion is important: It explains the intended checks and balances on the federal legislature, both horizontal and vertical. The Supreme Court would later find the most important check to be unconstitutional. Imagine that.
At the end of his Opinion, Jefferson writes:
“The negative of the President is the shield provided by the Constitution to protect against the invasions of the legislature: 1. The right of the Executive. 2. Of the Judiciary. 3. Of the States and State legislatures. The present is the case of a right remaining exclusively with the States, and consequently one of those intended by the Constitution to be placed under its protection.”
In other words, the rightful checks on the lawmaking power of the US Congress include:
(1) The President (he can veto or refuse to sign the bill into law; or he can, by Executive Order, explain that certain provisions are unenforceable because they exceed authority)
(2) The courts (the federal courts can strike down a law as “unconstitutional”)
(3) The States and State legislatures (The States can separately find a federal law to be unconstitutional, per their understanding of the Constitution and per their reserved powers under the Tenth Amendment)
Number (3) above is NULLIFICATION and includes INTERPOSITION. These are the rightful remedies reserved to each State, according to Jefferson when the federal government exceeds its delegated authority under the Constitution and specifically, when it attempts to legislate in areas reserved to the States under the Tenth Amendment. A law passed without constitutional authority is a law is a nullity; it is unenforceable. And it SHOULD be. It is up to the States, as the most important of the Checks and Balances (a vertical check) to make sure that the people, protected by the Constitution as to the lawful bounds of government, are not subject to unconstitutional laws.
Here you have it, from the earliest days of our republic, the clear and simple articulation of the right of Nullification.
Jefferson, of course, would go on to articulate it much more clearly and forcibly, in the Kentucky Resolves of 1799 (a series of resolutions he wrote secretly for the Kentucky state legislature to oppose the highly unconstitutional Alien & Sedition Acts, enacted by the administration of John Adams. In the Kentucky Resolves of 1799, Jefferson wrote:
“If those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact, by a total disregard to the special delegations of power therein contained, annihilation of the state governments, and the erection upon their ruins, of a general consolidated government, will be the inevitable consequence: That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers: That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and that a NULLIFICATION, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts done under colour of that instrument, is the rightful remedy: That this commonwealth does upon the most deliberate reconsideration declare, that the said alien and sedition laws, are in their opinion, palpable violations of the said constitution; and however cheerfully it may be disposed to surrender its opinion to a majority of its sister states in matters of ordinary or doubtful policy; yet, in momentous regulations like the present, which so vitally wound the best rights of the citizen, it would consider a silent acquiescence as highly criminal: That although this commonwealth as a party to the federal compact; will bow to the laws of the Union, yet it does at the same time declare, that it will not now, nor ever hereafter, cease to oppose in a constitutional manner, every attempt from what quarter soever offered, to violate that compact.”
Nullification is, and has always been, a rightful remedy by which each State can review the constitutionality of government acts and policy (and even federal court opinions) and if an abuse is found, to protect the citizens in their States from the tyranny that would result from their enforcement.
Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank, Avalon Project (Yale Law School). Referenced at: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-tj.asp
Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, February 15, 1791, Opinion on Bill for Establishing a National Bank, from the Works of Thomas Jefferson in Twelve Volumes, from the Library of Congress. Referenced at: https://memory.loc.gov/service/mss/mtj/mtj1/013/013_0984_0990.pdf [NOTE: The Library of Congress was formed when Thomas Jefferson donated the contents of his personal library]
The Kentucky Resolves of 1799 (The Constitution Society). Referenced at: http://www.constitution.org/cons/kent1799.htm
by Diane Rufino, Sept. 14, 2018
This is my latest meme. And I’m serious about its message.
DC politicians make me sick. They are quite literally the most wretched of human beings. They (mostly Democrats, let’s face it) refuse to act in the best interests of the country or of its citizens, but rather, act for pure political purposes only – for the benefit of their party, for the political power that its political elites will enjoy.
Why else would they make it their key political objective to impeach a president who has worked tirelessly to Make America Great Again. And it’s true, he has made America great again; he has the intuition, the insight, the political saavy, the conviction, and the dedication to enact policies to benefit the country and its people. His goal is not to redistribute American’s wealth and success to the rest of the world, but to keep and protect that wealth here. The other party cannot say the same. The president, despite the character flaws greatly exaggerated by the other side, has the decency to honor the promises he made on the campaign trail. His primary goal each day is to honor those promises to return to the people the grand notion that elected officials serve the people and that government works for them.
In what sensible universe would anyone make it their key political objective to take this honorable president out of office? The only answer that makes sense is that President Trump is pursuing policies that are so completely and directly in opposition to the agenda of the Democratic PARTY… not necessarily the people who identify as Democrats, but of the PARTY. Extrapolating from that, the only answer that makes sense is that the Democratic PARTY does not want the federal government to put America first.
The Democratic Party offers no path or vision for our country other than “impeach Trump.” In other words, the Democratic Party’s plan is to reverse the path of the Trump administration — to increase taxes, to increase burdensome regulations on businesses, to roll back the policies that have created hundreds of thousands of good jobs (jobs paying much more than minimum wage), to prostrate ourselves to world leaders and to give them support from the American taxpayer and without concern for the taxpayer, to undo trade deals and go back to exporting our wealth, to open our borders to uncontrolled illegal immigration, to flood illegals onto our entitlement programs and in our public education system….. in general, to overload our American systems so that they crash and true socialism or even worse arises out of their ashes.
The most important civic duty an American citizen has is to be informed and educated and responsible at the ballot box in order that our country has the integrity and strength for successive generations.
What is the key word in the phrase that once described our government — “government of the People, by the People, and for the People” ? — THE PEOPLE.
We can only have such a government if the political parties stop being so absolutely adversarial, if they stop being so critically opposite, and if they stop putting their power-thirsty interests and agenda above the interests of the people. We can only have a functional governance if they stop using the government as their battleground.
DC politicians and DC politics make me sick.
by Diane Rufino, September 3, 2018
On the campus of UNC-Chapel Hill stood the noble statue of “Silent Sam,” the Confederate soldier who stood vigilant watch over the campus. It stood on McCorkle place, the University’s upper quad, facing Franklin Street.
“Sam” represented those young students who had left the campus when Lincoln’s war came, and who willingly went off to do their duty for their beloved state. More than 1000 students enlisted and fought, representing at least 40% of the total number of students at the university, a record surpassed by only one other institution (North or South) – the University of Virginia. Like her home state in general, Chapel Hill gave more than her share to the defense of the South.
Sam is “silent” because he carries no ammunition and therefore cannot fire his gun.
The monument was given to the campus by the United Daughters of the Confederacy in 1909 and it was finally erected on campus in 1913. A bronze plaque in bas-relief on the front of the memorial’s base depicted a woman, representing the state of North Carolina, convincing a young student to fight for the Southern cause. The student is shown dropping his books, representing students leaving their studies. A small bronze inscription plaque on the left side of the base read: “Erected under the auspices of the North Carolina division of the United Daughters of the Confederacy aided by the alumni of the university.” And another bronze inscription plaque on the right read:
“To the Sons of the University who entered the War of 1861-65 in answer to the call of their country and whose lives taught the lesson of their great commander that Duty is the sublimest word in the English language.”
We can call him “Silent Sam” because of another reason. He speaks no particular message. He conveys no message other than to acknowledge that young men fought for North Carolina and the Confederacy. That is, the monument to the students who left Chapel Hill to fight is a memorial, just like the gravestone or headstone marking the grave of one who has passed is a memorial. It conveys no particular message other than to memorialize the person’s life and to note some particular aspect of that life. It is a historical marker. My father’s gravestone marks the date he was born and the day he passed and acknowledges that he served in the US Navy. Silent Sam, as a statue, merely recognizes the fact that approximately 1000 young men from Chapel Hill left their studies to serve their home-state in a war that was forced upon her. It is a marker, nothing more…. It says nothing about the students, as individuals, who gave up their youth and who, in great part, gave up their lives; we know nothing about their politics, whether they agreed with North Carolina’s decision to secede, or their position regarding the war. We simply know, thanks to the gentle reminder that Silent Sam provides, that Chapel Hill gave heavily to defend her state. Again, 40% of its student body left to defend her principles. That’s quite noteworthy; that’s quite a sacrifice.
Nowadays, most students know very little, if any, of history or the significance of the monument that graces – graced – its campus. After all, Silent Sam is over a hundred years old. And that’s a fatal defect in our state’s public school history curriculum and in the liberal teachings at our universities. In most cases, the only history that people of North Carolina will ever learn is what they are taught by often under-educated teachers in middle school or in high school. That’s it. Many students at Chapel Hill view Silent Sam merely as a really cool statue and as just another place to sit on a warm spring afternoon.
But now there are groups (a very insignificant minority, but loud, obnoxious, violent ones) who all of a sudden construe Silent Sam as a monument representing regional pride and therefore a symbol of ongoing racial oppression. They impute speech to where no speech is spoken. They impute a message where none is expressed. Again, Silent Sam is merely a historical marker. For more than one hundred years, students and other individuals have been able to walk by the statute without feeling oppressed or triggered, but now, all of a sudden, in 2018, an era reaping the fruits of desegregation and full civil rights to African-Americans (to be fair, they are actually given heightened protection of their rights; instead of “Equal Protection,” they are given “Special Protection”), groups wish to rehash the past and dwell on an era long gone. It is an era that you would think most people would love to finally put behind them.
And so, on Monday, August 20, Silent Sam was attacked, vandalized, desecrated, maliciously destroyed, and toppled to the ground. The bronze statue of the young soldier came crashing down, being pulled down from his post by a howling mob of masked and unmasked protesters, after his pedestal was covered in red paint. There were approximately 250 protesters at the scene, joining UNC-Chapel Hill professor Dwayne Dixon, the de facto leader of the protest and assault on Silent Sam. Dixon is the current cultural anthropology professor at Chapel Hill. Video footage from CNN affiliate WRAL-TV shows protesters putting up poles and banners around the statue during daylight, and then when nightfall came, the statue was tumbled and students were seen cheering. Protesters could also be seen kicking Silent Sam’s head and putting dirt all over the statue. Campus police took orders (from who?) to stand down and allowed protesters to topple the statue without resistance.
So far, three people have been arrested for the literal act of tearing down Silent Sam. Jonathan Fitzgerald Fuller, Lauren Aucoin, and Raul Arce Jimenez have been charged with misdemeanor rioting and misdemeanor defacing a public monument. Seven more activists were arrested several days later, on that following Saturday, when a follow-up protest turned violent, with left-wingers unsuccessfully charging a campus building, assaulting people, and trying to light fire to a Confederate flag. Professor Dixon has not been fired by the university, but he is being investigated and his network of criminal collaborators apparently is unraveling.
According to Big League Politics, the leaders of the protest that resulted in the toppling of Silent Sam are members of Antifa. These same individuals helped organize the fatal Antifa “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017. A woman needlessly lost her life at that rally when a protester ran his car into a crowd of people. Big League Politics reported that it obtained information on the suspects which it turned over to Chapel Hill police officers. The evidence, they say, exposes a close-knit sect of left-wing agitators mostly based in Durham, who have links to several high-profile activists, including Chelsea Manning (the trans-woman, born as Bradley Edward Manning and served in the US army where he/she leaked sensitive military information in violation of the Espionage Act, for which he/she was court-martialed and imprisoned for). This network of left-wing agitators operates in part out of the Elevate MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) gym, located in Durham, where they apparently practice combat techniques.
The attack on and then the toppling of Silent Sam sparked outrage from the university’s leaders, from alumni, and from our state legislature, and perhaps most passionately of all from the great many people who love North Carolina, appreciate her history and decision to oppose Lincoln, and who are deeply and horribly offended by the destruction and desecration of her monuments. UNC system president Margaret Spellings and UNC Board of Governors chairman Harry Smith issued a joint statement, which read:
“Campus leadership is in collaboration with campus police, who are pulling together a timeline of the events, reviewing video evidence, and conducting interviews that will inform a full criminal investigation. The safety and security of our students, faculty, and staff are paramount. And the actions last evening were unacceptable, dangerous, and incomprehensible. We are a nation of laws—and mob rule and the intentional destruction of public property will not be tolerated.”
Speaker of the NC House, Tim Moore, issued a more powerful statement:
“There is no place for the destruction of property on our college campuses or in any North Carolina community; the perpetrators should be arrested and prosecuted by public safety officials to make clear that mob rule and acts of violence will not be tolerated in our state.”
Let’s look at the lunacy that surrounds this malicious desecration of Silent Sam.
As I mentioned above, the statue of Silent Sam is a marker, a historic marker, essentially no different from a grave marker, or from the World War II Memorial in Washington DC, which is dedicated to those Americans who served in the armed forces and who served the war effort as civilians. It recognizes the sacrifice made by Chapel Hill, which should be acknowledged and should be remembered. Sports achievements and sports figures and coaches are memorialized so why shouldn’t the students who made the ultimate sacrifice be memorialized?
Ignoring the neutrality of the monument, the protesters on August 20, fixated instead on a comment spoken at the dedication ceremony of Silent Sam on June 2, 1913, by alumnus and highly-successful industrialist Julian Carr. Those words were highly-controversial and extraordinarily racially insensitive.
Carr began his speech with profound appreciation for the students who left the university for the war effort:
There are no words that I have been able to find in the vocabulary of the English language that fittingly express my feelings in this presence of this occasion. But you know and I know, that though I might speak with the tongue of men and of angels, neither song nor story could fittingly honor this glorious event. The whole Southland is sanctified by the precious blood of the student Confederate soldier. Their sublime courage has thrown upon the sky of Dixie a picture so bright and beautiful that neither defeat, nor disaster, nor oppression, nor smoke, nor fire, nor devastation, nor desolation, dire and calamitous, and I might with truth add, the world, the flesh nor the Devil has been able to mar or blemish it. The tragedy of history fails to record anywhere upon its sublime pages anything comparable to it. All the time will be the millennium of their glory.
The canopy of the South is studded with stars which shall grow brighter and brighter as the ages in their endless procession succeed each other.
No nobler young men ever lived; no braver soldiers ever answered the bugle call nor marched under a battle flag.
They fought, not for conquest, not for coercion, but from a high and holy sense of duty. They were like the Knights of the Holy Grail, they served for the reward of serving, they suffered for the reward of suffering, they endured for the reward of enduring, they fought for the reward of duty done. They served, they suffered, they endured, they fought, [and died – crossed out] for their childhood homes, their firesides, the honor of their ancestors, their loved ones, their own native land.
This noble gift of the United Daughters of the Confederacy touches deeply and tenderly the heart of every man who has the privilege of claiming the University of North Carolina as his Alma Mater. It is in harmony with the eternal fitness of things that the Old North State’s daughters of to-day should commemorate the heroism of the men and youths whom the mothers and sisters, the wives and sweethearts of half a century ago sent forth to battle for the South. As Niobe wept over her sons slain by Apollo, so the tears of our women were shed over the consummate sacrifice of their loved ones. And as the gods transformed Niobe into a marble statue, and set this upon a high mountain, as our native goddesses erect this monument of bronze to honor the valor of all those whom fought and died for the Sacred Cause, as well as for the living sons of this grand old University.
Next, Carr gave praise to the women of the South, the noble wives and mothers:
The war between the states was fought, really, by the women who stayed at home. Had they uttered a cry, had they complained, the morale of Lee’s army would have been dissipated in a day…..
God bless the noble women of my dear Southland, who are to-day as thoroughly convinced of the justice of that cause. They are the guardians of the sacred honor the departed; they will protect the memory of the hero’s spirit no less than preserve from desecration from the sand of his body. Nothing in all the marvelous record can equal the fortitude, the constancy, the devotion of the women of the South……”
Being an alumnus of Chapel Hill, and one of those young men who enlisted and fought for the Confederacy, he reminded the audience of the enormous sacrifice born by his university:
Of the students and alumni of the University of North Carolina, about 1800 entered the Confederate army, of whom 842 belonged to the generation of 1850-1862. The University had in the service 1 lieutenant-general, 4 major-generals, 13 brigadier-generals, 71 colonels, 30 lieutenant-colonels, 65 majors, 46 adjutants, 71 surgeons, 254 captains, 161 lieutenants, 38 non-commissioned officers and about 1000 privates.
I regard it as eminently appropriate to refer briefly at his point to the magnificent showing made by our state in the military service of the Confederacy. North Carolina furnished 84 regiments, 16 battalions and 13 unattached companies, besides the companies and individuals serving in commands from other states, and 9 regiments of Home Guards. Losses on the battlefield and by disease indicate that her contribution to the Confederate army was somewhat more than 1 to 5, while here military population stood in the proportion of 1 to 9. The entire Confederate loss on the battlefield was 74,524, of which North Carolina’s share was 19,673, or more than one-fourth; 59, 297 died of disease, and of these, 20,602 were North Carolinians.
And I dare to affirm this day, that if every State of the South had done what North Carolina did without a murmur, always faithful to its duty whatever the groans of the victims, there never would have been an Appomattox; Grant would have followed Meade and Pope; Burnside, Hooker, McDowell and McClellan, and the political geography of America would have been re-written.
And finally, he concluded by lamenting over the difference the soldiers made:
It is not for us to question the decrees of Providence. Let us be grateful that our struggle, keeping alive the grand principle of local self-government and State sovereignty has thus far held the American people from that consolidated despotism whose name, whether Republic or Empire, is of but little importance as compared with its rule………….
Why were the stars, in their unapproachable glory, set in the skies above us, if there is no hope? Why was the rainbow ever painted before our eyes, if there is no promise?
There must be, there IS a land that is fairer than day, where the rainbow never fades, where stars never go down, where these longings of immortality shall leap like angels from the temple of our hearts, and bring us rest; where the good and true, who fall before us like Autumn leaves, shall forever stay in our presence. There, there, fellow comrades, is the Confederate soldier’s paradise, the Confederate soldier’s heaven of eternal rest.
That for which they battled in memory of this monument is reared, as well as for the survivors of that bloody drama, was not achieved. But the cause for which they fought is not lost, never can be, never will be lost while it is enshrined in the hearts of the people of the South, especially the hearts of the dear, loyal, patriotic women, who, like so many Vestal Virgins (God’s name be praised), keep the fires lighted upon the Altars. Nay, as long as men anywhere pay tribute to the self-sacrificing spirit of a peoples’ ideal.
Ah! never shall the land forget.
Unfortunately, in his long speech, Julian Carr included this most offensive comment:
“I trust I may be pardoned for one allusion, howbeit it is rather personal. One hundred yards from where we stand, less than ninety days perhaps after my return from Appomattox, I horse-whipped a negro wench until her skirts hung in shreds, because upon the streets of this quiet village she had publicly insulted and maligned a Southern Lady, and then rushed for protection to these University buildings where was stationed a garrison of 100 Federal soldiers. I performed the pleasing duty in the immediate presence of the entire garrison, and for thirty nights afterwards slept with a double-barrel shot gun under my head.”
The protesters and the criminals who destroyed Silent Sam worked themselves into a frenzy over these few lines taken from a speech that was otherwise a wonderful and stirring testament and tribute to the young Tarheels who fought, to the university itself, and to the South in general. This racist comment was given after Carr had gone into great deal acknowledging the sacrifice that Southern women made during the war. One can excuse him for defending the honor of a Southern lady, no doubt who had lost several family members in the fighting, but certainly not in the manner he chose and certainly not in the memory he chose to remember.
Nevertheless, one can criticize the comments and even criticize the speaker, who was merely one out of several that afternoon at the ceremony. But the monument is neutral and makes no such statement.
I compare the destruction of Silent Sam to a hypothetical scenario, and that involves Korean War opponents destroying my father’s gravestone just because he fought in that war. My father’s gravestone notes his service to the country, just like the Silent Sam monument. Destroying the Silent Sam monument would be like those protesters destroying my father’s gravestone because he fought in the Korean War, a war that they disagreed with, yet without actually knowing whether, on a personal level, he himself agreed or disagreed with our country’s involvement in that war.
The mob protested at Chapel Hill because they don’t like the side that the students fought for but not knowing whether those boys agreed with or disagreed with the war. It’s not like the boys had a choice; there was a conscription law in place. Take a minute to look at the face of Silent Sam… so young. His whole life ahead of him yet Lincoln forced him into a war that should not have come and over issues he couldn’t possibly understand.
But the notion that all Southerners, all those who fought for the Confederacy, and all the individual Southern states left the Union for the express purpose of perpetuating slavery and perpetuating white supremacy is ludicrous, reckless, disingenuous, and contrary to the historical record. The movement simply wants to discredit the South, impugn its conservative leanings, and malign the memory of those who gave their last full measure. Simply put, it wants the South to be so disgraced that it has no choice but to sit quietly by as progressives erase its history and maintain its position that the South was comprised of evil white men and was an evil society and of course it was to blame for the war. Simply put, it wants to disgrace and shame the South into succumbing to liberal politics.
Real history supports the South.
The war was not about slavery and it was not about white supremacy.
Writing in December of 1861 in a London weekly publication, the famous English author, Charles Dickens, who was a strong opponent of slavery, said this about the war going on in America: “The Northern onslaught upon slavery is no more than a piece of specious humbug disguised to conceal its desire for economic control of the United States.”
Five years after the end of the War, prominent Northern abolitionist, attorney and legal scholar, Lysander Spooner commented on the disingenuous efforts of the North to re-characterize the war: “All these cries of having ‘abolished slavery,’ of having ‘saved the country,’ of having ‘preserved the Union,’ of establishing a ‘government of consent,’ and of ‘maintaining the national honor’ are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats—so transparent that they ought to deceive no one.”
A little-known fact is that President Woodrow Wilson wrote a multi-volume history series titled History of the American People. In it, he offered this explanation as to why the issue of slavery was so exaggerated during and after the war: “It was necessary to put the South at a moral disadvantage by transforming the contest from a war waged against states fighting for their independence into a war waged against states fighting for the maintenance and extension of slavery.”
Jay Schalin of the James G. Martin Center wrote, in a recent (Aug. 22) article:
“Silent Sam, the statue of a weary, stoic Confederate Army foot soldier, came crashing down Monday night, pulled down from his post at the edge of the UNC-Chapel Hill campus by a mob of protesters. But a lot more fell than a Progressive-era statue of a Confederate soldier. Another brick in the wall that separates civilization and barbarism was dislodged. Another small part of the social contract that calls on us to settle our differences through dialogue and consensus disappeared. Another thin thread in the rule of law was severed.
Even those who feel that Silent Sam was a symbol of racism—as did the mob—should be concerned about his rough treatment. Whether you believe that Sam represented white supremacy, the dignity of the common soldier, or simply the historical record of the state and campus, he now represents the defense of civil society and rule of law. And his rude descent from his perch was an assault on that civility.”
North Carolina has more than 200 Civil War memorials, statues and markers, according to Commemorative Landscapes of North Carolina, a project of the UNC-Chapel Hill Library. Most of the 54 statues and 20 memorials honor Confederates. Each of those monuments and memorials gives us an opportunity to learn about the state’s history and to have a dialogue about how that history played out. Each monument is a learning opportunity. And I suggest, strongly, that we need to take advantage of every learning opportunity because education about our state’s history is abysmal. I had one lady who told me she’s lived in the state for over 30 years and had no idea of the circumstances under which North Carolina seceded and joined the Confederacy. I had a couple just the other night whom I dined with who told me that they moved to NC 13 years ago and assumed she seceded over slavery; that’s what she was always taught. I’ve spoken with many, many people, including elderly folks, who were born in the state and lived here all their lives and they also have been misled about its history.
The victorious North has succeeded in teaching history as it wanted it to be taught. That’s what victors do, right? They have the luxury of telling their version of history – the history that exonerates their cause, and all their evil schemes and crimes, and transfers blame for the war to the vanquished. And that’s why everyone believes that the North perpetrated the war to free the slaves and to save the Union (the heroes!) while the South started the war to protect its right to own slaves and to maintain its white supremist society (the villains!). Yet nothing could be farther from the truth, as I’ll explain later.
In 2015, the NC General Assembly passed a bill protecting the state’s historic monuments and memorials (“objects of remembrance”). See Senate Bill 22 (S22, which amended NC Statues, § 100 (“Statues, Protection of Monuments, Memorials, Works of Art”). The bill outlines procedures for removing monuments deemed to commemorate “an event, person or military service that is part of North Carolina’s history” and provides that only an act of the General Assembly would permit the removal of such a monument. Several Democrats wanted the monuments to be removed or destroyed and some wanted local authorities to have the authority to decide for themselves. For example, Democratic Rep. Cecil Brockman of High Point argued that Confederate soldiers “were traitors to this country, and they don’t deserve the same respect as those who fought in other wars.”
Tell that to the families who lost their relatives to a war that Lincoln forced on the state.
In signing the bill, Governor McCrory commented: “I remain committed to ensuring that our past, present and future state monuments tell the complete story of North Carolina.” He believed this was an important and urgent goal, one that needed to be addressed in the growing climate of wonton destruction of all things confederate and the removal and maligning of the name of any person of historical significance who once owned slaves or spoke in favor of the institution of slavery.
Of course, Democratic Governor Roy Cooper wants the statues to come down and wants the bill repealed. (Maybe that’s why, when the statues were desecrated and toppled at the old Durham courthouse and now at Chapel Hill, law enforcement was instructed to stand down and allow the malicious destruction).
When it comes to the Confederacy, the Civil War, and Abraham Lincoln, the general public is in desperate need of education. And apparently, so are many members of our state General Assembly. To try to shut down discussions that our historical monuments inspire, to take them down and deny people the opportunity to learn an authentic piece of our state’s history, to misrepresent why North Carolina seceded, to condemn the entire existence and plight of the Confederacy simply because of its acceptance of slavery, and to attribute only horrible motives to the southern states in their decision to separate from the federal government is to prove one’s lack of education.
John M. Taylor, author of Union At All Costs: From Confederation to Consolidation, wrote:
“There is no mystery why lovers of big government strongly loathe the Confederacy and worship Lincoln. The Confederate soldier represents the last true defense of consensual constitutional government, and they were the last real threat to the omnipotent leviathan state. In the Confederate soldier, tyranny saw its most prominent and most dangerous enemy, and the supporters of modern-day Big Brotherism recognize that. They still fear him, and with good reason, because he strikes at them from beyond the grave. He does this through his blood, which still flows through the veins of tens of millions of his descendants.”
The consolidation of all government in Washington DC, resulting from the total subjugation of the States, will not be complete until all reminders of the Confederacy and her defense of self-government and self-determination are removed and/or destroyed and history is completely re-written and the past erased and forgotten. The progressives are using the useless idiots to help this “progress.” Useless idiots willingly drink political kool-aid. They are the ones who are most easily manipulated, the ones unable to think for themselves, the ones incapable of intellectually confronting an opposing viewpoint, the ones who see injustice and victimhood everywhere, the ones who think the most important characteristic about a person is the color of their skin, the ones who are weak of character, and the ones who have no clue whatsoever what free speech really means. And so they resort to thug-like tactics, screaming, threats, foul and otherwise offensive language, wonton destruction, looting, and public disturbances.
Again, for over a hundred years, monuments and memorials had nothing to fear from people. People used to be mature. People knew that when it came to the Civil War and that era, there are two sides of the story.
Society has certain “progressed,” wouldn’t you say?
I took this pic of the monument at the Pitt County courthouse dedicated to her Confederate soldiers who died fighting in Lincoln’s war of aggression. “Theirs was not to make reply or to reason why, but only to do and die.” Let that sink in. For those who, through sheer ignorance and disrespect, destroy and otherwise mark up and ruin confederate statues, they need to be forced to learn the true history of the inappropriately-termed “civil war.” For those who don’t know, a “civil war” refers to a war between groups in the same country who are fighting over control of the common government. By this very definition, the war between the states cannot technically or truthfully be called the “Civil War.” First of all, the South seceded and legally formed a separate country, and secondly, it wanted nothing to do with the federal government. In fact, in the states’ individual ordinances of secession, they made it clear that the government had become their enemy, had encouraged and instigated violence against them, had sought to put the interests of the North far above theirs, and had intentionally and discriminately used the sole revenue option (tariffs, duties and posts) as a means to plunder their wealth, and consequently, they wanted to break all bonds with the government of the United States.
It was not a civil war, therefore, but technically, a war of aggression. The North sought to militarily and violently, force the southern states back into the Union. In 1865, at Appomattox, the Union ceased to be a voluntary union of states but rather one of coercion and subjugation.
North Carolina’s history when it comes to the years 1860-1865 is one of honor and loyalty to principle.
It cannot be emphasized enough that North Carolina did NOT want to secede. She had great affection and loyalty to the Union, despite all the efforts the North took to tax her and the other southern states discriminately and punishingly and to frustrate and harm her interests. In fact, she would be the last state to secede.
Her intention was to remain in the Union. As seven Southern states seceded after the election of Abraham Lincoln and prior to his inauguration [SC – 12/24/1860; Miss – 1/9/1860; FL – 1/10; AL – 1/11; GA – 1/19; and LA – 1/26], North Carolina remained loyal to the Union. In fact, she refused to even consider secession. On February 28, 1861, North Carolinian voters decided against convening a convention to consider secession by a vote of 47,322 to 46,672. That’s how strongly they wished to remain a part of the Union, EVEN as hostilities grew against the south and against its institution of slavery, and even as sentiment was growing and getting more heated for its abolition.
On March 4, Lincoln was inaugurated as the 16th president of the United States, and on March 11, the Confederate Constitution was adopted, officially signaling to the North and to the world that a new and independent country, the Confederate States of America, was established.
But everything changed when Lincoln began to consider the consequences of the loss of the Southern and Gulf states to the United States, the North (and western territories), and to the federal government and its ability to govern effectively. In order to preserve the power of federal government and maintain the wealth and prosperity of the industrial North, Lincoln decided that the states would need to be forced back into the Union. But under what circumstances could he do that?
And thus, Lincoln devised the scheme which would force South Carolina to fire shots at Fort Sumter thereby giving him the moral justification to invade the South and start the war. The Fort was attacked on April 12 and on April 13, Union commander, Major Robert Anderson, raised a white flag of surrender to Confederate Brig. Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard.
On April 14, Lincoln demanded troops, including from North Carolina, for his invasion. It was only then that North Carolina found reason to separate from the government of Abraham Lincoln.
The reason, the real reason, North Carolina seceded was because Abraham Lincoln, thru his War Secretary, Simon Cameron, demanded that North Carolina send its share of 75,000 troops to “put down the rebellion” (ie, to invade the South and wage war against her). The Governor of NC, John Ellis, refusing to believe the US Constitution authorizes the government to force one state to take up arms against another, replied on April 15: “I regard the levy of troops made by the administration as a usurpation of authority. I can be no party to this wicked violation of the laws of the country and to the war upon the liberties of a free people. You can get no troops from North Carolina.”
The next month, the state called a convention to consider secession and this time, on May 20, 1861, the people of the state voted to approve an Ordinance of Secession from the United States.
So, the REAL history of North Carolina and the Civil War (more aptly, the War of Northern Aggression or the War to Prevent Southern Independence), is that she seceded ONLY when Lincoln gave her the ultimatum: If she was to remain in the Union, she would need to pick up arms and wage war against her neighbors, the states she was close to and the ones she had far more in common with than any in the North. North Carolina seceded over principle. She seceded over the proper construction of the US Constitution and the authority it granted to each of the branches of government in DC and especially as that power with respect to the sovereignty of each individual state. She did NOT understand the Constitution (nor would she have ever ratified it) to have the power to force or coerce one state to wage war or engage in violence against another state, and MOST especially, to do so for the government’s bidding, to further its ambitious agenda, or to consolidate power in the federal government).
She did NOT secede over slavery, she did NOT secede over any white supremacy agenda, she did NOT secede to further any oppression against black persons……. She seceded on principle. She seceded in support of the greatest government principle of all — the federal government was created for only limited purposes and when a government exceeds its delegated authority, it becomes tyrannical and ambitious and the people – ANY people – when they so decide, have the natural right to alter or abolish that government and establish a new one that suits them better.
Once North Carolina made the decision to dissolve its political bond to the government of the United States and join her Southern neighbors in the Confederacy, the monument in front of the Pitt County Courthouse is correct – NC soldiers had no opportunity to reason why or make any other reply other than to fight and defend their honor and their principles, including that government cannot demand that States remain in a Union that violates their rights or no longer serves their interest or demand that they wage war against each other for subjugation. North Carolina — we need to remain proud of her. And schools, teachers, and parents NEED to teach our history correctly so that mental midgets and ignoranuses stop tearing down monuments to that history and that struggle.
North Carolina provided more men (133, 905) for the Confederate cause than any other state. This number comprised approximately one-sixth of the Confederate fighting force. Put another way, every sixth Confederate soldier who lie dead on the battlefield was a North Carolinian. At the infamous battle of Gettysburg (July 1-3, 1863), North Carolina provided thirty-two regimens. A large statue was erected in her honor, which reads:
To the eternal glory of the North Carolina
soldiers. Who on this battlefield displayed
heroism unsurpassed sacrificing all in support
of their cause. Their valorous deeds will be
enshrined in the hearts of men long after
these transient memorials have crumbled into
Thirty two North Carolina regiments were in
action at Gettysburg July 1,2,3, 1863. One
Confederate soldier in every four who fell here
was a North Carolinian.
Of the total number of men North Carolina sent to defend her principles and to support the Confederate cause in general, for independence, one sixth (approximately 20,000) became casualties of war. Disease took another 20,000 lives. According to historian Paul Escott, the state “had only about one-ninth of the Confederacy’s white population,” yet “it furnished one-sixth of its fighting men.” In sum, 30 % (approximately 40,000) of those fighting for the Confederacy died during the war.
North Carolina provided numerous generals to the Confederate cause as well. The most famous include Braxton Bragg, Daniel H. Hill, William Dorsey Pender, Stephen Dodson Ramseur, Robert F. Hoke, and James J. Pettigrew. Less famous yet important generals included L.O.B. Branch and Bryan Grimes.
The university Board of Governors promises that Silent Sam will be restored to its original place on Chapel Hill’s campus within about two and a half months. North Carolina law mandates that a historical monument that is removed from its location must be returned within 90 days. Meanwhile, police are making some arrests and stating that more arrests could be forthcoming. The Board is visibly outraged at the conduct of campus police, who took orders to stand down and allowed protesters to topple the statue without resistance.
Ben “Cooter” Jones, from the TV show Dukes of Hazzard and an alumnus of Chapel Hill, wrote this about the toppling of Silent Sam:
“Our South is a land of many secrets and many truths. The radical trash who tore down Silent Sam and those academic idiots who enable them are not worthy to walk on the same ground as Gabriel Jacobs [Jones’ great great Uncle Gabriel Jacobs who died in pursuit of northern General McClellan]. Silent Sam will rise again, and we, not they, shall overcome.”
Sam Jones, “Silent Sam and Me,” Abbeville Institute, August 22, 2018. Referenced at: https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/silent-sam-and-me/?mc_cid=7e8e1f035b&mc_eid=3c62e340ff
UNC- Chapel Hill Graduate School – Landmarks (“Silent Sam”) – https://gradschool.unc.edu/funding/gradschool/weiss/interesting_place/landmarks/sam.html
Reverend Mark Creech, “Why the Issue of Confederate Memorials is of Significant Consequence,” Christian Action League, Aug. 24, 2018. Referenced at: https://christianactionleague.org/news/why-the-issue-of-confederate-memorials-is-of-significant-consequence/
Ben Jones, “Silent Sam and Me,” Abbeville Institute, August 22, 2018. Referenced at: https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/silent-sam-and-me/?mc_cid=7e8e1f035b&mc_eid=3c62e340ff
Leonard M. Scruggs, “Remembering Robert E. Lee: Measuring True Greatness,” The Tribune Papers, January 18, 2018. Referenced at: http://www.thetribunepapers.com/2018/01/18/remembering-robert-e-lee-measuring-true-greatness/
Jay Schalin, “Silent Sam’s Last Stand,” James G. Martin Center, August 22, 2018. Referenced at: https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2018/08/silent-sams-last-stand/?gclid=CjwKCAjwtvnbBRA5EiwAcRvnpqE764rb-WBb-DQoo-1SeQsjQFHU0JI2tvPeUqzFnKH5PFS73xFO6hoCdoQQAvD_BwE
Patricia Howley, “Silent Sam Destroyers Identified As The Antifa Leaders From Charlottesville,” Big League Politics, August 27, 2018. Referenced at: https://bigleaguepolitics.com/silent-sam-destroyers-identified-as-the-antifa-leaders-from-charlottesville/
Julian Carr’s Speech at the Dedication of Silent Sam at Chapel Hill, June 2, 1913 – http://hgreen.people.ua.edu/transcription-carr-speech.html
Civil War, Day By Day (UNC- Chapel Hill Library) – April 15, NC Governor John Ellis’ Response to War Secretary Simon Cameron Request for Troops for Lincoln’s Invasion of the South – https://blogs.lib.unc.edu/civilwar/index.php/2011/04/15/15-april-1861-telegram-exchange-between-n-c-governor-john-ellis-and-u-s-secretary-of-war-simon-Cameron/
Diane Rufino, “To The Protesters of North Carolina’s State Monuments and the Agitators Regarding the State History: The Most Effective Means of Protesting is to MOVE OUT & STAY OUT of NORTH CAROLINA!,” ‘For Love of God and Country’ Blog, Aug. 28, 2018. Referenced at: https://forloveofgodandcountry.com/2018/08/28/to-the-protesters-of-north-carolinas-state-monuments-and-the-agitators-regarding-the-state-history-the-most-effective-means-of-protesting-is-to-move-out-stay-out-of-north-carolina/
by Diane Rufino and George Liberty, August 31, 2018
(Photo by Myfox8.com)
The following remarks are offered in remembrance of Senator John McCain.
We, as a nation, celebrate our politicians more than any other group of people. We lift them up and we place them on podiums, even when they clearly don’t deserve to be so elevated or celebrated. According to eulogies and to the dedications and to the commentaries, they were not only elected officials who passed our laws, but they were also our spokesmen. I would say they were our public servants, but we all know that the term rarely suits an elected official these days, especially.. ESPECIALLY, one in Washington DC.
Today’s politicians are quite different from our Founding Fathers, aren’t they? Our Founding Fathers weren’t politicians. They were Revolutionaries who saw an ideal through to its ultimate fruition – to our country’s independence and then the constitutional protection and security of the rights of the individual. The American states were established as free sovereigns dedicated to the inalienable right of individuals to live free and with minimal intrusion of government on their lives, their liberty, their property, and their pursuit of happiness. Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Adams, and those who fought in the War for Independence from Great Britain placed their lives and everything they owned on the alter of freedom. In attaching their signatures to the Declaration of Independence, they potentially signed their death warrants. “for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”
Our Founders were a breed of men that are almost extinct in today’s world. Our Founders envisioned representatives as “citizen-servants,” serving for a term or two and then returning back to their community to live under the laws they passed and to face members of the constituency in church, in the store, at ball games, etc. It was not only a culture of service and patriotism, but a way to ensure that representatives passed good laws. And that’s how they served. After they helped draft the Constitution and then helped to ratify it in the state conventions, they ran for federal office only when they felt their efforts and their intentions for a limited government were in peril.
Who in recent history talks about the uncompromising duty to protect those rights listed in the Bill of Rights and the need for the government to remain constrained to its delegated functions? Hardly anyone in DC, that’s for sure. Instead, we hear them argue for gun control, we hear them call for civil disobedience to shut down free speech, we hear them disavow the duty of the government to secure our borders, and we watch as law after law, policy after policy, and expenditure after expenditure demonstrates a total disregard for constitutional limitations. And we watch as federal courts act to complete the federal monopoly over the meaning and intent of the Constitution and as they steadily and continually complete the transfer of power from the States and the People to Washington DC.
True leaders do the right thing.
Yet where are the true leaders today?
Today’s politician is a poor excuse for a leader. Once elected to federal office, they cease being an agent or representative for their constituents and begin becoming an agent for the federal government. We all know this is true. We see it with all our Congressmen and Senators. We’ve come to mistrust what comes out of their mouths. They all act the same and they all sound the same. They serve the government, they are greatly enriched by it, and they are protected by it. They enjoy the upper tier of a two-tier justice system and they enjoy monetary and other perks that incentivize the repeated tenure. Far from the era when representatives had to live under the laws they pass, now they are totally disconnected from them. They make so much money (salary plus “opportunities,” and then a handsome pension for the rest of their lives) that they can live in exclusive gated communities and in the best parts of the state. They are immune from the crime and the effects of uncontrolled illegal immigration that their lack of adherence to the Constitution and their lack of responsible leadership results in for the ordinary citizen. They receive free high-quality healthcare for life, so they are exempt from any considerations that might have ordinarily plagued their conscience in passing healthcare reform. They are accompanied by bodyguards and other secret service protection, so they can easily condemn the Second Amendment whenever a mass shooting occurs. They are, in general and for the most part, not willing to stand up for freedom with the ferocity that our leaders once did. Their statements and their actions are always tempered with political considerations, such as how they might be portrayed in the media and how it might affect their re-election chances. The historic view that our country was founded on the rights of the “individual” is becoming more and more a minority view and most now seem to lean toward socialist views (what is good for the country, in the collective). They barely have any respect for the First Amendment right to Religious freedom (now believing it is a major impediment to social progress) and if they had the chance, they would gladly gut the Second Amendment. Hell, they no longer even put American citizens first. Since when does an illegal alien’s right to an American taxpayer’s hard-earned salary outweigh the right of that taxpayer to keep his or her hard-earned salary?
At some point, the policy of merit, competition, and true progress (moving the country forward in wealth, production, technology, etc) has been replaced by a policy of “diversity.” All of a sudden, the most important quality of a person is not what they bring to the table in terms of intelligence, wealth production, ingenuity, innovation, but rather, the most important quality is what they look like… what the color of their skin is. Every aspect of society is now subject to affirmative action and quotas. Merit is out the window. Diversity is the social tool of the progressive movement and NOT a tool that on its face is designed necessarily to benefit our country. When our country was founded, the purpose of our immigration policy was to “add wealth” to the united States… that is, immigrants were expected to add to the wealth of the country, to bring services, innovation, knowledge, etc and NOT to take from her wealth. Now the goal of our immigration policy is… well, there is no goal. It seems to be to further diversity only (again, to increase the number of bodies here that do not outwardly look like our average white male or female). And for a politician to take a position against diversity and in favor of merit is to be willing to die a thousand times by the sword of “racism.”
Just as offensive is the way that politicians put themselves first and put the agenda of a political party first over the actual concerns and issues of the people they represent, and put the interests of special interest groups over those of the people – companies, industries, activist groups… Profit and globalism are the things that motivate politicians and not the happiness, the freedom, the financial well-being, or quality of life of the American people.
That was John McCain – your typical modern-day politician. He was a politician in an ocean of politicians. He was a career politician in every sense of the word. He became so powerful that he became untouchable and unremovable.
I do not doubt John McCain’s heroics in surviving five years under torture. No one deserves that and no one can be faulted for exhibiting some degree of weakness under such inhuman conditions. We are glad and proud that he survived it. We are touched by his ordeal. To some degree, his ordeal – his fortitude, his endurance, and his survival – is an example of the American spirit.
Yes, while serving as a navy aviator and wearing the uniform of the United States, he was quite a maverick. And when he traveled to Washington DC, under the guise of being a Republican, he became a maverick once again. The only difference is that being a maverick in government meant he essentially was a rogue politician. In his last Senate terms, he clearly strayed far from the principles of the Republican Party. He was a quintessential rino. In his last two years of service, his positions, his votes, and his actions became indistinguishable from those of the Democratic Party.
McCain served as a politician, enjoyed the power he wielded, and became a typical politician. Over time, he became consumed by the system; he became a consummate political politician. He talked the talk and walked the walk. Publicly, he was against pork in the bills, but remained silent and inactive when it was built it in at every turn. He supported and signed ALL bills that exported our nation’s wealth and our peoples’ jobs. He advanced globalism at the expense of our citizens. He supported NAFTA and other bad trade deals designed only to weaken our manufacturing sector. For decades, he exported our wealth for the purpose of developing other countries. While the federal government pursued policies of wealth distribution at home, it equally pursued wealth distribution on an international scale as well. John McCain was happy to help further those goals. He supported the Paris Climate Accords and its mandate to support 150 billion of American taxpayers money every year to Brussels for – FOR 20 YEARS!! That’s $3 trillion.
I remember other things about Senator John McCain. I remember that he surrendered his own state’s sovereignty to a system designed to exploit its weaknesses and to harm to his citizens. As a border state, Arizona was being over-run by massive illegal immigration, by the importation of drugs and crime, and plagued by all the social problems that go with all that illegal immigration, such as loss of jobs for citizens, the burden on its education and social programs, and the unsustainable cost of their flooding into the state. When Governor Jan Brewer sought to fight back, to enforce common-sense laws designed to crack down on illegal immigration and the effect it was having on the state’s jobs and economy, he did not support her. A sovereign is not a sovereign if it lacks the authority to protect its borders and provide safety and security of its “citizens.” He could have used his position as a US Senator to insist on enforcement of US immigration laws, and he could have also used his clout as a man of power to lend support to Governor Brewer and her position. But he didn’t. He did not and would not defy a president or justice system that was in open violation of the very laws, as well as Article I of the US Constitution, they were sworn to uphold and enforce. He let the citizens of his own state down. He failed to protect them. law to the detriment of his own citizens he was sworn to protect defend. He put the interests of the federal government above the interests of the state he was elected to represent and the people he was elected to represent.
Just like career politicians do, McCain said one thing and voted oppositely. He may have been better than most politicians, but that says very little about merit. This is not about John McCain, the man. I am sure, from what I’ve learned about him (aside from the cheating and the divorce of his first wife), that he was a good man and evolved into a decent man, a fierce friend, a great father, and wonderful husband.
But let’s be honest, when we celebrate our politicians, we don’t celebrate their personal qualities. In general, the average American citizen is a far better human being than most politicians. Rather, we celebrate their being a good servant of the government.
Towards the end of his life, Senator John McCain may have become that Maverick in the US Congress that people always described him as. But he became so in the worst of ways. In defying the party of conservativism, the party he used to secure his career as a politician and loyal agent of the federal government, the party he aligned with to dupe his voters, his “unorthodox conduct and independent-mindedness” caused him to openly wage war with President Trump, the candidate overwhelmingly embraced by conservatives all over the country. He detested Donald Trump and sparred with him on every occasion.
Trump ran on a platform of “draining the swamp” (the criminal and unethical element working diligently and tirelessly against the American people and their interests), reversing the counter-productive, liberal, and globalist policies of Barack Obama, and returning the government, as best as possible, to the People. Of course each rung of Trump’s platform, while good for the American people, American businessman/business owner and American employees, was bad for the federal government. Senator McCain’s allegiance was with the policies that benefit the government. McCain’s allegiance has always been to the leviathan in DC.
And so, while we mourn the death of the man that was John McCain and we are profoundly grateful for his willing service to the country in the Vietnam War, it is hypocritical to have all these over-the-top ceremonies and dedications to the politician that was Senator John McCain.
In the end, all said and done, what we are celebrating is the life of just another career politician.
(This picture is of a toppled confederate statue at the old courthouse in Durham. Notice the reasons for the protest)
by Diane Rufino, August 30, 2018
Let’s be honest. The toppling of the Confederate monuments, the demonization of the Confederate battle flag, the vilification of the names and memories of our treasured white Founding Fathers (and especially anyone of them who happened to own a slave), and the erasing of our history because it happens to be offensive is a POLITICAL movement. It is a contrived political initiative to counter the conservative movement that has been embraced with the election of Donald Trump and which clearly resonated in everyday America.
The movement evidences a serious lack of respect for the plight our country has taken, including the Civil War which ultimately resulted in the abolition of our greatest sin (slavery). Had the South not seceded, the timeline for abolition would have been quite different, as well as a fundamental lack of understanding of what the First Amendment is all about and the overall good and honest progress that honest and respectful civil discourse allows. What I’m trying to say is that the progressive movement’s goal to tear down confederate monuments is a political movement that once again employs America’s un-educated and makes them into useful idiots for their cause. The cause is to foment dissent and division, that hallmarks of the progressive movement (thanks to Saul Alinsky and his “Rules for Radicals”).
When it comes to the Confederacy, the Civil War, and Abraham Lincoln, the general public is in desperate need of education. And I’ve put the following comments and resources together for the purpose to help further education and counter the progressive left with knowledge, understanding, facts, and sound arguments. Remember, there are always two sides to every issue. The side that wins the day is the one that has the facts on its side.
I have been asked by many people where I get my information from about the history of Lincoln’s War (aka, the War to Prevent Southern Independence, aka, the War of Northern Aggression) and the history of North Carolina concerning her secession from the Union.
First of all, I’m the daughter of a Civil War buff. My father studied the war, the generals, the battles, the battle strategies, the cemeteries, the destruction of the South, and the history of the country at the time. I’ve heard him talk about all this stuff all my life. Even though I was taught in school, as most of us were, that Lincoln was the greatest president ever, that he fought the Civil War (which the South started) to abolish slavery and to save the Union, my father always knew differently. It’s because he was always reading, always asking questions of the locals whenever he visited a battle site. He always talked to me about the war and about the generals, and about the savagery of the battles. I remember him constantly saying: “It’s a shame the South lost the war.” OR, “The South should have won the war.”
My parents divorced when I was 10 years old. and one summer shortly thereafter, he wanted to spend some quality time with my sister and I so my Mom let him take us on a long summer trip out west, to Oklahoma, to visit his best friend. My father turned that trip into a complete tour of all the Civil War battle sites. My sister and I were young. I’m sure my sister was too young to appreciate learning about the war, but I remember a lot from that trip.
I’ve been reading about the war for many years now, certainly a lot more now that I’m living in North Carolina and have more time on my hands; it fascinates me. I had rejected the “Lincoln is Great” history lesson a long time ago, while I was still living in New Jersey.
I wanted to share some books that have recently come out for people to read, if they are interested in learning about the causes of the war (1861-1865) that tore our country apart, about the war itself, and about its lasting consequences. I call it Lincoln’s War, because that’s the rightful name. I think if everyone does that reading and the research, they will agree with me on this.
Before I list the books and resources, I want to straighten a few misnomers out. The war can neither be termed a “Civil War” or “the War Between the States”:
— A “Civil War” refers to a war between two groups in the same country who are fighting for control of the same government. The Southern states had seceded and had successfully established themselves legally as a separate and independent country. (1) So, they were two groups from two separate countries, and mot two groups from the same country; (2) The south seceded from the federal government; they clearly stated that they wanted to break political bonds with it and wanted NOTHING whatsoever to do with it anymore. And so, the two groups were not fighting for control of the same government. (3) The war only came when Abraham Lincoln tricked South Carolina into firing shots at Fort Sumter to start the war he needed to force the southern states back into the Union. With those shots at Fort Sumter, Lincoln claimed the South was “in rebellion against the United States” and called up troops to invade the south. It was a war for subjugation of the South and not a war over which party would take control of the federal government.
— “War Between the States” — As Mike Armstrong, who writes “Southern Reflections,” so aptly put i: “There was no war between the States. It was a war between TWO SEPARATE and SOVEREIGN NATIONS, the USA and the CSA. There was nothing civil about it”
With that, here is a list of some resources and a list of some of the books that have come out in the last 2-3 years or so that give an accurate and historical account of the causes of the conflict:
1. The Abbeville Institute – http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org Check out their articles and their seminar programs. I follow them and attend their seminars when I can. I’m attending one in November in Texas on Nullification & Interposition). The organization is comprised of some of the top historians of the South; their credentials and research are impeccable. They formed the Institute several years ago when protesters started desecrating and destroying confederate monuments, demonizing the Confederate battle flag, and demanding that the names and statues of any Confederate general or leader, any southern leader tied to the confederate cause (like John Calhoun who helped initiate the Nullification Crisis and who defended slavery or Jefferson Davis, president of the CSA), or any person of historical significance who happened to own a slave be taken off college campus buildings and off campus, and then off street signs and public buildings. Those historians, like Donald Livingston and Clyde Wilson and Brion McClanahan new that Americans were sorely mis-educated or un-educated about our American (southern) history.
2. My Blogsite – http://www.forloveofgodandcountry.com (I have written many articles over the years on this topic of the war, on Lincoln, on the right of secession, etc)
3. BOOK: The Un-Civil War: Shattering the Historical Myths, by Leonard “Mike” Scruggs. (Mr. Scruggs lives in North Carolina. He is a Vietnam vet who writes and speaks about both the Civil War and the Vietnam War)
4. BOOK: Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States, by Gene Kizer, Jr. (I couldn’t put this book down; I read it in one day)
5. BOOK: Union At All Costs: From Confederation to Consolidation, by John M. Taylor
6. BOOK: Is Davis a Traitor? Or Was Secession a Constitutional Right Previous to the War of 1861? By Albert Taylor Bledsoe (written around 1865, so it’s most contemporaneous. His goal was to make sure the world understood the South’s reasons for secession and wanting to separate from the federal government before the victors of the war, the North, had its opportunity to commandeer the official story)
7. BOOK: The Real Lincoln, A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda and Unnecessary War, by Thomas DiLorenzo
8. BOOK: Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe, by Thomas DiLorenzo
Hope this helps