Undeniable Truths <br> As I see it: October 2011


Obama Asserts His Dictatorship

“I’m here to say that we can’t wait for an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to do its job. Where they won’t act, I will” ~ obama

Read it HERE


White Supremacist Northerners, Reformers and Collectivists

The Northern worker as well as European immigrant wanted no emancipation of African slaves as they feared a flood of cheap labor coming into the North and the territories. Included in the 1854 and 1860 Republican party platforms were white supremacy planks that restricted the black man to the South while holding the western territories for white settlers. And ironically, while the abolitionists saw only evil in the South, many overlooked the plight of children and women enslaved in Northern factories, with many of the latter forced into prostitution.

Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"

“When abolitionists attempted to induce empathy with the Negro in Northern whites who opposed slavery only passively, they were consciously trying to meet the greatest challenge to their cause, the widespread fear that emancipation would bring social equality in its wake. According to one student of Northern opinion, “the key to the explanation of anti-abolition is race prejudice.”

Most Northerners, he explains, were opposed at the same time to slavery and to race equality and therefore supported the American Colonization Society. Abolitionists, realizing this, always saw their struggle to discredit colonization as part of their fight against racism. In fact, their slogan of immediate and unconditional emancipation ought itself to be understood as, among other things, an assertion of the equality of the races.

White supremacist Northerners at the time understood this better than modern historians who have assumed that the slogan represented a naïve call for a revolutionary transformation they thought could come in the near future.

The [Northern] labor reformers stressed interest where the abolitionists stressed principle, talked of classes where the abolitionists talked of individuals, urged reform in institutions where abolitionists preached repudiation of sin. It is this conflict in philosophy…that explains why the two movements were not allied. Some abolitionists did in fact sympathize with underpaid American workers, starving Irish peasants, and disenfranchised English factory operatives.

George Henry Evans, editor of Young America…in an editorial [stated]: “If it be true, as I most firmly believe it is, that wages slavery, in its legitimate results of crowded cities, debasing servitude, rent exactions, disease, crime, and prostitution, as they now appear in England and our Northern Eastern States, are even more destructive of life, health and happiness than chattel slavery, as it exists in our Southern States, then the efforts of those who are endeavoring to substitute wages for chattel slavery are greatly misdirected…”

Evans was seconded by another National Reformer, William West, of Boston…[who stated that] the progress of slavery can never be arrested and reversed until monopoly of the soil was abolished. Abolitionists must therefore unite with the National Reformers to limit the amount of land an individual might own…[and] Slaveowners would have to free their slaves because enormous plantations would disappear.

The following March [1846], [William Lloyd] Garrison, back from Europe [said] “The evil in society…is not that labor receives wages, but that the wages given are not generally in proportion to the value of the labor performed.” A few months later it was Wendell Phillips turn. “A wiser use of public lands, a better system of taxation, disuse of war and military preparation, and more than all, the recognition of the rights of woman…will help the classes much.”

(Means and Ends in American Abolition, Garrison and His Critics on Strategy and Tactics, 1834-1850, Aileen S. Kraditor, Pantheon Books, 1969, pp.242-250)


Financing the Northern War Machine

In the summer of 1864 the Union cause was in disarray and the Northern public depressed over the appalling casualty rate and worker strikes. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon Chase had become a critic and political opponent of Lincoln and was replaced by Maine Senator William Pitt Fessenden, a radical antislavery Whig. Lincoln appointed him to the Treasury post for his close links to prominent northeastern capitalists, and to “find sufficient funds to pay for a vicious and expensive war that showed no signs of ending.”

Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"

Financing the Northern War Machine:

“It would be easy to condemn Fessenden for his employment of a private banker [Jay Cooke] sell vast amounts of public securities. The secretary himself was uneasy about the idea. The Union was in a desperate financial condition for most of his term in office. [Former Treasury Secretary Salmon Chase] told Jay Cooke in September 1864 that Fessenden’s reluctance to employ the agency system was probably due to his unwillingness to encounter public criticism. “I hardly blame him,” wrote Chase bitterly. “What did I get – what did anybody get prefer[r]ing country and duty to private interests & compliant favor?”

The secretary’s treatment of financial questions was essentially pragmatic – informed by a characteristically Whiggish view of the economy and society but conditioned primarily by the urgent need for cash to finance the Northern war machine…

Beginning in July 1861 Congress passed a series of laws heavily restricting trade with areas outside the loyal States and giving the secretary of the Treasury and his network of agents wide-ranging powers…The system proved controversial, particularly in border-State communities traditionally reliant on trade with the South, and fostered widespread corruption centered on the smuggling of cotton from the Confederacy.

Cotton prices were increasing dramatically because of the war and a multiplicity of Treasury employees, military officials, and private citizens were soon caught up in the illicit trade. In the summer of 1864 President Lincoln endorsed the view of a Boston businessman, Edward Atkinson, that the government should procure as much Confederate cotton as possible in order to prevent the South from exploiting sales of its valuable staple. On July 2, the day before Fessenden entered the cabinet, Congress gave the secretary of the Treasury exclusive power over all trade in the Rebel States, the aim being to establish a government monopoly over the cotton trade and thereby increase the national revenue at the enemy’s expense.

On September 24 Fessenden issued new trade regulations….These permitted persons claiming to control cotton beyond Union lines to sell their product to an appointed Treasury agent at three-quarters of the current cotton price in New York. A complementary executive order broadened the possibilities for intersectional trade by allowing cotton sellers to purchase goods up to one-third of the price received and take them back across the lines.

Fessenden had grave reservations about this morally dubious trade….[but] Lincoln signed around forty special orders before December 1 authorizing favored individuals to bring out Southern cotton. Vast fortunes awaited those with sufficient political clout to secure the necessary permits or Treasury appointments.”

(The Grave of All My Comforts, William Pitt Fessenden, Robert Cook, Civil War History, John T. Hubbell, editor, Kent State University Press, September 1995, pp. 216-219)



''No matter how hard the conservative and leftist media may try to twist the minds of the American people, they have a mind of their own. And, as of today, that mind is on rebellion against the government, at all costs.'' ~ Unknown


A (very) Short History of the Southern Cause

By Ron Hammon

When the Founding Fathers created the Constitution of the United States of America, they intended the United States to be just that, a confederation of independent, sovereign states. The Federal government was meant to be similar to the European Union today, an association of fellow "States", assembled for mutual defense, unfettered commerce, and only a very limited amount of cooperation in other areas. To join, individual states had to agree to abide by a number of over reacting principles, such as freedom of speech and the right to bear arms.

Spain is still considered sovereign today, even though it is a member of the European Union. Spain is also, (as far as we know) able to resign from that union as it wishes. In 1859, a citizen of the "State" of Virginia was assumed to be a citizen of the "COUNTRY" of Virginia, NOT a citizen of the United States, no less than a citizen of the country of Spain is NOT a "citizen" of the European Union today. This is why Robert E. Lee felt compelled to serve his beloved Virginia, his home "country", when it resigned from the corrupting Union. Lee had nothing to gain from the false, today-touted reason of maintaining slavery as THE cause of the Great War. Slavery was dying out all over the world. There was never any need for a war over it. Lee, the head of the Army of Virginia, had no slaves, nor did the vast majority of Southerners who fought for the Confederacy.

Despite the efforts of a few of the Founding Fathers, like Alexander Hamilton, to form a strong empire, rather than a confederation of sovereign states, the original idea of "United States" rather than a "United STATE" held true for almost a whole century. Then, a fresh movement arose. The Northern states (those that had already given up their former practice of widespread slavery, like New York), because of greater voting population, could out-vote the South and pass special taxes and tariffs to be paid primarily by the South but spent by the North, a redistribution of wealth, fleecing the South. Less than a century earlier, this sort of "Taxation without Representation" fueled the FIRST American Revolution against British tyranny. Today, virtually every American feels that this first attempt to split away from an oppressive, over lording government was justified and noble. However, in the last century, the Union government has managed to blind most Americans to the noble effort of the much more free and independent Southern states to separate from that central government, a government which had changed into an empire and became far more oppressive to the South than King George had been to the colonies.

The brand new political party in 1860, the Republican party (which replaced the Whigs) was dedicated to the drastic change to a dominant, centralized Federal government, a true empire, to overlord the individual states. This single "nation", with uniform rules that the whole "nation" MUST follow was a drastic change into a completely different frame of government. The centralized form, as opposed to smaller, distributed government, closer to the people, was spearheaded by Alexander Hamilton and resisted bitterly by Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. Completely different ideals splintered the opposition party, the Democratic party, into different factions. Because of a severe FOUR-way split among the other candidates, the new, radical Republican party won the presidency with its first Presidential candidate, Abraham Lincoln, a strong advocate of the new, bastardized idea of U.S. government envisioned by Henry Clay and Alexander Hamilton, a strong central government with subjugated states bowing to the whims of a distant overlord.

The REAL "United States", as originally conceived by Thomas Jefferson, was doomed. Lincoln, and his handlers, had a grand plan for empire building and would let nothing stop the forging of a strong, centralized, global power, not even the U.S. Constitution! For example, the Constitution states that only states can coin money. This didn't stop the "lawyer", Ol' "Honest Abe" from outlawing the practice and delivering the production of all money over to the Federal government. The Southerner Andrew Jackson, while President, had infuriated big bankers by squashing their power of a National Bank. But, the Yankee President Lincoln and the young Republican party did the exact opposite. They made banking and money-making a Federal operation since whoever controls the money controls the people. (The European Union is pissed that Great Britain refuses to stop printing its own money. Sound familiar?) They intended to utterly shift control away from local oversight and balance, as designed by the Founding Fathers, to Washington, D.C. The day of "Big Brother", the overreaching and overbearing centralized power, was born.

We now suffer the inevitable results of Lincoln's change to a "Big Brother" centralized power. There may be no stopping the impending collapse. (to continue, go to top right) The REAL U.S. patriots in the South decided that the only reasonable course was to cut away this diseased corruption of the principles of freedom and local control designed by and promised by the Founding Fathers. Some states forfeited their membership in the crumbling Union to form a fresh Confederation of states that would abide by the principles of the original U.S. Constitution. After South Carolina tried to clear a stronghold of stubborn, Northern military occupation, in blatant defense of it's sovereignty, the young Confederation WAS ATTACKED by a vengeful Lincoln. The North would not give up the expected tax windfall from the South without a fight. (A sad part of the story is that gold and silver mines discovered out West more than replaced all money lost from not fleecing the Southern states!)

In direct violation of the U.S. Constitution, Lincoln raised an army without consent of Congress to combat these "rebels". Contrary to popular opinion, Lincoln's cause was so unpopular in the North that one forth of all Union troops were constantly diverted to put down rebellions in the streets of northern cities, newspaper editors were imprisoned, and Lincoln even (illegally) suspended Habeas Corpus.

This "Second American Revolution" was even more popular than the original American Revolution at the time. The South was almost totally non-industrialized, so the Union expected to squash this "rebellion" in just a few months. But, they totally underestimated the hearts, minds, grit and resolve of Southerners. In a few months, the Army of Northern Virginia almost took the District of Columbia itself! An escape plan was ready in case the Confederate Army managed to rout the Northern Army and seize the Capitol. Early in the conflict, Lincoln imprisoned the Maryland legislature to prevent their even having a chance to vote to join the Confederacy thereby surrounding Washington.

The South was right, and the whole world knew it. (That is, if the first American Revolution was right, then the second American Revolution was also right.) France, England, and most of nations of the world were on the side of the Confederacy, at least in principle. This wasn't just because they needed cotton, as has been told. It was generally realized that this was the American Revolution, Act II. But this time, the overreaching, overbearing, tyranny was Washington, not King George across the Atlantic. This time, despite our very best efforts, "right" finally lost. If the South had known how it would be victimized after rejoining the union, Lee would never have surrendered, he said so.

Southern Generals, as well as the Southern people in general, still believed in honor. This put them at a further disadvantage in the "total war" advocated by the top Northern Generals and approved by Lincoln. The Northern shelling of civilians and the destruction of civilian property to demoralize the enemy was later studied by Hitler. One of Lincoln's Commanders even went so far as to suggest that EVERY "rebel" (CSA citizen) should be killed! Fighting honorably against an enemy who employs every trick in the book (like offering citizenship to potential immigrants to come and join their army), dooms the honorable side to eventual failure without an overwhelming superiority.

Was "The War" about slavery, as we were taught by an educational system supervised by the U.S. government? No way! Even General Grant, the future President, said, during the war, that if he thought that the war was to free slaves, he would resign immediately. Old "Honest Abe" himself, the "Great Emancipator", said that if he could win the war without freeing a single slave, he would. In fact, he said that "we should be separated" and there was "a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people, to the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races". Lincoln was NOT an advocate of black equality! Had Lincoln not been assassinated, his plan was to remove all blacks off of the continent to either the Caribbean or Liberia. The African nation of Liberia was CREATED by the U.S. for just such a plan. Lincoln never desired an integrated society.

Dixie became an occupied country after Lee's surrender. Many Yankee's even demanded that Jefferson Davis be executed for treason. (This was probably because Davis, unlike most "fair-weather" friends of the South, NEVER professed that the actions of the Confederacy were wrong.) For a generation, Federal troops were stationed all over the South, lurking, stealing, abusing, raping, all with a wink and a nod from Washington. After all, the nasty, unkempt, drunkard, former Union Army General Grant, whose slovenliness was so conspicuous compared to Lee, had become the U.S. President! This shameful period AFTER the war spawned the "damned Yankee" sentiment, not the war itself. There were Northern "carpetbaggers" crawling out from under every rock to con Southerners out of what few treasures they still had. Since the Yankee Army formed the acting police, little was done to those "punishing" the former "Rebels", and all knew it.

So, be proud, ye Southern born! Our forefathers were the keepers of truth and law, keepers of humanity, and keepers of the grand plan, the Constitution of the Founding Fathers. We did more than our best. We exhausted our meager resources and ourselves in a hopeless fight, simply because we were right. Yankee lies can't hide the truth.
Yankees can never take our pride. We can still be PROUD REBELS!

Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet

Statements, comments and links posted in
The Southern Co-op Forums & Blogs
are for information ONLY, you must be
the judge of the content. They do not
necessarily represent the views of
The Southern Co-op unless otherwise
stated by editors of same.

©1995-2012 The Southern C0-0p
All Rights Reserved
No part of this forum/website may be duplicated without permission.