As i see more Southern monuments being targeted for removal i am concerned about the "Divide and Conquer" techniques that the "establishment" has been using against the populace of America which has been blogged along with the research on the Civil War. The blog will present some information from a Southern group, a part of article by Walter Williams that explains the legality of secession, and an example of history being changed.
Fort Sumtner
I queried in a Southern group for information about my theory that Fort Sumtner was a false flag and got some interesting information. Julia Tyler informed me that "while Buchanan was still president his Attorney General advised him there was no Constitutional means to stop South Carolina from leaving. While Buchanan was still President, Lincoln wrote to Captain Anderson at Ft. SUMTER and asked what would happen if supply ships were sent in. Anderson's reply was that war would be started. This is what Lincoln proceeded to do and he planned to accuse SC of aggression when in fact Lincoln was breaking the treaty the Feds made." Since i remembered reading that the constitution allowed for secession, i found a handy article that will be presented next.
"Secession: It's constitutional"
Walter Williams (2012) wrote a great article called "Secession: It's constitutional". He beautifully wrote that "at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, rejected it, saying: 'A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.'
On March 2, 1861, after seven states had seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration, Sen. James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that said, 'No State or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the Union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States.'
Several months earlier, Reps. Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania and Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession. Here’s my no-brainer question: Would there have been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional?
On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, 'Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty.'
The Northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace. Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South’s right to secede. New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): “If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861.' Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): 'An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil – evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content.' The New York Times (March 21, 1861): 'There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go.'
There’s more evidence seen at the time our Constitution was ratified. The ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said that they held the right to resume powers delegated, should the federal government become abusive of those powers. The Constitution never would have been ratified if states thought that they could not maintain their sovereignty.
The War of 1861 settled the issue of secession through brute force that cost 600,000 American lives. Americans celebrate Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech: 'It is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense.' Lincoln said that the soldiers sacrificed their lives 'to the cause of self-determination – that government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth.' Mencken says: 'It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves." (Williams, 2012, paras. 3-9). Great job by Walter Williams. Some information that i located about the Battle of Pensacola will be presented next.
Battle of Pensacola 1861
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pensacola_(1861)
Another nice person in the Southern group told me that the first fire of the Civil War was shot by the Union at the Battle of Pensacola so i researched that. The Civil War Trust had no mention of the 1861 Battle of Pensacola. Wikipedia had some information about the battle but neglects to mention that the first shots were fired by the North. There is scant information about this battle, but i did find one youtube video that reads just like the Wikipedia article with the addition of the admittance that the first shots were fired by the Union before Fort Sumtner.
The youtube channel says that it is dedicated to preserving information from wikipedia articles. At 36 seconds the video clearly states that one "January 8, 1861 the Union fired upon the Florida militia at Fort Barrancas the day before the day before the cadets of the citadel in South Carolina, Charleston harbor fired upon the Star of the West" and at 53 seconds it states that "the Union fired the first shots of the war at Pensacola" (WikiWikiup, 2015).
A separate source that i found on my search reveals that Wikipedia had deleted an article about the 1861 Battle of Pensacola. It states that "this article uses material from the Wikipedia article Battle of Pensacola (1861), that was deleted or is being discussed for deletion, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" (Battle of Pensacola (1861), n.d.). This article states that "
in South Carolina's Charleston Harbor, the first shots of the Civil War were fired upon the Star of the West" (Battle of Pensacola (1861), n.d., para.2). The mysteriously changing "background"section of the article on Wikipedia reads that "around midnight of January 8, 1861 the small garrison of Fort Barrancas repelled a group of local men intent on taking the fort. Some historians suggest that these were the first shots fired by United States forces in the Civil War" (Wikipedia,n.d., para. 2). I listened through the video comparing it to the articles a few times and the only differences are in the "background" section.
It just seems so strange that articles are mysteriously changing when all of the hullabaloo of the "demonization" of Southerners is rampant in America. Especially when we consider that a small percentage even owned slaves (sources vary on this so i will say, even if 50% of the people in the South owned slaves, what about the 50% of Innocent people???). It seems like the media may be aiding the "establishment" in causing division among the people. My hopes are that Americans we realize that we need to ignore the media and come together to end the corrupt fed so that we can make this country great again.
Haven't enough suffered for the feds? Wouldn't it be awesome if Black Folks, Rebels, and Yanks could all just realize we'd all be better off without out the establishment turning us against each other?
My research for the Civil War was about more than slavery is located here http://citedinfo.blogspot.com/2017/02/there-was-more-to-civil-war-than.html
Battle of Pensacola (1861). (n.d.).Speedy deletion Wiki. Retrieved from http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Battle_of_Pensacola_(1861)
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Battle of Pensacola (1861), Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pensacola_(1861)
WikiWikiup. (21 August, 2015). "Battle of Pensacola (1861)." Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUtiyldWgBs
Williams, Walter. (27 November, 2012). "Secession: It's constitutional". A Minority View. Retrieved from http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/secession-its-constitutional/
No comments:
Post a Comment