What a shame things are so upside down anymore. Not too many years ago the FBI had the people's absolute trust and respect, and mostly deserved them.... but now, ya see, everything's different thanks to those 9/11 terr'ists as "W" used to call them.
Because of them, we all have to live in fear for the rest of time and government gets to pass the time treating people like laboratory rats while their actual job description is as shredded as the Constitution.
FBI said to have committed 40,000 violations of privacy laws since 2001
http://corruptauthority.com/tag/fbi/
…........This is great! Destruction of the middle class is one of the chief goals of communism, and it turns out that when the Obamunists harrumph about the need to tax the “rich” they're simply approaching the above goal from a freshly rotten new angle.
Tax The Rich? 14 Facts You May Want To Consider
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/088372-2011-04-22-tax-the-rich-14-facts-you-may-want-to-consider.htm?From=News
…..........Now for some superb thought and writing from Southern Heritage News and Views email digest. You hear me praise this resource at meetings and everywhere else for the simple reason that it is the very lifeblood of today's Southern resurgence. The items below are submissions from readers and typical of the liberating input “SHNV” offers on a quasi-daily basis. Request a free subscription of editor Charles Demastus
What legal authority did President Lincoln
From: bragdonb@verizon.net
What legal authority did President Lincoln have to call up 75,000 troops to defend Washington and to order the blockade of most Southern ports?
Modern historians often accuse the South of treason, even though they were exercising what most people at that time viewed as a legitimate constitutional right, the states right of secession. At the same time they ignore actions by President Lincoln. The specific language of Article 3 Section 3 of the Constitution defining treason seems perfectly explicit.
Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
The Founding Fathers viewed the states as free, sovereign and independent entities. The Lincoln invasion of the South would seem to clearly fall within the definition of treason as defined in that Article. Lincoln’s actions stood as a bold repudiation of our Founding Fathers and constituted the very essence of despotism as would have been seen through the eyes of Jefferson and Madison. Lincoln’s provocation at Ft. Sumter worked and jumpstarted the nation into a fratricidal war.
On April 15, Lincoln called upon all remaining states to help raise 75,000 militia troops. Lincoln acted upon an obscure 1795 militia law which allowed him to do this but required Congressional approval within 30 days. Lincoln missed that deadline by not calling Congress into emergency session until July 4, 1861, 50 days later. While not unconstitutional, it was a clear violation of the law. Subsequent troop levies for the Army and Navy during this time span were clearly unconstitutional since only Congress could levy troops. The nation was in crisis and Congress was not in session. Due to tremendous opposition in Congress, Lincoln waited until July 4 before he summoned Congress. By July 4, Lincoln had the public support he wanted for war and Congress rubber stamped Lincoln’s prior acts.
Lincoln also had to deal with illegal shipping and smuggling. Wars cost money and the government was run on tariff revenue which basically was collected and paid for by the South. In his 1st Inaugural Address, Lincoln made it perfectly clear that he was willing to use military force to continue collecting the tariffs, knowing that he would be doing this in the ports of another country. A blockade was instituted around the major Southern ports. According to International law, blockades were not recognized without a Declaration of War which Lincoln never sought.
Lincoln acted ruthlessly with internal dissent caused by his war policies. Thousands of people were arrested nationwide and placed in confinement without the writ of habeas corpus. Dissident northern newspapers were shut down, their editors often placed under arrest. The case of Ex Parte Merryman decided by Justice Taney ruled that the Lincoln administration violated the constitution by suspending the writ of habeas corpus, something only Congress could do. Lincoln ignored the ruling and even went so far as to have an arrest warrant issued for Justice Taney.
With a series of questionable, illegal and unconstitutional actions, Lincoln aggressively placed the North on a war footing. William Tecumseh Sherman reputedly stated after an initial uninspired meeting with Lincoln that “he was unimpressed and sadly disappointed” and told his brother John Sherman, an important Northern politician, that he “damned the politicians generally,” saying that you have got things in a “hell of a fix”. I don’t think he meant his brother.
******************
Black Slave Owners
From: J.Wareagle@verizon.net
Chuck, I was playing some calculator games with some of the figures I've seen concerning Black participation in US slavery. I've heard that there were 261,000 free blacks in the South at the time of the war. Taking that number from the 1830 US Census of Black slave ownership in the SHNV article, it seems that 11.5% of all free Blacks owned slaves. This is opposed to less than 6% of white freemen population.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BLACKS PARTICIPATED IN SLAVERY. In the state of LA in 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves. Widow C. Richard and her son P. C. Richard owned 152 slaves. Antoine Dubuclet, owned over 100 slaves. In Charleston, SC 125 free Negroes owned slaves. Six of them owned ten or more. Mistress L. Horry, of South Carolina owned 84 slaves in 1830. The facts are in 1830 one fourth of the free Negro slave masters in SC owned 10 or more slaves. According to the U.S. 1830 Census over 3000 free blacks owned over 12,000 black slaves.
Jim Walters
FSA Scot, KTJ
Laird o 'Tha Haggis
The Caledonian Kitchen
972-966-2040
www.caledoniankitchen.com
*****************
Military Rule a Hallmark of Despotisms
From: bernhard1848@att.net
Reconstruction proconsul General Phil Sheridan was as despised in Louisiana as “Beast” Butler, and his goal was to prevent as many Americans who fought for self-government as possible from voting for their political representatives. This way the radical Republican party could take root and grow in the South, and control future elections. The author below should be aware that free republics do not require an army to bind them together, military rule is a hallmark of despotisms.
Bernhard Thuersam, Director
Cape Fear Historical Institute
www.cfhi.net
Military Rule a Hallmark of Despotisms:
“The Republicans passed the first of these [Reconstruction] acts on March 2, 1867, over President [Andrew] Johnson’s veto. The law declared that the Southern governments fostered by the president were provisional and held no legal authority. Congress divided the South into five military districts, whose commanders had to be either brigadier or major generals. These generals, once selected by the president, would hold all power over civilian governments and courts. The law also required Southern States within these districts to draft new constitutions in constitutional conventions.
The right to vote for delegates to these conventions was granted to all adult males, except those disenfranchised for service to the [American] Confederacy. Furthermore, each of these new constitutions must contain a provision that, in effect, would enfranchise black men. When the voters in each State accepted the new constitution, they were to elect a new governor and legislators. After the legislature ratified the proposed Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, the State’s congressmen would be considered for readmission to Congress.
Upon readmission, military control would end, and the duly elected civil authorities would resume their proper roles. The passage of this law was a watershed in Reconstruction, for by it the congressional Republicans seized the initiative from the executive, and the army became the agent of social and political change. The traumatic circumstances of the post-Civil War era appeared to demand such a radical departure from the usual American process of debate and compromise. What other part of the government but the army could compel a large percentage of the population to abide by laws many considered repugnant?
The Civil War had been fought to keep the Union from breaking apart. Now the army was called upon to help bind the nation together. Thereafter, an assignment to the South made some soldiers long for the trans-Mississippi plains where Indian fighting at least had some glory, some professional reward or recognition. Service in the South held the prospect of neither glory nor honor, only duty of the most confusing and frustrating kind – military government.”
(Army Generals and Reconstruction, Joseph G. Dawson III, LSU Press, 1982, pp. 43-44)
/\/.\/\/.
No comments:
Post a Comment