Tag Archives: Hawaii

What does renaming Mount McKinley in Alaska have in Common with renaming Lee Circle & Jefferson Davis Parkway in New Orleans?? It is all part of the purge of everything Traditionally White in the USA.

The ownership of history defines a people and their nation. I am a Southern heir of the Confederacy and the Old South. I will never allow any modern politician to take my grandparents’ love for me or their love for their grandparents’ cause. I spent my elementary school years with a Confederate Flag hanging in my room, and related pictures all over my grandparents’ home and several aunts’ & uncles’ homes. To purge this heritage would mean to purge myself, and, I’m sorry folks, but I just don’t want to be purged.

 I took my son Charlie to Beauvoir (and Confederate Memorial Hall) many times when he was living here with me, when he was little.  I hope that there are enough people who feel as I do to make sure that my great-great grandchildren will still remember and honor the Lees, the Jacksons (Andrew & Stonewall), Davis, Beauregard, Forrest, the Polks (James K. & Leonidas), and all the other Confederate heroes of the war of 1861-65.

There is a Federal Law of Cultural Resource Management built into the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (“NEPA”). In my opinion, the removal of the Four Major Monuments and any other alterations would have a major negative impact on the cultural environment and resources of New Orleans.

It would disturb the management and preservation of all other features of the city to remove these centrally placed and important “monumental” focal points of attention. For all these reasons, removal of the monuments would violate Federal Law and must be opposed in Court if the City Council votes in favor. Oh, and we should campaign vigorously to recall the mayor and all members of the City Council and demand a special election. I, for one, think this is worth fighting for on every front, until the monuments can be secured “for ourselves and our posterity.”

I have to admit, I have NO such similar feelings about President William McKinley. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2015/08/31/if-not-for-a-mountain-what-is-president-mckinleys-legacy/?wprss=rss_business  As the Washington Post article indicates, his only real legacy is the Spanish-American War of 1898, engendered and possibly engineered by the first major “False Flag” event in US History—the sinking of the Battleship Maine in Havana Harbor. 

In that rather inglorious imperialist episode, we conquered Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippine Islands and Guam from Spain.  Of these, we only have Puerto Rico and Guam to show for our efforts now.   The Annexation of Hawaii in the same year, 1898, had almost nothing to do with the Spanish-American War, but what the heck, so long as we were out there collecting Tropical Islands generally and Pacific Islands in particular, right? 

The Annexation of Hawaii was among the most utterly illegal acts ever committed in the name of the United States of America.  Hawaii had been recognized as a sovereign and independent nation, first as the self-governing indigenous Kingdom of Hawaii founded by King Kamehameha, for over 100 years, and then as an Anglo-Saxon Republic after the overthrow of the native Kingship, by all the major powers of the world, including the United States. 

In short, the Annexation of Hawaii was as absolutely and totally illegal as Cousin Abe’s war to suppress his own and his wife’s Southern cousins into submission, abject submission, although the Yankee Imperialist Conquest of Hawaii was bloodless and therefore “benign,” right?  Still, Hawaii has solid grounds for secession and nullification of its relations with the United States.  And I hope that Hawaii will lead the way in the dissolution of the Union.  That way the first shot of the next War of Secession doesn’t have to be fired here in the South this time.

(Oh, and that will resolve all questions regarding Barack Hussein Obama’s citizenship, although I, for one, am fairly convinced he was born in Kenya.  But since Hawaii was illegally annexed, it’s not part of the United States either, so “two birds with one stone.”)(yes, I am grinning as I write this last parenthetical).

But Why is Barack Obama involved in the renaming of Mount McKinley?  Is it because he is bitter about the annexation of his “native” Hawaii?  Well, if so, and as noted, I am too.

But I believe, really and truly, that Obama’s purpose in renaming Mount McKinley is part of a broader purpose and policy which stands as the cornerstone of his administration:  ALL OF WHITE AMERICA MUST BE SUPPRESSED AND DIE.   And McKinley, even if he was a nasty Republican Imperialist just like Abraham Lincoln before him and Theodore Roosevelt after him, was white.   And THAT, my friends, is what I would consider to be the real connexion between the renaming of Mount McKinley and the renaming of Lee Circle and Jefferson Davis Parkway…… One less “Monument” to a Dead White Male on the American map.

Obama claims that his purpose in renaming Mount Denali was to honor the Alaskan Athabaskans (Tinneh or Na Diné), who number approximately 6,400 in Alaska today, according to Wikipedia.   The total population of Alaska in 2013 was 737,259, and Hispanics outnumber Native Americans almost 3 to 1 as a percentage of the population.  http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/02000.html

I have no idea how many of these enrolled tribal members actually speak an Athabaskan language, but I am sure it is less than the 6,400 total, and so it is much less than the generation of millions of Elementary School Students who had to learn their American geography and history together. 

Wipe McKinley off the map?  I would be dishonest and hypocritical to say it were “no great loss”, even though I cannot and do not particularly admire the man or his “legacy.”  Because if traditional historical names can be changed for the benefit of tiny minorities…. well, then the 25,000 of us who have signed petitions to save Lee Circle and the Lee and Jefferson Davis Monuments in this city are indeed in a hopeless position.

Let’s Reflect on Pearl Harbor, and 166 years of Communist Advances

73 years ago this morning, 18 and a half years before I was born (wow, that makes me sound old), Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, was attacked.  My late father, and 18 and a half years old, a seaman barely out of training, was there.  He had joined the Navy to sea the world, and he had only enlisted 6 months before, on his 18th birthday, June 6, 1941, to learn something different about life from his father’s life farming cotton and corn in the piney woods and red soil of East Texas.  World War II gave him opportunities for rapid promotions and honors, of which he earned many.  I never got to talk to my Dad much about his experiences, and all I can remember him saying is about the smell of burning human flesh.

My Dad specifically said that he had never dreamt before what burning bodies might smell like, but that day, half way along the journey of life between his birth and mine, he learned and relearned the smell about 500 times and wondered whether he was next.  And then over the next four years he learned what human bodies looked like and smelled like in all sorts of states of decay and decomposition.  As in the time a kamikaze flier landed on the battleship deck but didn’t explode, and they couldn’t remove the body because they might trigger an explosion on deck (Sometimes in this modern world, cocooned in our coffee shops and Chinese restaurants, we think we have a hard life, but we really don’t, do we?  My father’s future wife [my mother] had already survived the London blitz by the time of Pearl Harbor, but she never had to learn those smells.  My grandfather from Galveston, Texas, was a special adviser to the Royal Navy sent under LBJ’s lend-lease program, but that was totally an office and port job, no significant time at sea at all.)

So Pearl Harbor and all that followed it was obviously a horrific experience the worst and most deadly war in human history, “but what good came of it at last?” And by “it” I mean all aspects of World War II?  Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, but historians are now pretty much unanimous in believing that Franklin D. Roosevelt did everything he could to prompt them to do so, because he, like Churchill, wanted to enter World War II for reasons that transcended any real notion of national security.

Patrick J. Buchanan is not alone among “historical revisionists” who now see World War II as an unnecessary war, which ultimately led to the Communist Domination of China and Indochina (Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos) in the East and all of “Eastern Europe” in the West.

Mark Weber of the IHR in Santa Ana regularly presents lectures on the dangers of “the Good War” mythology promoted around World War II, and many members of and sympathizers with the IHR bemoan the fact that World War II essentially destroyed what was left of European Civilization after World War I.

My own evolving perspective is that World War II was the culmination of a process of Marxist dialectical class change by modern, technologically brutal and destructive warfare which began in 1861 in the United States, although it was inspired by the Communist Manifesto of February 1848 in Europe.    So the “American Civil War” of 1861-1865, the “Great War” of 1914-1918, and World War II were all part of a single process of world transformation, it seems to be, guided by the spirit of international communism.

Thus I conclude, in briefest essence, Sunday, 7 December 1941 at Pearl Harbor was a political fraud, a pseudo-Platonic “noble lie” as some might say, much like Monday 11 September 2001 in New York City and Washington.  But was it really noble for our government to lie about why Americans should be killed and sacrificed on our home shores in order to justify more killing and sacrifice abroad?

What can we do with the Sesquicentennial of direct structural and functional progression between the U.S. Presidencies of Abraham Lincoln through Barack Obama?  Obama was elected in the 160th year of the Communist Manifesto, and I and many others consider Obama to be a very poorly disguised communist.  Even Newsweek Magazine trumpeted shortly after Obama was inaugurated (in February 2009), “We are all Socialists Now.”  Except I’m not, and a few friends of mine are not.

And by then by weird coincidence, Obama (in his first and second terms) got to preside entirely over the sesquicentennial of the American Civil War, which my ancestors called either the War Between the States or the War of Northern Aggression.  Naturally, the celebrations are very different then how they might have been had, for example, Strom Thurmond been elected in 1948, or George Wallace in 1968 (Strom never had a real chance at national election, but George definitely did in 1972, until (yes I guess I am a real “conspiracy theorist”) Nixon had him shot.

Can Racial Reconciliation be achieved by Ignoring or Falsifying History? An Open Letter to the Episcopal Bishop of Louisiana regarding “Truth, Honor, and Pride”

I have basically been very happily based in New Orleans, Louisiana, since I arrived here from Maui, Hawaii on December 9 of last year.  You know, there are ups and downs everywhere, but I had missed living in this city ever since I graduated from the Tulane College of Arts & Sciences on May 11, 1980, and have wanted to return here ever since.  I actually did return for several years 1997-2000, but was so wrapped up in my problems in Texas, I was basically bouncing back and forth.  One of the most consistently agreeable aspects of my life in New Orleans has been attending Church at Christ Church Cathedral on St. Charles & 6th Street, occasionally visiting at Trinity on Jackson right around the corner from my temporary home on Prytania (since March 8, 2013). One of the things I love most about New Orleans is its history—basically it’s impossible to take a walk, anywhere in this city, and not confront history face-to-face, it’s everywhere.  Basically, even the majority of the historic architecture in French Quarter really dates from the 19th century city, the actual 18th century buildings number in the dozens at the highest possible count.  The Garden District and “Uptown Audubon” mark a progression through the 19th century into the 20th.  St. Charles itself has been hideously scarred with mid-twentieth century cheap apartment buildings which took the place of many blocks of Victorian houses… but to either side of St. Charles, the historically decimating devastation is less.

How few people realize just how deeply New Orleans was shaped by the ante-bellum era and how loyal it was to the Confederate States of America, ESPECIALLY AFTER (ironically enough) the collapse of that nascent Federal Republic in 1865.

It is also undeniably true that the question of race-relations hangs like a sword of Damocles over the heads of the people of New Orleans.  The question comes up all the time, usually in emotional and rarely in analytical terms.

Ever since I heard, at the beginning of September, about an “Ecumenical Mass of Racial Reconciliation” being planned for January 12-21, 2014, I have been reflecting on the question of race and history in this wonderful town, this city where by dint of history black Americans first created a kind of “Jazz Aristocracy” recognized all over the world in the 1920s….

I wrote my initial thoughts on this question in a letter I just completed and delivered on Wednesday to the Episcopal Bishop of Louisiana and other members of the Clergy at Christ Church and Trinity Church.  

I have been told that in the bad old days of the Civil Rights movement, when the barriers of segregation were first being torn down, they had special “greeters” at Christ Church would take black folks aside and suggest to them that they might be “more comfortable elsewhere.”   The inversion of history is so great, I more than casually wonder whether I’ll now be afforded the same treatment for challenging the modern “politically correct” mythos of race.  

I attach here two versions of my letter to the Bishop and Clergy—only one of which I actually delivered (the October 2, 2013 version in which I reflect on the sinfulness of pride).  

2 October 2013 Letter to Bishop Thompson of Louisiana

1 October 2013 Letter to Bishop Thompson of Louisiana

I owe a great debt to two of my California friends who read over this letter before I delivered it: Shelene Emily Peterson of Belmont and Daniel Christian Mack of San Juan Capistrano.  Shelene keeps my English in line and tries to control my tendency to ramble (obvious with only limited success, although you should see how much she cut out….).  Dan made me realize the error of asserting, oxymoronically, “pride” which is inimical to Christian faith—although it is a critical element of human identity and sanity, it seems to me, that we must love ourselves for what we are.  And our ancestry shapes us, both culturally and genetically, whether we would wish it so or not.

Where do we belong?—Meditations on the Feast of Saints Peter & Paul—where DO we belong?

Always hoped that I’d be an Apostle, knew that I could make it if I tried;….. then when we retire we can write the Gospels so they’ll still talk about us when we die….

Jesus Christ Superstar, Andrew Lloyd Weber (Broadway 1971, Movie 1973)

2 Timothy 4:1-8.   As for me, I am already being poured out as a libation, and the time of my departure has come.  I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.

Saint Peter’s self-chosen mission was as Apostle to the Jews, Saint Paul’s to the Greeks, though they both died in Rome.  Originally they belonged to the same Jewish Community as Joseph & Mary, John-the-Baptist, and Jesus himself.  We might imagine that Peter and Paul belonged, presumably as devout members of the Temple of Jerusalem, but possibly not even close, but they belonged to that race and religion and linguistic and ethnic group, in Roman Occupied Judea, aka Palestine, aka Syria, presumably being very close in age and community to Jesus Christ himself.  

In the service of the Anointed “Son of God”, heir of the Royal House of David, the tree that grew from Jesse’s loins, Peter and Paul became the most famous and visible to history of all Jesus’ Apostles. They belonged as apostlesPaul’s letters and writings were generally deemed to “belong” in the Bible by the Council of Nicea.  But the “Gospel of Peter” was deemed by that same body NOT to belong, although it scholars of early Christianity still discuss it extensively, see e.g.: 

http://earliestchristianity.wordpress.com/2013/04/19/the-walking-talking-cross-in-the-gospel-of-peter-goodacre-vs-foster/

My “Forward Day-by-Day Booklet” suggests that this is a day when we should all consider, like Peter and Paul, where we belong, whether we are Christians or Jews or Pagans, to begin with, and then what we should do next.  Without our community, what should we do and how?  Should we accept the world as it is or try to change it?  Where do we belong in history?

We are free, endowed by God and/or Natural Selection with Free Will, but that is perhaps the greatest of our burdens.  “Our world recognizes the subversive nature of the Christian faith and subverts us either by ignoring us or by giving us the freedom  to be religious—as long as we keep religion a matter of personal choice.”   (From “Resident Aliens” by Stanley Hauerwas.

Has the South “Run the Good Race?” Is it time for the South (and California and Texas and the Union as a whole) to choose a different Path?   If we cannot “keep the faith”—do we really belong here?

Pat Buchanan has always been one of my favorite political writers.  He now asks whether the South still belongs in the Union, and I think it is a valid question.  Frankly, I believe that the Union does not belong anymore.  As my long-time (but currently “vacationing” personal assistant Peyton Freiman said sagely some years ago, “The United States needs to Secede from itself.  I think this has only become truer with time.  The South should Secede; California and Hawaii and Texas and Alaska should Secede. New England and New York should secede.  The Federal Union should be dissolved.  Obama can have the District of Columbia all to himself and the Supreme Court and Congress.  Illinois and Michigan might want to secede but then let Chicago and Detroit Secede and form an Isolated trio of City States with D.C., Detroit and Chicago exist under Obama.  The states should not recall their congressmen, because they are only worthy to be forgotten, not recalled…. In fact, all the States should simply revoke their Congressmen’s citizenship and order them to remain in D.C. or emigrate to Afghanistan, Israel, or Saudi Arabia or Yemen, depending on their political preferences.

Does the South Belong in the Union?

Friday – June 28, 2013 at 12:27 am

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Is the Second Reconstruction over?

The first ended with the withdrawal of Union troops from the Southern states as part of a deal that gave Rutherford B. Hayes the presidency after the disputed election of 1876.

The second began with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a century after Appomattox. Under the VRA, Southern states seeking to make even minor changes in voting laws had to come to Washington to plead their case before the Justice Department and such lions of the law as Eric Holder.

Southern states were required to get this pre-clearance for any alterations in voting laws because of systematic violations of the 14th and 15th amendment constitutional rights of black Americans to equal access to polling places and voting booths.

The South had discriminated by using poll taxes, gerrymandering and literacy tests, among other tactics. Dixie was in the penalty box because it had earned a place there.

What the Supreme Court did Tuesday, in letting the South out of the box, is to declare that, as this is not 1965, you cannot use abuses that date to 1965, but have long since disappeared, to justify indefinite federal discrimination against the American South.

You cannot impose burdens on Southern states, five of which recorded higher voting percentages among their black populations in 2012 than among their white populations, based on practices of 50 years ago that were repudiated and abandoned in another era.

You cannot punish Southern leaders in 2013 for the sins of their grandfathers. As Chief Justice John Roberts noted, black turnout in 2012 was higher in Mississippi than in Massachusetts.

Does this mean the South is now free to discriminate again?

By no means. State action that discriminates against minority voters can still be brought before the Department of Justice.

Even the “pre-clearance” provision of the VRA remains. All the court has said is that if Congress wishes to impose a pre-clearance provision on a state or group of states, Congress must have more evidence to justify unequal treatment than what “Bull” Connor did in Birmingham back in 1965.

Congress could pass a bill today authorizing Justice Department intervention in any state where the registration of blacks, Hispanics or Asians fell below 60 percent of that electorate.

What Congress can no longer do is impose conditions on Southern states from which Northern states are exempt. Washington can no longer treat the states unequally — for that, too, is a violation of the Constitution.

The Roberts court just took a giant stride to restoring the Union.

Yet the hysterical reaction to the decision reveals a great deal.

What do critics say they are afraid of?

While conceding that immense progress has been made with the huge turnout of black voters in the South and the re-election of a black president, they say they fear that without the pre-clearance provision this would never have happened. And now that the provision no longer applies to the South, the evil old ways will return.

On several counts this is disheartening.

For what the critics of the court decision are saying is that, no matter the progress made over half a century, they do not trust the South to deal fairly and decently with its black citizens, without a club over its head. They do not believe the South has changed in its heart from the days of segregation.

They think the South is lying in wait for a new opportunity to disfranchise its black voters. And they think black Southerners are unable to defend their own interests — without Northern liberal help.

In this belief there are elements of paranoia, condescension and bigotry.

Many liberals not only do not trust the South, some detest it. And many seem to think it deserves to be treated differently than the more progressive precincts of the nation.

Consider Wednesday’s offering by Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson. The South, he writes, is the home of “so-called right-to-work laws” and hostility to the union shop, undergirded by “the virulent racism of the white Southern establishment,” a place where a “right-wing antipathy toward workers’ rights” is pandemic.

The South is the “the heartland of cheap-labor America. … When it wants to slum, business still goes to the South.” Then there are those “reactionary white Republican state governments.”

Were a conservative to use the term “black” as a slur the way Meyerson spits out the word “white,” he would be finished at the Post. Meyerson’s summation:

“If the federal government wants to build a fence that keeps the United States safe from the danger of lower wages and poverty and their attendant ills — and the all-round fruitcakery of the right-wing white South — it should build that fence from Norfolk to Dallas. There is nothing wrong with a fence as long as you put it in the right place.”

Harold looks forward to the day that a surging Latino population forces “epochal political change” on a detestable white South.

Yes, the true story of Pearl Harbor and our entry into World War II is a disgraceful story of governmental manipulation and treachery.  Why would Franklin Delano Roosevelt have wanted to expand two separate wars in Europe and Asia into a World War?  Was it for the purpose of hiding the abysmal failure of the New Deal?  Or was it for the purpose of instigating a New World Order based on World Government and abolition of national sovereignty and the autonomous integrity of the people of Europe, North America, and other “caucasian isolates” around the world?  Why would the American President have done such a thing?  Was World War II a just war or a monstrosity of lies?  Did we really have a quarrel with the Japanese over the ownership of Hawaii?  If so, why do the Japanese and Filipino peoples now pretty much “rule” Hawaii with Anglo-Americans living here as a weak minority? (I’m writing this at the end of a two week stay on Maui, so I’m really thinking about Hawaii a lot…and what a better day to be in Hawaii that Pearl Harbor Day 2012, 71 years after the infamous day when—what, our government arranged to have us attacked?

My dad, born June 6, 1923, was exactly 18 and a half years old and had been in Hawaii just over a week on the original Pearl Harbor day, having completed six months training in Long Beach, California….).  He stayed in the Navy through the war then went to college and graduate school on the G.I. Bill, as did so many.

But was War just a prelude to the expansion of the welfare state?  My grandparents taught me that World War II had five major effects: (1) it finally ended the depression where the New Deal had not, (2) it finally ended black slavery and white serfdom and sharecropping in the Old South, (3) it ended the British Empire, (4) it launched the United States and Soviet Empires into the Cold War, (5) the terrible destruction of Europe and in particular of Germany and the advent of the atom bomb caused the greatest confusion as to ethics, morality, and political values that had ever taken place in the worldwide history of mankind.

http://mises.org/daily/6312/How-US-Economic-Warfare-Provoked-Japans-Attack-on-Pearl-Harbor

How U.S. Economic Warfare Provoked Japan’s Attack on Pearl Harbor

Mises Daily: Friday, December 07, 2012 by 

The attack on Pearl Harbor

[This talk was the Arthur M. Krolman Lecture at the 30th Anniversary Supporters Summit of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Callaway Gardens, Georgia, on October 26, 2012. Click here to watch the video of this talk.]

Many people are misled by formalities. They assume, for example, that the United States went to war against Germany and Japan only after its declarations of war against these nations in December 1941. In truth, the United States had been at war for a long time before making these declarations. Its war making took a variety of forms. For example, the U.S. navy conducted “shoot [Germans] on sight” convoys – convoys that might include British ships — in the North Atlantic along the greater part the shipping route from the United States to Great Britain, even though German U-boats had orders to refrain (and did refrain) from initiating attacks on U.S. shipping. The United States and Great Britain entered into arrangements to pool intelligence, combine weapons development, test military equipment jointly, and undertake other forms of war-related cooperation. The U.S. military actively cooperated with the British military in combat operations against the Germans, for example, by alerting the British navy of aerial or marine sightings of German submarines, which the British then attacked. The U.S. government undertook in countless ways to provide military and other supplies and assistance to the British, the French, and the Soviets, who were fighting the Germans. The U.S. government also provided military and other supplies and assistance, including warplanes and pilots, to the Chinese, who were at war with Japan.[1] The U.S. military actively engaged in planning with the British, the British Commonwealth countries, and the Dutch East Indies for future combined combat operations against Japan. Most important, the U.S. government engaged in a series of increasingly stringent economic warfare measures that pushed the Japanese into a predicament that U.S. authorities well understood would probably provoke them to attack U.S. territories and forces in the Pacific region in a quest to secure essential raw materials that the Americans, British, and Dutch (government in exile) had embargoed. [2]

Consider these summary statements by George Victor, by no means a Roosevelt basher, in his well documented book The Pearl Harbor Myth.

Roosevelt had already led the United States into war with Germany in the spring of 1941—into a shooting war on a small scale. From then on, he gradually increased U.S. military participation. Japan’s attack on December 7 enabled him to increase it further and to obtain a war declaration. Pearl Harbor is more fully accounted for as the end of a long chain of events, with the U.S. contribution reflecting a strategy formulated after France fell. . . . In the eyes of Roosevelt and his advisers, the measures taken early in 1941 justified a German declaration of war on the United States—a declaration that did not come, to their disappointment. . . . Roosevelt told his ambassador to France, William Bullitt, that U.S. entry into war against Germany was certain but must wait for an “incident,” which he was “confident that the Germans would give us.” . . . Establishing a record in which the enemy fired the first shot was a theme that ran through Roosevelt’s tactics. . . . He seems [eventually] to have concluded—correctly as it turned out—that Japan would be easier to provoke into a major attack on the Unites States than Germany would be. [3]

The claim that Japan attacked the United States without provocation was . . . typical rhetoric. It worked because the public did not know that the administration had expected Japan to respond with war to anti-Japanese measures it had taken in July 1941. . . . Expecting to lose a war with the United States—and lose it disastrously—Japan’s leaders had tried with growing desperation to negotiate. On this point, most historians have long agreed. Meanwhile, evidence has come out that Roosevelt and Hull persistently refused to negotiate. . . . Japan . . . offered compromises and concessions, which the United States countered with increasing demands. . . . It was after learning of Japan’s decision to go to war with the United States if the talks “break down” that Roosevelt decided to break them off. . . . According to Attorney General Francis Biddle, Roosevelt said he hoped for an “incident” in the Pacific to bring the United States into the European war.[4]

These facts and numerous others that point in the same direction are for the most part anything but new; many of them have been available to the public since the 1940s. As early as 1953, anyone might have read a collection of heavily documented essays on various aspects of U.S. foreign policy in the late 1930s and early 1940s, edited by Harry Elmer Barnes, that showed the numerous ways in which the U.S. government bore responsibility for the country’s eventual engagement in World War II—showed, in short, that the Roosevelt administration wanted to get the country into the war and worked craftily along various avenues to ensure that, sooner or later, it would get in, preferably in a way that would unite public opinion behind the war by making the United States appear to have been the victim of an aggressor’s unprovoked attack.[5] As Secretary of War Henry Stimson testified after the war, “we needed the Japanese to commit the first overt act.” [6]

At present, however, seventy years after these events, probably not one American in 1,000—nay, not one in 10,000—has an inkling of any of this history. So effective has been the pro-Roosevelt, pro-American, pro-World War II faction that in this country it has utterly dominated teaching and popular writing about U.S. engagement in the “Good War.”

In the late nineteenth century, Japan’s economy began to grow and to industrialize rapidly. Because Japan has few natural resources, many of its burgeoning industries had to rely on imported raw materials, such as coal, iron ore or steel scrap, tin, copper, bauxite, rubber, and petroleum. Without access to such imports, many of which came from the United States or from European colonies in Southeast Asia, Japan’s industrial economy would have ground to a halt. By engaging in international trade, however, the Japanese had built a moderately advanced industrial economy by 1941.

At the same time, they also built a military-industrial complex to support an increasingly powerful army and navy. These armed forces allowed Japan to project its power into various places in the Pacific and East Asia, including Korea and northern China, much as the United States used its growing industrial might to equip armed forces that projected U.S. power into the Caribbean, Latin America, and even as far away as the Philippine Islands.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt became president in 1933, the U.S. government fell under the control of a man who disliked the Japanese and harbored a romantic affection for the Chinese because, some writers have speculated, Roosevelt’s ancestors had made money in the China trade.[7] Roosevelt also disliked the Germans in general and Adolf Hitler in particular, and he tended to favor the British in his personal relations and in world affairs. He did not pay much attention to foreign policy, however, until his New Deal began to peter out in 1937. Thereafter he relied heavily on foreign policy to fulfill his political ambitions, including his desire for reelection to an unprecedented third term.

When Germany began to rearm and to seek Lebensraumaggressively in the late 1930s, the Roosevelt administration cooperated closely with the British and the French in measures to oppose German expansion. After World War II commenced in 1939, this U.S. assistance grew ever greater and included such measures as the so-called destroyer deal and the deceptively named Lend-Lease program. In anticipation of U.S. entry into the war, British and U.S. military staffs secretly formulated plans for joint operations. U.S. forces sought to create a war-justifying incident by cooperating with the British navy in attacks on German U-boats in the northern Atlantic, but Hitler refused to take the bait, thus denying Roosevelt the pretext he craved for making the United States a full-fledged, declared belligerent—a belligerence that the great majority of Americans opposed.

In June 1940, Henry L. Stimson, who had been secretary of war under William Howard Taft and secretary of state under Herbert Hoover, became secretary of war again. Stimson was a lion of the Anglophile, northeastern upper crust and no friend of the Japanese. In support of the so-called Open Door Policy for China, Stimson favored the use of economic sanctions to obstruct Japan’s advance in Asia. Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau and Interior Secretary Harold Ickes vigorously endorsed this policy. Roosevelt hoped that such sanctions would goad the Japanese into making a rash mistake by launching a war against the United States, which would bring in Germany because Japan and Germany were allied.

The Roosevelt administration, while curtly dismissing Japanese diplomatic overtures to harmonize relations, accordingly imposed a series of increasingly stringent economic sanctions on Japan. In 1939, the United States terminated the 1911 commercial treaty with Japan. “On July 2, 1940, Roosevelt signed the Export Control Act, authorizing the President to license or prohibit the export of essential defense materials.” Under this authority, “[o]n July 31, exports of aviation motor fuels and lubricants and No. 1 heavy melting iron and steel scrap were restricted.” Next, in a move aimed at Japan, Roosevelt slapped an embargo, effective October 16, “on all exports of scrap iron and steel to destinations other than Britain and the nations of the Western Hemisphere.” Finally, on July 26, 1941, Roosevelt “froze Japanese assets in the United States, thus bringing commercial relations between the nations to an effective end. One week later Roosevelt embargoed the export of such grades of oil as still were in commercial flow to Japan.” [8] The British and the Dutch followed suit, embargoing exports to Japan from their colonies in Southeast Asia.

Roosevelt and his subordinates knew they were putting Japan in an untenable position and that the Japanese government might well try to escape the stranglehold by going to war. Having broken the Japanese diplomatic code, the American leaders knew, among many other things, what Foreign Minister Teijiro Toyoda had communicated to Ambassador Kichisaburo Nomura on July 31: “Commercial and economic relations between Japan and third countries, led by England and the United States, are gradually becoming so horribly strained that we cannot endure it much longer. Consequently, our Empire, to save its very life, must take measures to secure the raw materials of the South Seas.”[9]

Because American cryptographers had also broken the Japanese naval code, the leaders in Washington also knew that Japan’s “measures” would include an attack on Pearl Harbor.[10] Yet they withheld this critical information from the commanders in Hawaii, who might have headed off the attack or prepared themselves to defend against it. That Roosevelt and his chieftains did not ring the tocsin makes perfect sense: after all, the impending attack constituted precisely what they had been seeking for a long time. As Stimson confided to his diary after a meeting of the War Cabinet on November 25, “The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.” After the attack, Stimson confessed that “my first feeling was of relief . . . that a crisis had come in a way which would unite all our people.”[11]

Comment on this article.

Robert Higgs is senior fellow in political economy for the Independent Institute and editor of The Independent Review. He is the 2007 recipient of the Gary G. Schlarbaum Prize for Lifetime Achievement in the Cause of Liberty. Send him mail. See Robert Higgs’s article archives.

You can subscribe to future articles by Robert Higgs via this RSS feed.

Copyright © 2012 by the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided full credit is given.

Notes

[1] See “Flying Tigers,” Wikipedia. Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Tigers.

[2] Robert Higgs, “How U.S. Economic Warfare Provoked Japan’s Attack on Pearl Harbor,” The Freeman 56 (May 2006): 36-37.

[3] George Victor, The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable (Dulles, Va.: Potomac Books, 2007), pp. 179-80, 184, 185, emphasis added.

[4] Ibid ., pp. 15, 202, 240.

[5] See Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: A Critical Examination of the Foreign Policy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Its Aftermath, edited by Harry Elmer Barnes (Caldwell, Id.: Caxton Printers, 1953).

[6] Stimson as quoted in Victor, Pearl Harbor Myth, p. 105.

[7] Harry Elmer Barnes, “Summary and Conclusions,” in Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: A Critical Examination of the Foreign Policy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Its Aftermath, edited by Harry Elmer Barnes (Caldwell, Idaho: Caxton Printers, 1953), 682-83.

[8] All quotations in this paragraph are from George Morgenstern, “The Actual Road to Pearl Harbor,” in Barnes, ed., Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, 322-23, 327-28.

[9] Quoted in Morgenstern, “The Actual Road to Pearl Harbor,” 329.

[10] Robert B. Stinnett, Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor (New York: Free Press, 2000).

[11] Quoted in Morgenstern, “The Actual Road to Pearl Harbor,” 343, 384.

As the Texas Secession Petition to the Whitehouse reaches (and passes the palindromic/mirror image figure of) 116,611 signatures, more thoughts on Living in the City (and State) of Dreams—underneath the Concrete, the Dream is Still Alive…..Louisiana comes in Second Place at 36,859, Florida Third at 34,612, Georgia Fourth at 31,937—Why not Hawaii? (The only other State Ever to be internationally recognized as a Sovereign State and Republic before Annexation—also, like Texas in 1865, at gunpoint) How about California? “The Bear Flag Republic” (only State to Call itself a Republic on its State Flag….) How about your State?

CEL Petitions to the Whitehouse as of 11-24-2012 12-36AM | We the People: Your Voice in Our Government

WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:

Peacefully grant the State of Texas to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government.

The US continues to suffer economic difficulties stemming from the federal government’s neglect to reform domestic and foreign spending. The citizens of the US suffer from blatant abuses of their rights such as the NDAA, the TSA, etc. Given that the state of Texas maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world, it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union, and to do so would protect it’s citizens’ standard of living and re-secure their rights and liberties in accordance with the original ideas and beliefs of our founding fathers which are no longer being reflected by the federal government.

Created: Nov 09, 2012

(Additional) SIGNATURES NEEDED BY DECEMBER 09, 2012 TO REACH GOAL OF 25,000 = 0

TOTAL SIGNATURES ON THIS PETITION 116,611

(a palindromic or mirror image figure) as of 1:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time on Saturday, November 24, 2012

You’ve already signed this petition

Thank you for participating. Find other petitions you’re interested in or start your own.

Texas Secession Facts
Printer-Friendly PDF Version
• Doesn’t the Texas Constitution reserve the right of Texas to secede?
• Didn’t the outcome of the “Civil War” prove secession is not an option for any State?
• Didn’t the U.S. Supreme Court in Texas v. White prove secession is unconstitutional?
• Is Texas really ripe for a secession movement?
• How would Texas—and Texans—benefit from secession?
• Are there any organized efforts to promote a Texas secession?
• Why exactly are y’all selling bumper stickers?
Q: Doesn’t the Texas Constitution reserve the right of Texas to secede? [BACK TO TOP]
A: This heavily popularized bit of Texas folklore finds no corroboration where it counts: No such provision is found in the current Texas Constitution[1](adopted in 1876) or the terms of annexation.[2]  However, it does state (in Article 1, Section 1) that “Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States…” (note that it does not state“…subject to the President of the United States…” or “…subject to the Congress of the United States…” or “…subject to the collective will of one or more of the other States…”)

Neither the Texas Constitution, nor the Constitution of the united States, explicitly or implicitly disallows the secession of Texas (or any other “free and independent State”) from the United States.  Joining the “Union” was ever and always voluntary, rendering voluntary withdrawal an equally lawful and viable option (regardless of what any self-appointed academic, media, or government “experts”—including Abraham Lincoln himself—may have ever said).

Both the original (1836) and the current (1876) Texas Constitutions also state that “All political power is inherent in the people … they have at all times the inalienable right to alter their government in such manner as they might think proper.”

Likewise, each of the united States is “united” with the others explicitly on the principle that “governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed” and “whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends [i.e., protecting life, liberty, and property]it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government and “when a long train of abuses and usurpations…evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” [3]

 
Q: Didn’t the outcome of the “Civil War” prove that secession is not an option for any State? [BACK TO TOP]
A:

No.  It only proved that, when allowed to act outside his lawfully limited authority, a U.S. president is capable of unleashing horrendous violence against the lives, liberty, and property of those whom he pretends to serve.  The Confederate States (including Texas) withdrew from the Union lawfully, civilly, and peacefully, after enduring several years of excessive and inequitable federal tariffs (taxes) heavily prejudiced against Southern commerce.[4]  Refusing to recognize the Confederate secession, Lincoln called it a “rebellion” and a “threat” to “the government” (without ever explaining exactly how “the government” was “threatened” by a lawful, civil, and peaceful secession) and acted outside the lawfully defined scope of either the office of president or the U.S. government in general, to coerce the South back into subjugation to Northern control.[5]

The South’s rejoining the Union at the point of a bayonet in the late 1860s didn’t prove secession is “not an option” or unlawful.  It only affirmed that violent coercion can be used—even by governments (if unrestrained)—to rob men of their very lives, liberty, and property.[6]

It bears repeating that the united States are “united” explicitly on the principle that “governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed” and “whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends [i.e., protecting life, liberty, and property]it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government and “when a long train of abuses and usurpations…evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” [7]

 
Q: Didn’t the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Texas v. White prove that secession is unconstitutional? [BACK TO TOP]
A: No.  For space considerations, here are the relevant portions of the Supreme Court’s decision in Texas v. White:

“When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.

“…The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union …remained perfect and unimpaired. …the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union.

“…Our conclusion therefore is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union.”
— Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 703 (1868)

It is noteworthy that documented support for the alleged “perpetual and indissoluble relation” or any requirement of “the consent of the States” for revocation (secession) weren’t produced by the court at that time, nor have they since been produced.

It is also noteworthy that two years after that decision, President Grant signed an act entitling Texas to U.S. Congressional representation, readmitting Texas to the Union.

What’s wrong with this picture?  Either the Supreme Court was wrong in claiming Texas never actually left the Union (they were — see below), or the Executive (President Grant) was wrong in “readmitting” a state that, according to the Supreme Court, had never left.  Both can’t be logically or legally true.

To be clear:  Within a two year period, two branches of the same government took action with regard to Texas on the basis of two mutually exclusive positions — one, a judicially contrived “interpretation” of the US Constitution, argued essentially from silence, and the other a practical attempt to remedy the historical fact that Texas had indeed left the Union, the very evidence for which was that Texas had recently met the demands imposed by the same federal government as prerequisite conditions for readmission.  If the Supreme Court was right, then the very notion of prerequisites for readmission would have been moot — a state cannot logically be readmitted if it never left in the first place.

This gross logical and legal inconsistency remains unanswered and unresolved to this day.

Now to the Supreme Court decision in itself…

The Court, led by Chief Justice Salmon Chase (a Lincoln cabinet member and leading Union figure during the war against the South) pretended to be analyzing the case through the lens of the Constitution, yet not a single element of their logic or line of reasoning came directly from the Constitution — precisely because the Constitution is wholly silent on whether the voluntary association of a plurality of states into a union may be altered by the similarly voluntary withdrawal of one or more states.

It’s no secret that more than once there had been previous rumblings about secession among many U.S. states (and not just in the South), long before the South seceded.  These rumblings met with no preemptive quashing of the notion from a “constitutional” argument, precisely because there was (and is) no constitutional basis for either allowing or prohibiting secession.

An objective reading of the relevant portions of the White decision reveals that it is largely arbitrary, contrived, and crafted to suit the agenda which it served:  presumably (but unconstitutionally) to award to the U.S. federal government, under color of law, sovereignty over the states, essentially nullifying their right to self-determination and self-rule, as recognized in the Declaration of Independence, as well as the current Texas Constitution (which stands unchallenged by the federal government).

Where the Constitution does speak to the issue of powers, they resolve in favor of the states unless expressly granted to the federal government or denied to the states.  No power to prevent or reverse secession is granted to the federal government, and the power to secede is not specifically denied to the states; therefore that power is retained by the states, as guaranteed by the 10th Amendment.

The Texas v. White case is often trotted out to silence secessionist sentiment, but on close and contextual examination, it actually exposes the unconstitutional, despotic, and tyrannical agenda that presumes to award the federal government, under color of law, sovereignty over the people and the states.

 
Q: Is Texas really ripe for a secession movement? [BACK TO TOP]
A:

Probably not (yet).  Texans generally aren’t the rugged, independent, liberty-conscious folks they once were.  Like most Americans, they happily acquiesce to the U.S. government’s steady theft of their rights and property via unlawful statutes, programs, and activities.

Unfamiliar with historical or legal details, being largely products of public (i.e., government) “education,” today’s Texans easily adopt the “politically correct” myths that litter the landscape of American popular opinion.  Many don’t even know what the word secede means, and believe that the United States is a “democracy” (hint: it’s not)[8].

But public opinion and ignorance won’t stop us from suggesting that secession is still a good idea for people who value their rights and personal liberty more highly than the temporal affluence, comfort, and false security provided by the U.S. welfare/warfare state.  By raising public awareness of even the concept of secession, we hope they might plant seeds that will some day yield a new resolve among Texans for liberty and self-government.

Q: How would Texas—and Texans—benefit from secession? [BACK TO TOP]
A:

In many ways.  Over the past century-and-a-half the United States government has awarded itself ever more power (but not the lawful authority) to meddle with the lives, liberty, and property of the People of Texas (as well as those of the other States).

Sapping Texans’ wealth into a myriad of bureaucratic, socialist schemes both in the U.S. and abroad, the bipartisan despots in Washington persist in expanding the federal debt and budget deficits every year.  Texans would indeed gain much by reclaiming control of their State, their property, their liberty, and their very lives, by refusing to participate further in the fraud perpetrated by the Washington politicians and bureaucrats.

By restoring Texas to an independent republic, Texans would truly reclaim a treasure for themselves and their progeny.

Q: Are any organizations promoting a Texas secession? [BACK TO TOP]
A:

Yes.  The following organized efforts exist for informing and unifying Texans around the causes of independence and liberty:

  • Texas Nationalist (www.TexasNationalist.com) (formerly Republic of Texas), (President, Daniel Miller), functional as of 2007
  • TexasSecession (www.TexasSecession.com) 817-453-5744
  • United Republic of Texas (www.texas.freecountries.org) Yahoo Group: UtdRepTex, established 2005, functional as of 2007 (Combining the New Republic of Texas and Historical Republic of Texas) active as of 2008
  • Texas Constitution 2000 calls on Texans to ratify a new constitution liberating Texas from the economic and statutory slavery of the U.S. government.  Their website is http://www.tcrf.com
  • Republic of Texas (www.texasrepublic.info) documents the annexation of Texas as a U.S. state as a having been a fraud in the first place, and reclaims the republic’s sovereignty. Contact:trep777@dctexas.net
  • Free Texas Constitution (freetexasconstitution.wordpress.com) aims to provide an outline for concepts to be incorporated in the new Constitution for the independent Republic of Texas.
Q: Why exactly are y’all selling bumper stickers? [BACK TO TOP]
A:

Texas has a rich history of independent character.  She was the first of only two US States ever recognized internationally as sovereign, independent republics (the other was Hawai’i), having won her independence from a heavy-handed despotic government (Mexico) that refused to honor its own constitution (sound familiar?).

We’d like to see Texans showing more public pride in Texas by displaying symbols of Texas’ history and spirit of liberty.   That’s the motivation behind TexasSecede.com, as well as our offering quality Texas Secede decals, as a means of encouraging the public display of support for an independent Texas.

Notes[1]  See The Texas Constitution Online  [RETURN TO TEXT]

[2]  See the Terms of Annexation Online  [RETURN TO TEXT]

[3]  See the Declaration of Independence Online  [RETURN TO TEXT]

[4], [5], [6]  See Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era by James M. McPherson; The Real Lincoln by Thomas J. DiLorenzo; A Consitutional History of Secession by John R. Graham; Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men by Jeffrey R. Hummel; When in the Course of Human Events by Charles Adams; Union And Liberty by John C. Calhoun;States’ Rights and the Union by Forrest McDonald  [RETURN TO TEXT]

[7]  See the Declaration of Independence Online  [RETURN TO TEXT]

[8]  See DemocracyIsNotFreedom.com for details.  [RETURN TO TEXT]

 © Copyright 2012 TexasSecede.org    Contact Us    TexasSecede! Blog

August 12—a Bloody Day in History: in 30 BC Cleopatra Committed Suicide; in 1480 AD the Ottoman Army Beheaded 800 Christians at Otranto for Failure to Convert to Islam; in 1914 Great Britain Declared War on Austria-Hungary—and it’s a Bloody Hot Day in Fresno, California, too….

How One Day In History Outlines the Creation of the Present World Order and World Mythology under which we live

  • 1898 – An Armistice ends the Spanish–American War—the U.S. acquires Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippine Islands, Guam and simultaneously—-by no coincidence:
  • 1898 – The Hawaiian flag is lowered from ʻIolani Palace in an elaborate annexation ceremony and replaced with the flag of the United States to signify the transfer of sovereignty from the Republic of Hawaii to the United States.
  • 1914 – World War I: the United Kingdom declares war on Austria-Hungary; the countries of the British Empire follow suit.
  • 1914 – World War I: the Belgium Battle of Haelen a.k.a. (Battle of the Silver Helmets) last cavalry style attack from the German army on the city of Halen Belgium—in the battle of horses against tanks and machine guns, the horse fared very poorly….
  • 1944 – Waffen-SS troops massacre 560 people in Sant’Anna di Stazzema.
  • 1944 – Nazi German troops end the week-long Wola massacre, during which time at least 40,000 people were killed indiscriminately or in mass executions—one historian wrote, that in the aftermath of the Warsaw uprising of 1944: “the massacres in Wola had nothing in common with combat” as “the ratio of civilian to military dead was more than a thousand to one, even if military casualties on both sides are counted”
  • 1944 – Alençon is liberated by General Philippe Leclerc de Hauteclocque, the first city in France to be liberated from the Nazis by French forces (most French cities were liberated by U.S. and British Forces)
  • 1950 – Bloody Gulch massacre : American POWs were massacred by North Korean Army.
  • 1952 – The Night of the Murdered Poets: 13 prominent Jewish intellectuals are murdered in Moscow, Russia, Soviet Union.
  • 1953 – Nuclear weapons testing: the Soviet atomic bomb project continues with the detonation of Joe 4, the first Soviet thermonuclear weapon.
  • 1953 – The islands of Zakynthos and Kefalonia in Greece are severely damaged by an earthquake measuring 7.3 on the Richter scale.
  • 1960 – Echo 1A, NASA’s first successful communications satellite, is launched.
  • 1964 – South Africa is banned from the Olympic Games due to the country’s racist policies—-the politicization of the Olympics had already begun….
  • 1964 – Charlie Wilson, one of the Great Train Robbers, escapes from Winson Green Prison in Birmingham, England, United Kingdom.
  • 1969 – Violence erupts after the Apprentice Boys of Derry march in Derry, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom resulting in a three-day communal riot known as the Battle of the Bogside; this is the first of these historical events of which I have some vague personal memory of contemporary awareness—I was with my grandparents in London that August—we were staying at the Savoy Hotel—I was nine and misbehaving and my grandfather offered me a hundred pounds if I would shut up at the dinner table and my grandmother made him pay when I did….they wanted to talk about the Protestant-Catholic conflict in Ireland and I have no idea what I was talking about.
  • 1976 – Between 1,000 and 3,500 Palestinians are killed in the Tel al-Zaatar massacre, one of the bloodiest events of the Lebanese Civil War
  • 1977 – The first free flight of the Space Shuttle Enterprise.
  • 1977 – The 1977 riots in Sri Lanka, targeting the minority Sri Lankan Tamil people, begin, less than a month after the United National Party came to power. Over 300 Tamils are killed.
  • 1978 – The Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Japan and the People’s Republic of China is signed.
  • 1980 – The Montevideo Treaty, establishing the Latin American Integration Association, is signed.
  • 1981 – The IBM Personal Computer is released.
  • 1982 – Mexico announces it is unable to pay its enormous external debt, marking the beginning of a debt crisis that spreads to all of Latin America and the Third World.  This is the event on this list I remember most clearly—I was in Merida, Yucatan, after my first summer at Chichen Itza, and when President Jose Lopez-Portillo nationalized the banks a few weeks later, I was there for the incredible panic and crisis, and the eerie scene of all the bank facades being draped in immense Mexican flags….