Tag Archives: Virginia

Comparing Catalonia and the Confederacy—States and Nations (with notes on the Monstrosity of Moderation in Media)

SPAIN TRIED AND FAILED TO SUPPRESS A VOTE FOR SECESSION IN ITS WEALTHY NORTHEASTERN CORNER OF CATALONIA TODAY (Sunday October 1, 2017).  According to the latest tally I have seen on the BBC, 2,020,144 Catalan voters cast their ballots in favor of an Independent Republic, centered on the Mediterranean seaport of Barcelona.  These two million plus voters constituted 90.09% of the 42-43% of the eligible electorate who voted, but Spain itself had urged pro-Spanish “no” voters to stay away from the Polls, and the massive police intervention and use of force must have discouraged some….

Although during the past 42 years that “Francisco Franco is still dead,” Spain has acknowledged the right of the several nationalities (Basque, Galician, Catalan) to assert regional autonomy, Spain has declared this vote illegal and non-binding. The Central Government of Spain in Madrid has been arguing ever since the election of the pro-Independence party in September of 2015,  that Catalonia’s vote was going to be “illegal” and they threatened to, and actually did, try to suppress the vote by Police Action.  

Most of the world (which has spoken) has either come out expressly in favor or seems tacitly on the side of Catalans who want independence.  Only Madrid and the Spanish government seem strongly against it—fearful, undoubtedly, of losing prime Mediterranean beach resorts, Barcelona (the second largest city in Spain, seventh largest and “most successful” in all Europe), plus the Balearic Islands (Majorca, Menorca, Ibiza and Formentera).  In essence, Catalonia includes some of the best real estate IN ALL OF EUROPE AND THE CIRCUM MEDITERRANEAN WORLD.  This is indeed “the Spanish Riviera”.

The comparison to the Secession of the Confederate States of America is obvious, but it isn’t getting much currency in the U.S. or British Media, despite the fact that the Confederate States have made a renewed appearance in the news since April, here in New Orleans and around the USA…. and even in the consciousness of the whole world.

So, since nobody else is making the comparison (that I’ve seen so far, anyhow, I will).   In 1860, the Southern states formed (per capita) the richest part of the United States.   Catalonia had better hope that world opinion remains on its side!    Because Spain has its eyes and tax collectors all focused on this rich province, and history tells us that the rich can be laid low when they try to retain their wealth….

For the record, Catalonia was originally, and has always considered itself, a separate “Nationality” (i.e. ethnolinguistic group). During the Middle Ages, the County of Barcelona became the Capital of the “Principality of Catalonia” which later became incorporated into the Kingdom of Aragon.  Aragon, in turn, was one of the most powerful and richest states in the post-Reconquista/Crusader world of the Mediterranean.  Then Aragon, later, under the 15th century reigns of King Ferdinand of Aragon and Queen Isabella of Castile, merged to form the modern Nation-State of “Spain”, leading to 500 years of almost continuous unity, although Aragon and Catalonia have several times reasserted their identities as monarchies or republics.

As James Ronald & Walter Donald Kennedy have shown in their most recent book “Punished with Poverty: the Suffering South, Prosperity to Poverty and the Continuing Struggle”  Columbia, South Carolina: Shotwell Publishing (2016), and as my dearly beloved grandmother always told me, THE SOUTH WAS THE WEALTHIEST PART OF THE UNITED STATES, “before the War” and the poorest part afterwards.   The combined cash value of the crops in any of the three pairs of Virginia and Georgia or Mississippi and Louisiana or North & South Carolina (each pair taken alone) exceeded the cash value of all the manufactured goods produced north of the Mason & Dixon-Ohio River—as of 1860.  But as of 1870, war had irreversibly altered the situation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Shsf–rh4PE

While neither historians or any Southerners today doubt that the people of the South overwhelmingly favored secession in 1861, the state legislatures only voted to hold popular votes as referenda/plebiscites/”propositions” in three of the thirteen states and one territory seceding (there were fifteen “slave” states, but a secession vote in the legislature in Maryland was suppressed at gunpoint and the state of Delaware never tried—West Virginia seceded from Virginia but kept its slaves and (ironically) after the war was among the most hostile toward enfranchisement of the newly freed slaves, as evidenced in several of the early major civil rights cases which emerged from that idiosyncratic Appalachian state opposite Ohio that seceded to nullify secession—oh, and Arizona was a territory constituting the southern half of what is now Arizona and New Mexico, but had then all been “New Mexico” until 1861).

In the states that held popular vote referenda, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia, the votes in favor of secession were nowhere nearly as lopsided as the vote held in Catalonia today (Sunday, October 1, 2017), but it should be noted that NO NORTHERN STATE, nor the United States Federal Government, under President James Buchanan, ever questioned or attempted to quash secession in any state.  From South Carolina’s legislature’s first Ordinance of Secession on December 20, 1860, through Louisiana’s secession as the sixth state on January 26, 1861, the popular support for separation from the Union never appeared to waver or be doubtful.

SOUTHERN SECESSION PLEBESCITES

In February of 1861, Texas’ legislature voted to dissolve the state’s barely 16 year old affiliation with the Union on February 1, and a popular referendum was held on February 23, wherein the vote was 3.13:1 in favor of disunion.  

Virginia went through a similar two stage process in April and May of 1861, and the vote there (after Fort Sumter) was 3.53:1 in favor of taking the Old Dominion state into the Confederacy.  Robert E. Lee had opposed secession, but IN THOSE DAYS ONE’S CITIZENSHIP BELONGED TO THE STATE, NOT THE FEDERATION.  It would be comparable to calling us all “Citizens of the United Nations”—maybe some people WANT Global Citizenship, but so far, THANK GOD, no politically viable majority anywhere have ever voted for such a thing.

Finally, in May-June, Tennessee voted to secede, although the popular vote in that state was only 2.21:1 (for reference and comparison, NO PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS EVER WON ANY ELECTION BY A 2.21-1 POPULAR VOTE (although Lyndon B. Johnson came closest in 1964 against Goldwater at 1.58 to 1 comparable to FDR in 1936 against Alf Landon at 1.61 to 1—there being more third party votes in 1936 which reduced Roosevelt’s over all majority win very slightly).

IS FREEDOM TO CHOOSE REALLY TREASON?

How many of you have been divorced?  No, it’s a serious question.  How many of you have been divorced AFTER taking a vow “Til Death do Us Part”?  I was born an “Anglo-Catholic” (i.e. Episcopalian) and my wife was born Greek Orthodox in Greece.  My parents, despite their vows, split up when I was pre-school/kindergarten and it had a major impact on my life, mostly negative.  I especially regret now, looking back on it, how my grandmother taught me to scorn my own father.  That MIGHT have been a bad thing…  Anyhow, my point was this: my wife Elena and I swore personally to each other, quite aside from the marital vows, that we would never be divorced, that we would always stick together.  And we made collateral agreements that made I think this was actually a genuine promise that we would really keep, but we didn’t.  She hired the nastiest team of divorce lawyers (and their wives) in the entire state of Texas.  She turned into a monster.  Now, I blame the system, not her, but we split up, and it wrecked me.

But, in a sense, as one of my law school professors of international law at the University of Chicago said, “the nations of the world are all in a Roman Catholic marriage with one another.”  Or are they?  Are legal unions really indissoluble?  Most people do not believe that law should stand in the way of divorce, although most marital lawyers want divorce to be as much like an expensive world war as humanly possible.  So: is divorce “normal” or is divorce “treason?”

I have to admit, I led a fairly pro-Southern, sheltered life.  Even when I lived up north and attended Harvard GSAS (A.M., Ph.D.) and the University of Chicago law (J.D.) programs, I never ever heard ANYONE ever call the Southern Confederacy TREACHEROUS or the Southern Confederates called “Traitors”—as a matter of fact, everyone I knew at Harvard kind of went out of their way to apologize for Harvard’s apparent iconography of Yankee imperialism and to point out the rather obscure stained glass windows on Memorial Hall and inscriptions dedicated to the graduates of Harvard who fought for the South—(There were 257, significantly more than you might think, including five major generals, eight brigadier generals, and fully 38% of all Harvard Graduates who died in combat 1861-1865 died in the service of the armies the CSA, including three of those brigadier generals).  

So, I confess I was shocked, bowled over in fact, while I was standing in line at the very first public debate held in New Orleans on a steaming day in July in 2015 and an exceedingly unpleasant and unattractive woman in line started talking about how Confederates were all TRAITORS.

Wall Street JOURNAL MODERATE MUGWUMP: Allen C. Guelzo

“A YANKEE VISITS CHARLOTTESVILLE, WHERE GEN. LEE IS UNDER COVER.”

Some writers take poetic license, some take journalistic license.  But let’s face it: some writers DO NOT DESERVE A LICENSE.  Allen C. Guelzo is such a writer, and yet he writes for the Wall Street Journal…. and this is a disaster.  This USED TO BE a conservative, respectable journal***.   But no decent or respectable conservative would ever write that:

“As a Yankee, I find it a little difficult to grasp why monuments to Lee are here in the first place.  He lost, and if there is one sin American culture still prefers to bury from sight, it’s losing. Worse, Lee committed treason against the flag and the Constitution.  And behind that is the ugly truth that the Confederate cause was, when all the rhetorical chaff is swept away, designed to protect Chattel slavery, the singular birth defect of the American republic.” 

This is one of those sad moments when I have to admit I’m glad I’m not Chairman Mao or Uncle Joe Stalin…. because if I were, Guelzo would be TOAST—there wouldn’t be enough left of him to fill a matchbox, I promise.

UNLIKE THE SPANISH GOVERNMENT IN CATALONIA ON SUNDAY OCTOBER 1, 2017—NO POLICE OR TROOPS TRIED TO STOP THE SOUTHERN LEGISLATURES FROM SECEDING OR THE PRO-CONFEDERATE POPULAR VOTES FROM HAPPENING

So, if secession didn’t bother the outgoing President James Buchanan, or if it bothered him he didn’t do anything to stop it.  Buchanan was a Democrat, but he was a PENNSYLVANIA DEMOCRAT—a Yankee….the only Pennsylvanian ever to be elected President and the last President born in the 18th century.  

Buchanan supported his own Vice-President, John C. Breckinridge, in the election of 1860—Breckinridge being the choice of the “Southern Democrats” over Stephen Douglas of Illinois.  Breckinridge became a Confederate general—that’s right folks, the Vice-President of the United States who came in Second in the Electoral Vote and Third in the Popular Vote in 1860 became a Confederate General.  Was he a traitor too?  

I ask you (and Guelzo) somewhat rhetorically: IF the Vice-President of any country decides to take up arms agains that Country—don’t you suppose that there are some MAJOR issues at stake?  If James Buchanan believed that he had no constitutional power to stop secession, where did Abraham Lincoln get the idea that he had that power?

For the moment, I will leave that idea to you, but recommend to all my readers the words of James Ronald Kennedy and Walter Donald Kennedy, but also of Von Mises Institute Economist Thomas James DiLorenzo.

But is it significant that England would surely have allowed Scotland to opt out of the UK if Scotland had voted to do so several years ago?  Is it significant that Spain is trying very hard to look like a bully as it tries to bully Catalonia into submission, but that the world will almost certainly accept Catalonian secession in fairly short order?

***The Wall Street Journal was a feature of life in and around my maternal grandparents’ home in Highland Park in Dallas from the time I went to live there at age 6 years, two months, until my grandmother’s death in May 2001.  I respected it as perhaps the best newspaper in all of North America—I even arranged to have the WSJ delivered to Hacienda Chichén (and later the adjacent Casa Victoria) when I lived there, and made it the headquarters of my Harvard-Peabody-National Geographic-Chichén Itzá Archaeological Project 1983-1988.  Arranging such things by courier delivery from the Aeropuerto Internacional de Cancún in the 1980s was no piece of cake.

 

Thinking of General Robert Edward Lee and Charlottesville

Grady Peeler

The Charlottesville situation, and the concerted effort to disparage a great man of General Robert E. Lee’s character is upsetting. Something occurred to me recently, something that the antifa/BLM, scumbag Dems, and cowardly Repubs that are so set on disrespecting this great man, fail to understand.

At Appomattox when Gen. Lee’s army was finally cornered and defeated, he went to the house where they negotiated surrender and signed papers. After the surrender terms were finalized, Gen. Lee had his military aide fetch his horse, and after Gen. Lee had mounted and was about to leave, Grant’s entire present staff of his Union army, as well as Gen. Grant, came to attention and saluted Gen Lee, and held their salute until he had departed.

Later, Lee’s army marched to the surrender site in Appomattox, filed down the road and stacked their arms. As they were marching, the receiving Union regiment as well as the head of the regiment, Gen. Chamberlain, were called to attention and saluted the Confederate soldiers as they marched past. This is a singular occurrence in the history of US warfare, a mark of unprecedented respect to an opponent.

These Union soldiers, who had bitterly fought to the point of death, for four long years had the class to treat these Confederates, including Gen. Lee, with the respect they deserved.

Here we are, many years later, and a class of scumbags, who aren’t fit to even wipe the ass of the lowest Confederate private, and will never succeed in developing the character of a man like General Robert E. Lee, have the temerity to claim he deserves scorn, as well as the soldiers he led. The opposite is true.

Gen. Lee’s contemporaries considered him of such high character that, when it was proposed by Repub war criminals in Congress that Lee be prosecuted for treason, were informed by Gen. Grant that he would resign from the Union Army and expose them for the corrupt bastards they were if they did not immediately desist in their efforts. They, of course, immediately desisted.

Never has a person deserved to be honored more than General Robert E. Lee, nor will any person ever deserve more honor. Though Lee had been offered command of the Union army at the outset of the Union invasion of the South, he declined, in order to follow the dictates of his conscience and his duty to serve God as he understood that duty, and took on the far more difficult task of defending the South and Virginia, in a conflict he knew would be very difficult to win, especially given the North’s virtually unlimited resources.

The only question remaining, for we who will not re-write history to serve the peculiar, perverted ends of our scumbag foes, is to determine what will be necessary to stop this determined destruction of our country, its institutions, and all that makes America great.

Identity, Language, and Symbolism at Charlottesville, Virginia: American vs. Foreign, Patriotic vs. Subversive, Confederate vs. Communist

Cover Photo, No automatic alt text available.

 
your Profile Photo, Image may contain: 1 person, indoor 

What exactly happened in Charlottesville? Several people invited me to go along. I was not optimistic. The Left-Wing media have had a field day, especially with the fact that Trump isn’t (yet) participating in the show of condemnation for White Supremacists…. BUT WHY are White Supremacists playing into the hands of the liberals by dressing as Klansmen and Nazis and using slogans that evoke those eras and their distinctive rituals?

The problem is one of choice of language and symbolic expression…. People rally around what they know, if they rally at all, and because of LEFTIST propaganda, all that most people know about the traditions of White Supremacy are the KKK and the Nazis—the left even chooses and frames our language and symbolic expression for us. That is the tragedy….

I would prefer to call myself a Traditional (Jacksonian) Southern Democrat, a Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican, or just an old-Fashioned Confederate (never a “Neo-Confederate”—sounds like “Neon”) …. But as late as the Watergate hearings in the 1970s, it was still the SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS in Congress who were the forefront of White Resistance to Integration. Why don’t White Resisters try to retake the Democratic Party, or at least the name and heritage of the Democratic Party? Why not quote Sam Ervin or Herman Talmadge or John Stennis or (the early, Dixiecrat) Strom Thurmond, or George Wallace or Theodore Bilbo? Why not resurrect the Red Rooster flag? (I’m looking for posters and other Party insignia with that Rebel Rooster…. PM me if you have any and are willing to sell…)

But when I try to explain all this, nobody understands. The level of historical awareness is so low among young people that very few Whites even fully understand what happened in the 1940s and 50s. What was the first “modern” Civil Rights Act of 1948 about? [Answer, mostly about “lynching”—i.e. public non-institutional but open and transparent capital trials and execution of sentences of death “by the consent of the governed”].

So, how and why was lynching outlawed? How did lynching operate and why did lynching exist in the first place? [Answer: most rural communities and small towns did not have effective police forces up through the 1950s and even into the 60s, so the people were responsible for their own safety and security, and lawyers were very expensive for everybody]. Do most people know that President Harry Truman was absolutely AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1948 but was coerced into signing it? Harry Truman said that the use of institutional courts vs. popular justice was a “POLITICAL QUESTION” in which the Federal Government should not intervene….

What was the Southern Manifesto, for instance??>>>(Answer: it was a brilliant document [drafted by Southern Democratic Senators, almost unanimously except for Al Gore’s father from Tennessee and Lyndon B. Johnson from Texas] attacking Desegregation on Constitutional and Historical grounds].). Who was George Corley Wallace? Who was Strom Thurmond? Who was Orval Faubus? Who was Lester Maddox? Theodore Bilbo? Almost NOBODY involved in American politics knows the answer to most these questions. (I doubt even John McCain, Lindsey Graham, or Hillary Clinton can answer them accurately). 

Comments
Claire Marie Kallenbach
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 7 hrs

Manage

Fernando Cortes
Fernando Cortes I don’t mean to sound like a reductionist but like I said the other day, it’s all about IQ.
Strategizing, planning, thinking things through instead of letting emotions dictate our actions.
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 7 hrs

Manage

Charles Edward Lincoln
Charles Edward Lincoln I honestly think it’s education and information rather than IQ…. true, there are a lot of low intelligence people in the “Alt-Right”, but Richard Spencer is not one of them… and neither is Jason Kessler… Nor is William Daniel Johnson—but his (Johnson’s strategy) is just to lie so low that nobody ever sees him….
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply ·

1

· 1 hr · Edited

Manage

Rick Crockett
Rick Crockett I would not allow such to associate with any group I was a part of. I am aware the KKK was only originally a justifiable reaction to the post civil war deconstruction but their validity is long past and their origins tarnished by 20th and now 21st. cenSee More
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply ·

1

· 7 hrs

Remove

Mary Barlow
Mary Barlow There were no klansman out there dressed in robes.
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply ·

3

· 7 hrs

Manage

Charles Edward Lincoln replied · 12 Replies · 48 mins
Why couldn’t they have just all shown up in Confederate Uniforms playing Blues, Gospel and Country Music if they wanted to make an “All-American/All Southern Statement”??? Robert E. Lee, to the best of my fairly intense knowledge of history, never staged an URBAN torchlight parade (taking into account that, before electricity, his army may have advanced by torchlight at night…. which is an entirely separate issue…)
Linda Pearl Scott
Linda Pearl Scott They were not white supremacists the issue was removal of the statues and many blacks were against that as well

Image may contain: 1 person, text
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply ·

5

· 6 hrs

Manage

Kenneth Day
Kenneth Day KKK and Nazi thing is mainly in the US but they are often state or Antifa operatives. They are turning this great victory into a loss and should be expelled from Altright and publicly named to stop then sabotaging the movement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7g85VejT0chttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UpF8H1ZjcwSee More

LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · Remove Preview · 6 hrs · Edited

Manage

Jack Trayner
Jack Trayner The white race is most definitely under attack. We cannot allow our identity to be shaped and shrunken by our enemies. Personally I am a European National Socialist, that really is who I am.
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply ·

2

· 5 hrs

Manage

Don Carter replied · 2 Replies · 41 mins
Brent Fallin
Brent Fallin See my page, Charles.
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 5 hrs

Manage

James L. Hicks
James L. Hicks We are under assault we can’t get bogged down by what commies think of apparal. Been a debate that’s went on for decades. I don’t care if your dressed like Ronald McDonald if your willing to punch a commie in the mouth and fight for our children’s future.
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply ·

2

· 5 hrs

Manage

Charles Edward Lincoln replied · 8 Replies · 1 hr
Alexander Perez
Alexander Perez These people are not “white supremacists” as much as they are European nationalists that realize there is an even bigger issue than just removing a confederate statue. The fight against communism and anti-european cultural marxism!
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply ·

2

· 4 hrs

Manage

Rebecca VanZant
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 3 hrs

Manage

Meira Rossum
Meira Rossum I KNOW!!! Makes me insane seeing whites completely screw themselves. Handed anti-whites all the ammunition they could want.
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 2 hrs

Manage

Don Carter
Don Carter · Friends with John Hoopes

Are you a White Supremacist? If so, feel free to explain to why you feel you are superior to me?
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 2 hrs

Manage

Charles Edward Lincoln replied · 36 Replies · 55 mins
Anthony Crowe
Anthony Crowe Can we really stigmatize the whole movement just because some people who were pro-Nazi and KKK showed up?
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 1 hr

Manage

Hide 12 Replies
Charles Edward Lincoln
Charles Edward Lincoln Anthony Crowe: WE certainly didn’t “really stigmatize the whole movement”—but the Mainstream media did….and everyone in charge of organizing should have known that they would. That’s MY point. I am TOTALLY in favor of historical revision regardinSee More
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 1 hr

Manage

Don Carter
Don Carter · Friends with John Hoopes

Charles Edward Lincoln, is there any reason my kids should have to walk by a statue celebrating the confederacy? It’s confusing and disappointing. You try explaining it to your 6 year old child.
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 1 hr

Manage

Kenneth Smith
Kenneth Smith Don Carter Yes, you should have to walk by Confederate statues, because the descendants of those Confederate soldiers live in the area and put them up.
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 1 hr

Manage

Charles Edward Lincoln
Charles Edward Lincoln OK, Don Carter, again, you’re forcing me to do the opposite of my original intention, but I’ll tell you how: in 1861, the Federal Government was taken over by a Marxist-sympathizing President and a heavily Marxist-influenced political party dedicated tSee More
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 1 hr · Edited

Manage

Don Carter
Don Carter · Friends with John Hoopes

Charles Edward Lincoln, I appreciate your knowledge on history and your willingness to share your view on it. I hope we will have more discussions in the future. I have to be up early for work. Goodnight.
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 55 mins · Edited

Manage

Don Carter
Don Carter · Friends with John Hoopes

Kenneth Smith, Please write how I should tell this to my children and how it is ok and should not bother them.
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 53 mins

Manage

Charles Edward Lincoln
Charles Edward Lincoln The Southern ideals of individual liberty coupled with responsibility and self-determination are the rock-bottom core of the American dream. The North opposed those ideals. Good night everybody!
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 52 mins

Manage

Don Carter
Don Carter · Friends with John Hoopes

Yet they owned Human slaves and they justified it by race??? “individual liberty”
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 49 mins · Edited

Manage

Charles Edward Lincoln
Charles Edward Lincoln Don Carter Definitely got to go to bed but, human slavery is a widespread feature of cultures all over the world, NOT unique to the Southern United States.

In fact, all over Africa at the time, slavery was still very common, and remains a real aspecSee More

LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 38 mins

Manage

Kenneth Smith
Kenneth Smith Don Carter “Kenneth Smith, Please write how I should tell this to my children and how it is ok and should not bother them.”

Because it is a memorial to soldiers who valiantly fought and many died. That it is a memorial to Confederate war heroes and veSee More

LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 28 mins · Edited

Manage

Kenneth Smith
Kenneth Smith Don Carter -Yet they owned Human slaves and they justified it by race??? “individual –

Some did, most did not. The US Constitution contains slavery as a protected class of labor, so it was the law of the land.See More

LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 15 mins

Manage

Kenneth Smith
Kenneth Smith https://youtu.be/4OdG2vcO1gU

Waylon Jennings sings the Civil War song “An Old Reconstructed”.
YOUTUBE.COM
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · Remove Preview · 8 mins

Manage

Dirk Darcy
Dirk Darcy Excellent article based upon intelligent observations and articulated brilliantly.
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 31 mins

Manage

Charles Edward Lincoln
Charles Edward Lincoln Linguistic usage point to Kenneth Smith: Armies do not “occur” they are organized and built by military leaders with political and economic backing…. No army ever spontaneously or inexplicably “occurred” anywhere…. Sorry, I’m tired nd cranky… I obviously totally agree with you on all substantive issues…
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply ·

1

· 29 mins · Edited

Manage

State vs. National Citizenship—the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 must be Repealed—Time to Bite the Bullet, Folks!

Donald Trump has won a lot of national support for his position that “anchor babies” are not U.S. Citizens.  https://www.yahoo.com/politics/birthright-citizenship-where-the-2016-127093585661.html

Despite their appetite for socialism and socialist engineering of U.S. Demography, I think it is fair to say that few if any the Radical Republican Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment ever dreamt of or envisioned a situation where millions of “huddled masses” and “wretched refuse ” types of people would come to America just to have babies to enroll in schools and obtain other welfare entitlements. 

No, the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to create a national standard for citizenship and civil rights, and to abolish the notion that the States of the United States were equivalent to the “States” who obtain membership in the United Nations.  

State citizenship was the weakest point of Cousin Abraham’s Northern policy during the War:  while many Radical Republicans wanted to call Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis, and every other Confederate Officer and Politician, a “traitor”, these charges simply would not stick for one single reason.  From 1776-1868, the individual states were the ones which established and determined citizenship, and so Lee was right to think of himself as a Virginian (about a 10th or 12th generation Virginian, in fact) by both the doctrines of ius solis and ius sanguinis.  Jefferson Davis might have been born in Kentucky, but he was a “naturalized” Mississippian.  Pierre Gustave Toutant-Beauregard was a 6th or 7th generation Louisianian, like Lee, either by ius solis or ius sanguinis

So Lee and Beauregard were unquestionably citizens of their own home states, and NOT of the United States.  They might have been employed in the armies of the United States, or, like Davis, also officers of the United States Government in its legislative (Senate) and Executive Branches (where Davis was Secretary of War).

But by every pre-War understanding, the Confederate leaders were not CAPABLE of betraying a Country WHICH NEVER EXISTED.  Like the States they belonged to, the Confederate Leaders could resign from the service of the Union, but in no legal or moral sense could they be called “traitors” to it, because (at least before 1868) the UNION WAS NOT A SINGLE SOVEREIGNTY.  Yes, indeed, quite simply, there WAS no such thing as “United States citizenship” prior to the Fourteenth Amendment—just a very generalized “American” citizenship which dependent on the collaboration and contribution of the ratifying states.  And that is why “Birth of a Nation” (by D.W. Griffith) was so correctly named: a collection of closely cooperating and allied free nation-states (small Jeffersonian Democracies) went to war with each other in 1861, and they were, afterwards, at gunpoint, forced into one single new country.

This was the debate that framed Barack Hussein Obama’s Presidency—so long as he could convince (fool?) a majority of the people into believing he was born in Hawaii, he was eligible, under the ius solis doctrine of the 14th Amendment, to be President.  But if a ius sanguinis standard should be applied, Obama’s rather famous Kenyan father stood as an absolute obstacle to his eligibility.  So as Dinesh D’Souza had shown in his brilliant movie Obama 2016, Obama’s goal as President was absolutely to abolish both the identity and nature of American society and culture.  Now the 44th President effects this transformation largely through emotionally manipulative lies and psychological manipulation, rather than democratic process or law.

But, indeed, the language of the Fourteenth Amendment’s “citizenship” clause is clear enough in making “soil” more important than “blood,” and has been consistently applied by the Supreme Court for over a hundred years to mean that literally anyone born in the United States, for any reason, automatically is an American Citizen.  This is obviously a disaster for the Country and many have written about it, including the mad Texan elf of Clearwater, Florida, Robert M. Hurt, Jr.:

Trump Is Right: Anchor Babies Do Not Rightfully Become US Citizens

http://bobhurt.blogspot.com/2015/08/trump-is-right-anchor-babies-do-not.html

What Hurt proposes is essentially changing the law by reinterpreting the law, and this often does not work so well—and could in fact be described as the source of much of modern America’s woes—allowing the Supreme Court to say that night is day and day is night is getting old, 62 years after Earl Warren became Chief Justice, 113 after Oliver Wendell Holmes brought Massachusetts “progressivism” to the Court, paving the way for the New Deal for whose eventual triumph (through popularity over constitutional rigor) Holmes might be considered a kind of Prophet….

Among Holmes’ most famous pronouncements is that, “an experiment, as all life is an experiment” (Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919)).  Allowing, or even encouraging, population replacement—the “Browning of America”—is among the left’s favorite long-term social goals and experiments, and (admittedly) all of us who oppose the Browning of America are classified by Salon.com, the Huffington Post, and the New York Times, among others, as vile racist reactionaries. 

But I can live with that.  As far as the way out, though, as far as how White America can preserve itself, I don’t think that verbal games such as Robert M. Hurt, Jr., Donald John Trump, and many others will work.  

No, I always prefer dealing with issues directly and in taking a “full-frontal” approach.  The Fourteenth Amendment resulted from a massive war of Centralization of Power.  The only politician in MY LIFETIME who ever addressed the problem directly was San Diego Mayor and later California Governor and Senator Pete Wilson: who directly advocated repeal of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment during the 1980s.  He is almost totally forgotten now, but when I was in Law School, I remember thinking his approach was sound.  Repeal of the Citizenship Clause would be clear statement that unlimited immigration and population replacement via “anchor babies” is and ought to be intolerable.

People don’t realize it, but prior to the War of 1861-65 between the North and the South, MANY NORTHERN STATES if not most of them, DENIED CITIZENSHIP of any kind to blacks.  (the last state to have such a law was Oregon, which literally made it simply illegal to “be a negro” in the State of Oregon— to enter the state at all, under any pretext, was cause for imprisonment, fine, and immediate removal to the state lines upon release.

While “the Underground Railroad” was very famous, you might ask yourself, “if Abolitionist sentiment was so strong in the North, (a) why was the underground railroad “underground” and (b) why did it end up in Canada?  The answer is that since Northern States had enacted “no black citizenship” laws, being “free” in most places meant nothing. 

The way history is taught and discussed in modern America, it’s not always quite clear, but Chief Justice Roger Taney, in Scott v. Sanford was actually adopting a MERGER of both the Northern and Southern positions in his (plurality against Freedom for Slaves by Crossing State Lines) decision in 1857 (every Justice on the Court rendered a Separate opinion in that case). 

Justice Taney said that no negro could ever be a citizen of the United States.  So he was ALREADY (by usurpation) establishing a Federal rather than a state standard of citizenship—THAT IS WHY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS ENACTED—the whole War Between the States and 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution can be considered an effort to Overrule the “Dred Scott” ruling— but what many people forget is that Taney had already taken the critical first step by attempting to impose NORTHERN standards of Citizenship NATIONWIDE— ironically, this ruling (if it had been allowed to stand) might well, would almost certainly, have had the bizarre effect of “outlawing” or depriving tens of thousands of free (and many slaveholding) blacks in Louisiana of their citizenship, professional licenses, and right to vote. 

So the real problem was Taney’s (1857, pre-War) judicial “stealth” transition from allowing STATES to determine Citizenship to his rather clumsy attempt to impose a NATIONWIDE standard for citizenship.  The Fourteenth Amendment was the “Radical Republican” answer to this. 

Ironic, isn’t it?, that when properly understood, the Fourteenth Amendment was just as oppressive to the Northern States as to the Southern States.  Northern States could no longer ban black people. (Although the remarkable State of Oregon did not repeal it’s African-exclusionary laws until 1926, and only ratified the Fifteenth Amendment until the centennial of that State’s admission to the Union in 1959)(Oregon’s 1844, pre-state, pre-war position on slavery was that all blacks, free or slave, should be whipped and lashed twice a year until they left the territory).

Former California Governor Pete Wilson, by contrast with both Roger Taney and Donald Trump, understood that and would have returned to the individual states the power to determine citizenship by repeal of the “birth clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment.  One can easily imagine, almost too easily, how permitting the states to determine citizenship would be nearly equivalent to allowing secession—because Hawaii, for example, could pass a law decreeing that no “Howlees” (i.e. Anglo-Saxon or other European Whites) could ever be citizens of Hawaii—and so effectively dissolve the ties between that improperly annexed Island State and the rest of “the Union.”  (Hawaii currently has the most radical and politically “real” and active secessionist movement in the USA).

Even if the States COULD determine citizenship, the balance of the 14th Amendment still protected everyone “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States with regard to Civil Rights…. so even if there were no “national standard for citizenship” there could still be a “national standard for civil rights.”
 

March 23—THE DATE to Remember Patrick Henry in 1775, but today ( March 23 2013) it’s been 30 Years Since Ronald W. Reagan’s Star Wars, 15 Years since James Cameron “I’m King of the World” announcement after winning Oscar for Titanic…in 1945 the British “Black Watch” Crossed the Rhein….in 1925 Tennessee outlawed the teaching of Evolution

Of all these events in the 20th Century, I remember the last two most clearly.  While Ronald Reagan’s “StarWars” Speech in 1983 was inspiring and uplifting (even as I listened to it over the one and only well-functioning TV then extant in the general neighborhood of Chichén Itzá, Yucatán in the lobby of the Hotel Mayaland, though I was living across the street at Edward H. Thompson’s old Hacienda….), James Cameron’s “I’m King of the World” arrogance has always stuck in my mind as the single most obnoxious Academy Award acceptance speech I ever was sufficiently unfortunate as to have listened to (and I listened to that one from Casa del Mar on Seawall & 60th in Galveston, Texas).  Now, fortunately, Cameron’s obnoxious speech never really hurt anybody, no matter how much of an anal orifice he proved himself to be.

But, by contrast, Ronald W. Reagan’s Star Wars (aka “Strategic Defense Initiative”) could be called the end of even the MYTH of limited constitutional government in the United States.  Reagan on this date announced, authorized, initiated, and launched the most TRULY offensive program of Corporate Welfare in World History, without real immediate consequence but VERY intimidating to the rest of the world.  The Strategic Defense Initiative gave Reagan the excuse all neocons wanted to turn his platform of fiscal responsibility and limited government on its head.  The greatest irony of Star Wars was that it was such an impractical, impossibly theoretical plan for military development, that the primary beneficiaries were University Communities—where billions and billions in research money were poured into the neighborhoods of places like Harvard University, University of California at Berkeley, the University of Texas, and Stanford, so that (in effect) Reagan bribed all the academics who normally and nominally would have opposed him to support his excesses of spending and enlarging the U.S. Government through the most reckless economic programs ever in World History…. Star Wars, gave a huge boost to the “peri-academic” research communities around Boston Loop 128, Silicon Valley, and along the unimaginatively renamed “Research Boulevard” (Highway 183) in Austin, all of which might have remained stunted or even stillborn without Reagan (the great enemy of Welfare for the Poor) granting open ended credit as welfare to the Rich….

On March 23 in 1919—two major events took place which would shape the 20th Century: the Bolshevik (Soviet Communist) Central Committee or Politburo formed in Moscow, while on the same day Benito Mussolini organized the Fascist Party in Milan, Italy and took the reigns as its leader.  

As the memorial of “days that will live in infamy” goes, those were petty benign compared with 30 years earlier when U.S. President Benjamin Harrison opened up Oklahoma to the “Sooners” who lined up at the state borders and raced to stake their claims, thereby closing “the last frontier” in the lower 48 states anyhow (and obliterating the last of even the very modest concessions to the dispossessed Five Civilized Tribes of the American South, 55 years after the Trail of Tears from Georgia & Alabama through Mississippi and Arkansas…. or 1868 when the University of California at Berkeley was founded…. (ok, maybe that date wasn’t all THAT infamous…. but Berkeley for a while was certainly the center of that great Countercultural movement which took place in the 1960s…. from which America and the World have never really recovered….). 

March 23 was a great day in Streetcar history (I’m writing this while seated by the window at the Trolley Stop Café at 1923 St. Charles Avenue in New Orleans 70130).  In 1937 the Los Angeles Railway Co. started using PCC Streetcars (Presidents’ Conference Committee, replacing the famous old “Red and Yellow Cars” which once defined the Southern California landscape, from the time of Henry E. Huntingdon in 1901—-the LA Railway Co. finally went out of existence in 1958….in the wake of the ecologically and socially disastrous triumph of General Motors and the “car culture”). 

But forty years before Huntingdon’s trains started running in Los Angeles, in 1861, London began running its legendary tramcars, designed by the appropriately named “Mr. Train” of New York…. by some transportation history coincidence in 1922 the first airplane landed at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., while the streetcar itself was patented on this date in 1858 by E.A. Gardner of Philadelphia—the first U.S. Patent ever was issued was granted on this date to Joseph G. Pierson for a Riveting Machine….

In 1806 March 23 was the date when Lewis & Clark arrived on the Pacific Coast, the final goal of their epic voyage which began two years earlier in Saint Louis….

On March 23, 1808, Joseph Bonaparte, Napoleon’s brother, became King of Spain—the Bonapartist dynasty just didn’t last very long, especially in Spain….it was a dud….for better or for worst…

But from the standpoint of this Blog, of Deo Vindice and Tierra Limpia, the most important March 23 in world history was surely 1775, when Patrick Henry declared “Give me Liberty or Give me Death” at Saint John’s Church in Richmond, Virginia. 

In terms of musical culture, the highlight of this date was in 1743 when Georg Friedrich Handel’s Messiah premiered in London (a second “premier”—the original performance having been in Dublin, Ireland….).  Handel is an inspiration to those of us who aspire to be “late bloomers” in life.  In 1743 Handel was 58, five years older than I am now, having been born on 23 February 1685, with only 16 years left to his life (he died on 14 April 1759).  To me, Handel’s Messiah is the most inspiring major “operatic” kunstwerk/work of music prior to Wagner’s first “Wagnerian” opera Der Fliegende Hollander which premiered a century later (in Dresden in 1843), even if Handel’s was not “gesammt”.   As magnificent, innovative, and stirring as Mozart’s Magic Flute and Don Giovanni surely are, or Beethoven’s symphonies, I think that a real connexion can be made between the compositionally epic scale of the Messiah and Der Ring des Niebelungen, for example, or Wagner’s Grail operas…(Lohengrin, Tannhauser, Tristan und Isolde and Parsifal).

A Prayer for True Memory and History on the 206th Anniversary of the Birth of Robert Edward Lee, Commanding General of the Army of Northern Virginia, President of Washington & Lee University

Since December 9, 2012, I have been staying in the French Quarter, about a 20 minutes to half an hour leisurely walk to Lee Circle where a high pedestal support’s a statute of one of Virginia’s most famous sons, forever looking north because “you never turn your back on the enemy.”  My grandparents raised me to celebrate Marse’ Robert’s birthday and remember and study his life and heroism, both before, during and after the War Between the States.  I have never had any problem keeping his memory because I think he represents all the good values that were and ever could be called “American”—he was an exceedingly intelligent man of principles including loyalty and devotion, hard work, individual responsibility, skill and excellence.

This year I have not yet visited Confederate Memorial Hall, just south of Lee Circle.  It is probably the longest I have ever been in New Orleans without paying at least a quick visit, and there are many reasons for this but one is that it is no longer officially called “Confederate Memorial Hall” but has been recently rechristened “Louisiana’s Civil War Museum at Confederate Memorial Hall.”

Nothing is more insulting to Lee’s Memory or to the Heritage of the South in general and the Confederate States of America in particular than to refer to the War of 1861-1865 as “the Civil War.”  From the Southern adn Confederate standpoints, that War was as much the “American Civil War” as World Wars I and II were the “European Civil Wars.”   The analogy is fair enough only to the degree that after World War II, first the European Economic Community (E.E.C.) and then the European Union both sought to transform Europe into a new, single Continental Nation.  

The first movie ever filmed to be seen commercially by more than a million people was D.W. Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation”, released in 1915, based on a historical novel entitled “the Klansman.”  The new nation born during and after the War Between the States was a centralized Republic with a top-heavy Federal Bureaucracy modeled very generally on the economic controls imposed top down from the Imperial Central in the later Roman Empire in a manner which has come to be known as “Byzantine.”

On this 206th Anniversary of the Birth of Robert Edward Lee, son of  Governor Light Horse “Harry” Lee of Virginia, I pray that the honour and integrity of the South will be properly remembered, along with Lee’s individual, unique and irreplaceable, un-reproducable honour and integrity.  

I pray that people will start learning history more fully and accurately, and above all critically, with the understanding that the victors always write history, but that victory in war is not in fact justice in the eyes of God, despite what many of us, including many of us Southerners, believe about the value of “trial-by-battle” in the Mediaeval sense of “Justice by Duel.”  

Even in Mediaeval legal theory, Duels were ONLY fairly calculated to result in a decision by God when the two parties to the duel are equally equipped, armed, trained and skillful.  The armor and the horses had to be comparable and equivalent, and a weaker person had the right to appoint a “champion” to fight in his or her place, as Ilsa von Brabant famously did in Richard Wagner’s opera “Lohengrin” which even preserved the notion of combat only coming “at high noon” so that the sun would be in neither combatant’s eyes at the outset.   The title of one of the finest Western movies about a duel, Gary Cooper’s “High Noon” (1950) also retains this reference to the equality of the Sun God (Shamash) who presided over such duels (judicially approved and jury-supervised “trials-by-combat”) even in Ancient Akkad, Asshur (Assyria), and Babylon.

I pray that even under the Dark Skies of the Obama Presidency and all the propaganda coming out in this day and age, that a more just and inquiring notion of history will prevail in the collective, cultural memory of America, and that the virtue and dignity of the Southern and Confederate Constitutional position be realized and recognized, and the glory given to the Victorious Yankee North be tempered by the reality that northern industrialism produced the same identical level of misery and deprivation among white workers as was chronicled by Charles Dickens in England and Victor Hugo in France.  

I pray that people will understand that if we weep for Fantine and her plight in Les Miserables (published precisely in 1862, during the first full year of the War Between the States), we must also recognize the condition of “Free” labor in the North and Europe was in a hundred ways worse and more depraved than the plight of black slaves in the South.  If in no other, this is true in one major regard: only an insane slaveholder would really work his slaves to death, without caring for them as human beings, in that slaves were wealth and capital, and senselessly to destroy the life or health of a slave was like throwing gold into the sea or burning paper money backed by real gold (unlike the trash Federal Reserve Notes we use today).

By contrast, as shown in Dickens’ writings and Hugo’s, and as analyzed by Karl Marx and Frederich Engels and their followers, “free” laborers in the mid-19th Century in the North had no life-long security whatsoever.  

As soon as the “free laborer’s” strength or health should start to fail, that free laborer’s productivity declined or perhaps he was eaten up by the very machines he tended due to “assumption of the risk” by accepting employment.  The “Free Labor” capitalist therefore had a strong motivation to dismiss his worn out workers and throw them into the streets, a version of the “hellish life” captured in Les Miserables was worse than death itself. This reality was revisited (1998) by Joss Whedon in an Episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer called “Anne” in which the residents of Hell work in a 19th Century style factory until they are exhausted and old (in just a short time as it turns out) and thrown back out on the streets of modern Los Angeles to live as homeless derelicts.

All these realities need to be weighed against the supposed virtuous abolition of slavery. And accordingly, I pray that people will begin to think and remember and reflect not only about the history of the 19th century, but of the 20th and even our own times.  Were we the victors REALLY the more virtuous parties in World Wars I and II, for example?  In World War I, the answer is a fairly certain absolute NO.  In World War II, the mythology has grown into a reality and even a political constitution and ecumenical social theory so thick that it is almost impenetrable.  

But if we look, again, at the details, and if we dare to compare the early German rockets or “Buzz Bombs” sent by Wernher von Braun against London in 1944-45 with the American A-Bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I think we will see that the American weapons were a far more sinister manifestation of technology.  What about the senseless fire-bombing of Dresden in 1945 when the war was almost over?  

Then if we look at the Soviets, whom we supported, and what they did to their own populations (Stalin’s purge of “the Kulaks” for instance, beginning in 1928), was our side as a whole really better than the Germans?

Even if the worst stories are true about German antisemitism, “ethnic cleansing”, and other population reorganizations and purges, no one can state that the Germans actually moved or relocated anywhere nearly as many millions of people as the Soviets and their allies forcibly relocated from the German sectors of East and West Prussia, Silesia, Posen, Danzig, and Eastern Pomerania, even as millions of Poles were uprooted and moved East to replace the Eastern quarter of Germany, after 1945-46.  

The Germans of the Sudetenland were also expelled from their homes of time immemorial.  The thousand year old Eastern boundary of the German people was moved back across Poland and Czechoslovakia to fit Stalin’s plans.  Again, who was guilty of greater genocidal crimes?  Or did Stalin’s relocations of the Poles, the Belarus, the Ukrainians, and the Germans count for nothing?

An since the war, have not the Allied Powers faithfully reenacted the predictions of perpetual war as framed by George Orwell in “1984“?  Have not the Communists become indistinguishable from the Corporate leaders they supposedly fought to overthrow as Orwell similarly predicted in “Animal Farm“?  Is there not evidence that, at least since Pearl Harbor and possibly since the explosion of the Battleship Maine, the United States Government has staged more than a hundred years of False Flag attacks against its own people to make certain that this condition of perpetual warfare exists and that there are more and more justifications (like the Sandy Hook shootings in Connecticut most recently) to curtail the fundamental freedoms and liberties for which George Washington, and Robert E. Lee, spent their lives fighting?

I pray that Americans will start waking up and thinking about reality, and observe the contradictions inherent in all things, but especially in our official versions of history, and that we will work to examine our past, our present, and our futures to discover and establish deeper and more meaningful truths about the sad story which is the epic of human history.

May everyone in the World in fact look to Robert Edward Lee and the Confederate States of America as emblematic of justice defeated, of liberty lost, and of the dangers of using imbalanced thinking and propaganda as tools of social change. 

As I have written a thousand times if I’ve written it once: Chattel Human Slavery was abolished everywhere in the world (as an openly and officially legal institution, anyhow….) between 1790 and 1930. ONLY in the United States of America did the abolition of legal chattel slavery result in war, and what a coincidence that this happened 13 years after the Communist Manifesto, in a Republican Administration with so many German Communist refugees from Europe in charge, and with Karl Marx’ official blessings and endorsements—none of facts which are EVER taught in American Middle or High School history classes…

Historical Notes for January 17, 2013

Today, January 17, 2013 is a day with historical relevance to many schisms. In A.D. 395, the Emperor Theodosius died in Milan (then known as Mediolanum). His two sons Arcadius and Honorius split the Roman Empire (whose capital was no longer “Rome” but Milan and Constantinople). Then on this day in 1377, almost a thousand years after the division of the Eastern and Western Empires), Pope Gregory XI moved the seat of the papacy back from Avignon to Rome. In 1648, the Roundheads in the Long Parliament voted to terminate negotiations with Charles I, leading to the English Civil War, and one year later, on January of 1649, the execution of King Charles “the Martyr” Stuart. Finally, today is two days before Robert E. Lee’s 206th birthday (January 19, 1807). When Robert E. Lee was my age, 52, he had not yet arrested John Brown or gone to Texas to command Fort Mason, which was to be his last active post as an officer of the United States Army before his major role in history really began after the secession of his native Virginia.
Today is also a day of infamy in two regards: on this day in 1946 the United Nations Security Council held its first session, building towards the establishment of World Government with effective force and power. In a not entirely unrelated event, 45 years later in 1991, President George H.W. Bush, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and head of the C.I.A., falsely elected Vice-President with Ronald W. Reagan who had promised to get the U.S. out of the United Nations in 1980, launched what H.M. King George Bush I had expressly designed as a “New World Order” War with United Nations approval: the Gulf War Desert Storm in Iraq. I was totally opposed to that war and remain totally opposed to all its results and derivatives over the past 23 years of U.S. Empire Building in Western and Central Asia.