Today Jefferson Davis; Tomorrow Thomas Jefferson
By
Chuck Baldwin
May 18, 2017
All
over the United States, memorials and statues of the great men of the
Confederacy--along with the flags of the Confederacy--have either already been
taken down or efforts are underway to take them down. I’m talking about places
such as Biloxi, Mississippi; Charlottesville, Virginia; Austin, Texas;
Louisville, Kentucky; Charleston, South Carolina; St. Louis, Missouri;
Baltimore, Maryland; Orlando, Florida; and Memphis, Tennessee. The city of New
Orleans, Louisiana, has taken down the statues of President Jefferson Davis and
General P.G.T. Beauregard. The Jefferson Davis statue had stood since 1911.
General Beauregard’s statue had stood since 1915.
In
1864, Confederate General Patrick Cleburne warned his fellow southerners of the
historical consequences should the South lose their war for independence. He
said if the South lost, “It means the history of this heroic struggle will be
written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers;
will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be
impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead
as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision.” No truer
words were ever spoken.
History revisionists flooded America’s public schools with Northern propaganda
about the people who attempted to secede from the United States, characterizing
them as racists, extremists, radicals, hatemongers, and traitors.
Folks, please understand that the ONLY people in 1861 who believed that states
did NOT have the right to secede were Abraham Lincoln and his radical
Republicans. To say that southern states did not have the right to secede from
the United States is to say that the thirteen colonies did not have the right to
secede from Great Britain. One cannot be right and the other wrong. If one is
right, both are right. If one is wrong, both are wrong. How can we celebrate the
Declaration of Independence of the American colonies in 1776 and then turn
around and condemn the Declaration of Independence of the Confederacy in 1861?
In
fact, southern states were not the only states that talked about secession.
After the southern states seceded, the State of Maryland fully intended to join
them. In September of 1861, Lincoln sent federal troops to the State capital and
seized the legislature by force in order to prevent them from voting. Federal
provost marshals stood guard at the polls and arrested Democrats and anyone else
who believed in secession. A special furlough was granted to Maryland troops so
they could go home and vote against secession. Judges who tried to inquire into
the phony elections were arrested and thrown into military prisons. There is
your great “emancipator,” folks.
In
fact, before the South seceded, several northern states had threatened
secession.
Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island had threatened secession as far
back as James Madison’s administration. In addition, the states of New York, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware were threatening secession during the first
half of the nineteenth century--long before the southern states even considered
such a thing.
People say constantly that Lincoln “saved” the Union. Lincoln didn’t save the
Union; he subjugated the Union. There is a huge difference. A union that is not
voluntary is not a union. Does a man have a right to force a woman to marry him
or to force a woman to stay married to him? In the eyes of God, a union of
husband and wife is far more sacred than a union of states. If God recognizes
the right of husbands and wives to separate (and He does), to try and suggest
that states do not have the right to lawfully separate (under Natural and divine
right) is the most preposterous proposition possible.
People also say that Lincoln freed the slaves. Lincoln did not free a single
slave. But what he did do was enslave free men. His so-called Emancipation
Proclamation had no authority in the southern states, as they had separated into
another country. Lincoln had no more authority to issue a proclamation in the
CSA than the British Crown has authority to issue a proclamation to the states
of the USA today.
Do
you not find it interesting that Lincoln’s proclamation didn't free a single
slave in the United States, the country in which he DID have authority? That’s
right. The Emancipation Proclamation deliberately ignored slavery in the North.
Do you not realize that when Lincoln signed his proclamation, there were over
300,000 slaveholders who were fighting in the Union army? (Source: Mildred Lewis
Rutherford, “Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederate States, and
Abraham Lincoln, the President of the United States,” 1861-1865, p. 35)
The
institution of slavery did not end until the 13th Amendment was ratified on
December 6, 1865.
Speaking of the 13th Amendment, did you know that, in his first inaugural
address, Lincoln actually SUPPORTED an amendment to the U.S. Constitution (which
would have been the 13th Amendment) proposed by Ohio Congressman Thomas Corwin
that said: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize
or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the
domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or
service by laws of said State.”
You
read it right. Lincoln supported an amendment to the U.S. Constitution
PRESERVING the institution of slavery. This proposed amendment was written in
March of 1861, a month BEFORE the shots were fired at Fort Sumter, South
Carolina.
The
State of South Carolina was particularly incensed at the tariffs enacted in 1828
and 1832. The Tariff of 1828 was disdainfully called “The Tariff of
Abominations” by the State of South Carolina. Accordingly, the South Carolina
legislature declared that the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were “unauthorized by the
constitution of the United States.”
Think, folks: Why would the southern states secede from the Union over slavery
when President Abraham Lincoln had offered an amendment to the Constitution
guaranteeing the PRESERVATION of slavery? That makes no sense. If the issue was
predominantly slavery, all the South needed to do was to go along with Lincoln,
and his proposed 13th Amendment would have permanently preserved slavery among
the southern (and northern) states. Does that sound like a body of people who
were willing to lose hundreds of thousands of men on the battlefield over saving
slavery--especially considering that the VAST MAJORITY of southerners did NOT
own a single slave?
What
nonsense!
The
problem was, Lincoln wanted the southern states to pay the Union a 40% tariff on
their exports. The South considered this outrageous and refused to pay. By the
time hostilities broke out in 1861, the South was paying up to, and perhaps
exceeding, 70% of the nation’s taxes. Before the war, the South was very
prosperous and productive. And Washington, D.C., kept raising the taxes and
tariffs on them. You know, the way Washington, D.C., keeps raising the taxes on
prosperous American citizens today.
This
is much the same story of the way the colonies refused to pay the demanded
tariffs of the British Crown--albeit the tariffs of the Crown were much LOWER
than those demanded by Lincoln. Lincoln’s proposed 13th Amendment was an attempt
to entice the South into paying the tariffs by being willing to permanently
ensconce the institution of slavery into the Constitution. AND THE SOUTH SAID
NO!
In
addition, the Congressional Record of the United States forever obliterates the
notion that the North fought the War Between The States over slavery. Read it
for yourself. This resolution was passed unanimously in the U.S. Congress on
July 23, 1861: “The War is waged by the government of the United States, not in
the spirit of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or
interfering with the rights or institutions of the states, but to defend and
protect the Union.”
What
could be clearer? The U.S. Congress declared that the war against the South was
NOT an attempt to overthrow or interfere with the “institutions” of the states,
but to keep the Union intact--BY FORCE. The “institutions” implied most
certainly included the institution of slavery.
Hear
it loudly and clearly: Lincoln’s war against the South had NOTHING to do with
ending slavery--so said the U.S. Congress by unanimous resolution in 1861.
Abraham Lincoln himself said it was NEVER his intention to end the institution
of slavery. In a letter to Alexander Stevens who later became the Vice President
of the Confederacy, Lincoln wrote this, “Do the people of the South really
entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly,
interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I
wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that
there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this
respect than it was in the days of Washington.”
Again, what could be clearer? Lincoln himself said the southern states had
nothing to fear from him in regard to abolishing slavery.
Hear
Lincoln again: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do
it.” He also said, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with
the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no
lawful right to do so and I have no inclination to do so.”
The
idea that the Confederate flag (actually there were five of them) stood for
racism, bigotry, hatred, and slavery is just so much hogwash. In fact, if one
truly wants to discover who the racist was in 1861, just read the words of Mr.
Lincoln.
On
August 14, 1862, Abraham Lincoln invited a group of black people to the White
House. In his address to them, he told them of his plans to colonize them all
back to Africa. Listen to what he told these folks: “Why should the people of
your race be colonized and where? Why should they leave this country? This is,
perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different
races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any
other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss; but this
physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race
suffer very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from
your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it
affords a reason, at least, why we should be separated. You here are freemen, I
suppose? Perhaps you have been long free, or all your lives. Your race is
suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even
when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an
equality with the white race.
. . .
The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this
broad continent not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man
of ours.”
Did
you hear what Lincoln said? He said that black people would NEVER be equal with
white people--even if they all obtained their freedom from slavery. If that
isn’t a racist statement, I’ve never heard one.
Lincoln’s statement above is not isolated. In Charleston, Illinois, in 1858,
Lincoln said in a speech, “I am not, nor have ever been in favor of bringing
about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,
that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes,
nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and
I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the
white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living
together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot
so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior
and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior
position assigned to the white race.”
Ladies and gentlemen, in his own words, Abraham Lincoln declared himself to be a
white supremacist. Why don’t our history books and news media tell the American
people the truth about Lincoln and about The War Between The States?
It’s
simple: if people would study the meanings and history of the flag, symbols, and
statues of the Confederacy and Confederate leaders, they might begin to awaken
to the tyrannical policies of Washington, D.C., that triggered Southern
independence--policies that have only escalated since the defeat of the
Confederacy--and they might have a notion to again resist.
By
the time Lincoln penned his Emancipation Proclamation, the war had been going on
for two years without resolution. In fact, the North was losing the war. Even
though the South was outmanned and out-equipped, the genius of the southern
generals and fighting acumen of the southern men had put the northern armies on
their heels. Many people in the North never saw the legitimacy of Lincoln’s war
in the first place, and many of them actively campaigned against it. These
people were affectionately called “Copperheads” by people in the South.
Here’s another thing: the war fought from 1861 to 1865 was NOT a “Civil War.”
Civil war suggests two sides fighting for control of the same capital and
country. The South didn’t want to take over Washington, D.C., any more than
their forebears wanted to take over London. They wanted to separate from
Washington, D.C., just as America’s Founding Fathers wanted to separate from
Great Britain. The proper name for that war is either “The War Between The
States” or “The War Of Southern Independence ” or, more fittingly, “The War Of
Northern Aggression.”
Had
the South wanted to take over Washington, D.C., they could have done so with the
very first battle of the “Civil War.” When Lincoln ordered federal troops to
invade Virginia in the First Battle of Manassas (called the “First Battle of
Bull Run” by the North), Confederate troops sent the Yankees running for their
lives all the way back to Washington. Had the Confederates pursued them, they
could have easily taken the city of Washington, D.C., seized Abraham Lincoln,
and in all likelihood ended the war before it really began. But General
Beauregard and the other leaders of the Confederacy had no intention of fighting
an aggressive war against the North. They merely wanted to defend the South
against Lincoln’s aggression.
In
order to rally people in the North, Lincoln needed a moral crusade. That’s what
his Emancipation Proclamation was all about. This explains why his proclamation
was not penned until 1863, after two years of fruitless fighting. He was
counting on people in the North to stop resisting his war against the South if
they thought it was some kind of “holy” war. Plus, Lincoln was hoping that his
proclamation would incite blacks in the South to insurrect against southern
whites. If thousands of blacks would begin to wage war against their white
neighbors, the fighting men of the southern armies would have to leave the
battlefields and go home to defend their families. THIS NEVER HAPPENED.
Not
only did blacks not riot against the whites of the South, but many black men
volunteered to fight alongside their white friends and neighbors in the
Confederate army. Unlike the blacks in the North, who were conscripted by
Lincoln and forced to fight in segregated units, thousands of blacks in the
South fought of their own free will in a fully integrated southern army. I bet
your history book never told you THAT.
If
one wants to ban a racist flag, one would have to ban the British flag. Ships
bearing the Union Jack shipped over 5 million African slaves to countries all
over the world, including the British colonies in North America. Other slave
ships flew the Dutch flag, the Portuguese flag, the Spanish flag, and, yes, the
U.S. flag. But not one single slave ship flew the Confederate flag. NOT ONE!
By
the time Lincoln launched his war against the southern states, slavery was
already a dying institution. The entire country, including the South, recognized
the moral evil of slavery and wanted it to end. Only a very small fraction of
southerners even owned slaves, and the vast majority of southern leaders,
including Robert E. Lee and “Stonewall” Jackson, openly supported abolishing
slavery.
The
slave trade had ended in 1808, per the U.S. Constitution, and the practice of
slavery was quickly dying too. In another few years, with the advent of
agricultural machinery, slavery would have ended peacefully--just like it
already had in England. It didn’t take a national war and the deaths of over a
half million men to end slavery in Great Britain. America’s so-called Civil War
was absolutely unnecessary. The greed of Lincoln’s radical Republicans in the
North combined with the cold, calloused heart of Lincoln himself are responsible
for the tragedy of the “Civil War.”
And
all of the hysteria over the Confederate Battle Flag is just so much propaganda.
The Confederate Battle Flag flies the Saint Andrew's Cross. Of course, Andrew
was the first disciple of Jesus Christ, brother of Simon Peter, and Christian
martyr who was crucified on an X-shaped cross. Andrew is the patron saint of
both Russia and Scotland.
In
the 1800s, up to 75% of people in the South were either Scotch or Scotch-Irish.
The Confederate Battle Flag is predicated on the national flag of Scotland. It
is a symbol of the Christian faith and heritage of the Celtic race.
Pastor John Weaver rightly observed, “Even the Confederate States motto,
‘Deovendickia,’ (The Lord is our Vindicator), illustrates the sovereignty and
the righteousness of God. The Saint Andrew's cross is also known as the Greek
letter CHIA (KEE) and has historically been used to represent Jesus Christ. Why
do you think people write Merry X-mas, just to give you an illustration? The ‘X’
is the Greek letter CHIA and it has been historically used for Christ. Moreover,
its importance was understood by educated and uneducated people alike. When an
uneducated man, one that could not write, needed to sign his name please tell me
what letter he made? An ‘X,’ why? Because he was saying I am taking an oath
under God. I am recognizing the sovereignty of God, the providence of God and I
am pledging my faith. May I tell you the Confederate Flag is indeed a Christian
flag because it has the cross of Saint Andrew, who was a Christian martyr, and
the letter ‘X’ has always been used to represent Christ, and to attack the flag
is to deny the sovereignty, the majesty, and the might of the Lord Jesus Christ
and his divine role in our history, culture, and life.”
Many
of the facts--including the quotation above--that I reference in this column
were included in a message delivered by Pastor Weaver several years ago. I want
to thank John for preaching such a powerful and needed message. Read or watch
Pastor John Weaver’s sermon “The Truth About The Confederate Battle Flag” here:
The Truth About The Confederate Battle Flag
Virtually every act of federal usurpation of liberty that we are witnessing
today--and have been witnessing for much of the twentieth (and now twenty-first)
century--is the result of Lincoln’s war against the South. Truly, we are living
in Lincoln’s America, not Washington and Jefferson’s America. Washington and
Jefferson’s America died at Appomattox Court House in 1865.
And
speaking of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, you can mark my words: after
the Lincoln-worshipping socialists have finished removing the statues and
memorials that honor the brave men of the American Confederacy, they will turn
their attention to removing the statues and memorials of the brave men of the
American colonies. That’s what tyrants do: they try to remove all semblances of
resistance from any city or country that they conquer. That is exactly what
socialist-sponsored terror groups, such as ISIS, are attempting to do among the
communities they control in the Middle East; and that is exactly what the
socialists in America (Republican and Democrat) are doing in our country right
now.
Today
it is Jefferson Davis; tomorrow it will be Thomas Jefferson.
P.S.
For folks to truly understand Abraham Lincoln and his war against the South, I
believe it is absolutely essential to read Thomas DiLorenzo’s phenomenal book
“The Real Lincoln: A New Look At Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, And An Unnecessary
War.”
Instead of an American hero who sought to free the slaves, Lincoln was in fact a
calculating politician who waged the bloodiest war in American history in order
to build an empire that rivaled Great Britain's.
Through extensive research and meticulous documentation, DiLorenzo portrays the
sixteenth president as a man who devoted his political career to revolutionizing
the American form of government from one that was very limited in scope and
highly decentralized--as the Founding Fathers intended--to a highly centralized,
activist state. Standing in his way, however, was the South with its independent
states, its resistance to the national government, and its reliance on
unfettered free trade. To accomplish his goals, Lincoln subverted the
Constitution, trampled states' rights, and launched a devastating Civil War,
whose wounds haunt us still. According to this provocative book, 600,000
American soldiers did not die for the honorable cause of ending slavery but for
the dubious agenda of sacrificing the independence of the states to the
supremacy of the federal government, which has been tightening its vise grip on
our Republic to this very day.
You
will discover a side of Lincoln that you were doubtless never taught in
school--a side that calls into question the very myths that surround him and
helps explain the true origins of a bloody and unnecessary war.
GET
THIS BOOK: “The Real Lincoln,” by Thomas DiLorenzo.
Find it here:
The Real Lincoln
©
Chuck Baldwin