The Abyss Grows

 
 
 

 

With the admission of each new State there was always contention to determine which group it would be counted among, Slave or Free. The northern States called themselves "Free States" since, for whatever reason, they had mostly freed themselves from owning slaves. The Yankees called the Southern States "Slave States". Misleading terms since slavery was legal in all the States, the true contest was the "Radical" versus "States Rights" political policies and not slavery at all, but it sounded better to be against slavery than against the rights of the People.
    The central government controlled trade and that was the Norths' profits. Until 1809 this trade included slaves, the slaves of the South were transported on Yankee ships and sold by Yankee merchants. Long after the ban on importing slaves into the U. S., these profit minded merchants of misery continued to ply the ocean between Africa and South America. Fully 96% of their total slave trade was with South America and the Caribbean. Although slaves were unsuited for mill and factory work, the Yankees had no problem with providing them for others - for a price. Profit has always been the conscience of the North. (Is it not ironic that the ones who claim to have agitated so strongly against owning slaves saw no problem with buying and selling them?) And this trade continued long after the "War to Free The Slaves" was a played out tragedy!
    I hope that by this time you can see this contest between the nation of the founding fathers and the advocates of an omnipotent central government (Radicals) did not come about suddenly in 1860, but had been building since the colonial days. The rift between the People and the Radicals was unavoidable; they could not possibly co-exist in one nation, or even two. That is why, when the numerically superior North elected the "visionary" Mr. Lincoln, it became necessary for the supporters of Peoples' Rights to separate from what they saw as despotism and tyranny, where the People had no control, no voice. If not slavery or the preservation of the Union, these Radicals would have created another reason to destroy the defenders of the ideals of the founding fathers. The old ideals could not be allowed to survive or their new vision would fail, miserably.
    Although the overwhelming majority of the common people of the North felt in 1860 that the South should be allowed to separate peacefully, they were quickly silenced when Mr. Lincoln threw 45,000 of them in prison without trial or even being charged. This totalitarian form of government was so much like what they had in the old world where the people followed orders, without question, and accepted whatever the government said as true, the Northern people quickly fell into line. As many people still do today! The "vision" of Mr. Lincoln was a nightmare assuming reality for anyone who valued their rights and their freedom. (If alive today, this man would certainly be considered, at the least, mentally unstable. Kicked in the head by a horse at the age of 9 and briefly thought dead, he suffered severe depression and mental instability the rest of his life.) When Mr. Lincoln suspended the real Constitution in order to wage his illegal war on the Confederacy, (he could not have done it within the Constitution so he simply set it aside and in so doing destroyed its viability forever), he also imprisoned over 45,000 people (mentioned above) who disagreed with "Mr. Lincolns' War". His prisoners included the elected governments of no less than three States. You see, habeas corpus had been conviently suspended when the Constitution was negated and with it any hope for peace. The Supreme Court ruled after the war that he had acted illegally. One can only surmise that their delay in ruling on this was the fear that he would throw them into prison also! Mr. Lincoln effectively negated the real Constitution for all time. If it could be set aside even once, it can no longer guarantee anything!
      I cannot understand how anyone can see this man as the "Savior of the Union", "the Great Emancipator" and a larger than life demigod, when all he ever did was to negate the real Constitution in order to murder over a million people in an illegal war against a legitimate, independent nation, for the sake of, in his own words, preserving the market for Yankee goods, and of course the 75% of the Federal budget provided by Va., N.C., S.C. and Ga. alone perpetually flowing north, never to return. Bankruptcy for their grandious plans for the north was the true threat of Southern secession! Of course later he added the slavery ruse to his cause.  But we all know, whether we admit it or not, the whole of the story was greed, jealousy and fear of ideological competition. All behind the guise of "righteous indignation" about a people they did not even consider human but were referred to simply as "contraband". The cries of indignation came from their wallets and not from their conscience.
     I suppose when people cannot accept the fact that they were duped into such a heinous crime against humanity, they deny it ever happened or, they make a righteous crusade out of mass murder. That darkness of the mind still remains.
Whether the Union had 13 States, 30 States or 50 States, the Union was never in jeopardy by the secession of the Southern States. Their only threat was the Constitutional paradox and loss of revenue from the oppressive taxes and tariffs levied on Southern goods they represented for the Federalists. The South never sought to conquer the North, only to be free of it.
     The South did not fight to preserve slavery anymore than the North fought to abolish it. Even Mr. Lincoln said as much when he said that if he could return the South to the Union without freeing any slaves, that would be his first choice, (For his view of blacks see Notes of Interest). Either way though, he was determined to keep his house together, even if it was built with corpses and mortared with blood. His legacy is the undying hatred of one People for the other. Abolition was a 4% fringe element in the North, not a mainstream sentiment. The North actually hated blacks! A good example of their sentiment was shown in 1863 when New York City seceded from everybody and declared itself an "international city". This lasted all of 3 days before the U. S. Army stepped in and put an end to that idea, although not before dozens of blacks had been murdered by the good citizens. (Show me the piety in lynching black men from lamp poles or in burning black orphanages, children and all?!)
    Slavery was not an issue in the South either, less than 6% of the People ever owned even 1 slave, nor did most want to!
The North only used slavery, first as a military tactic, and failing that, as a propaganda weapon. Mr. Lincoln was reluctant to loose the idea of emancipation, he knew his soldiers would never fight for that cause, but when he saw the North loosing the war, he used it selectively. His "Emancipation Proclamation" freed only those slaves he had no control over, the ones behind Confederate lines. Why? His hope, although publicly denied, was to draw Confederate soldiers away from the front lines to put down the slave rebellions he hoped to incite. He was willing to see the wholesale slaughter of unarmed blacks and the women and children of the South simply to draw Confederate soldiers away from the front lines to protect their homes. He, like most Yankees, could not understand that the blacks of the South were standing with the Confederates, not under their heels. His tactic did not work, there were no rebellions, no murder for the women and children left at home in the South, at least not yet. Having failed at subversion, the North then used emancipation simply to distract world opinion from a war of genocide, turning it into a moral struggle, thus insuring there would be no outside interference. It bought them the time needed to wear down the Souths' resources of men and material. They still make the claim of "righteous indignation" today, and never miss a chance to try to convince us, and themselves, that the South fought an immoral war to preserve slavery and that we should be grateful for our own conquest and subjugation.
    The South was right to fight for the real Constitutional rights and freedoms of the People. The North however, used their Constitution when it suited them and had no qualms about setting it aside when it did not support their goals. A Constitution that is not inviolate is worthless since it can be negated at any time. It guarantees nothing! These Radical Reformers continue to dupe the people into thinking that they still have rights, still have a voice, while all they really are is a cash machine to support an ever-expanding, ever-intrusive government run by a few brokers of power. The rights and freedoms held so dear today are only scraps from their table, to be given or taken away at a whim. Big Brother is alive and growing stronger every day! The majority of the people have become no more than automatons of tyranny. All thanks to a mentally unstable man turned national demigod. A manic-depressive with delusions of omniscience.

The United States our founding fathers created was very limited in the powers ceded to it by the States. It was deliberately kept small and thereby subject to the will of the people. Their experience with the British had made the people wary of big government. Their independence was hard won and they were not about to give it up to a government so large and powerful it answered only to itself. This simple government worked well enough for a while. They even fought a war with the Barbary Pirates and another war with Britain in 1812 and one with Mexico in 1847. With the exception of a few naval battles, these were fought wholly by the Southern States while the North refused to fight. Even as Washington was burned by the British the North refused to send their troops into battle. (It seems the Yankee sense of unity was self-serving from the start.) The U. S. army that fought in Mexico did have a few Yankees in its' ranks.

As the "Union" grew with more States being added, the New England States saw their power being diluted by numbers not firmly in their control. (That little fish syndrome again) More States meant less influence for each individual State. The New England States even went so far as to try to give away to Spain all the lands along the Mississippi River to keep the only trade routes through their ports. Of course that failed, but it shows what lengths the North would go to in their greed and ambition. Having failed, it then became necessary, in their eyes, to concentrate more power in the central government while, because of their large population; they still held considerable power there. The problem the North faced was that not everyone wanted to abandon the ideals of government of, by, and for the people (regardless of the claims of Mr. Lincoln). The "States Rights" advocates wanted to keep the majority of the power in the States where it was subject to the will of the people, while the business community and "social reformers" of the North (commonly grouped together as "Radicals") wanted the power in the central government where they held power. (I still have a problem understanding the mentality of people who think a "national" government can handle regional or local issues better than the affected people can. Perhaps, if the people were automatons from their mold of "correctness", then this might stand a chance. However, this is not the case, and I pray it never will be. Still, so many people believe, or are duped into believing, that the Federal government can solve all problems.)