America Lost the Civil War With The Lincoln War State

[JackRiddler]

150 years of American Imperialism traces to the War Between the States and the false dawn of Federalism.

What about the 240 years of American imperialism before that? What about the big imperialist war just 15 years earlier? What was Manifest Destiny? What about the activities of William Walker (and other freelance imperialists) in the years just before the war?

U.S. President Franklin Pierce recognized Walker's regime as the legitimate government of Nicaragua on May 20, 1856.[3]

[publius]

Yes these of course culminate in the Mexican War which shows Federal power attempting to swallow a large amount of territory suddenly. This in turn puts tremendous strains on the politics of the Federal union. In turn there is the inauguration of Lincoln and then the secession of the South from the compact of states. The Imperialism that is different with Lincoln is the attack and conquering of the South. Exactly at this moment the catalytic process of politics in America comes forth with Civil War War Dictatorship. The State of Exception does not depart with the murdered Commander-in-Chief but lives on as the Federal War Dictatorship. The War Dictatorship creates the CORPORATE UNITED STATES.

The turning of the destiny of the United States turns on slaughtering 2 million Americans. The Warfare State we combat today is that 19th century machine.

The entity of Command and Control therefore is a military dictatorship under former President Lincoln and this too is new in American history. The former Executive Branch of the former nation, is not surrendering state power; also it is not calling for new elections; it is not asking for pleblescite for war; but it has decided against allowing a sister nation to form. As a matter of Public Policy this requires a police state and martial law and war. It is an unpopular policy decision. Ultimately it culminates in 2 million dead and overwhelming Federal power and no legal government outside of the War Dictatorship. The South has been reduced to the status of enemy combatants.
Coming of age killing Americans and imposing martial law the new American state that supplanted and replaced the one before the Civil War is in every respect a father to the later rise of Fascism in Europe. Fascism called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power. After the Civil War the rise of the CORPORATE UNITED STATES was no more an accident than the murder of Lincoln on Good Friday.

[JackRiddler]

Yes these of course culminate in the Mexican War which shows Federal power attempting to swallow a large amount of territory suddenly.

No it doesn't. It shows Southern dominance within the federal system (structurally thanks to the compromises of 1787) under a Southern Democratic president forcing a war to seize hoped-for new slave territory, against a predominantly Northern antiwar movement.

Wikipedia, correct:

American territorial expansion to the Pacific coast was the goal of President James K. Polk, the leader of the Democratic Party.[6] However, the war was highly controversial in the U.S., with the Whig Party and anti-slavery elements strongly opposed.

publius:

This in turn puts tremendous strains on the politics of the Federal union. In turn there is the inauguration of Lincoln and then the secession of the South from the compact of states.

"In turn" is a hilarious condensation that skips over all the essential events in leading up to the Civil War. Buchanan? Dred Scott? Kansas?!

.

[publius]

The slave issue is not essential to Lincoln waging war and conquering the South. That was pure power politics.

We, the people, are the rightful masters of both congress and the courts - not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the constitution. - Abe Lincoln

(Meaning it is right to wage war to be rightful master for only war can determine the right.)

Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came. - Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865), U.S. president. Second inaugural address, Mar. 4, 1865. Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, vol. 8, p. 332, Rutgers University Press (1953, 1990)

(And that party was the Federal party forbidding Independence through warfare destroying the former union.)

(The Civil War) created in this country what had never existed before -- a national consciousness. It was not the salvation of the Union; it was the rebirth of the Union. - Woodrow Wilson, Memorial Day Address, 1915

And I see rebirth of a new country with this nationalist conciousness. Hijacked by a corporation called falsely a government.

[Elvis]

If these have been covered, I apologize....

Hijacked by a corporation called falsely a government.

I went over this UNITED STATES inc., gold-fringe stuff a few years ago, and, if it's true, I could never figure out:

- Who are the stockholders?
- Is the stock traded anywhere?
- Does it pay a dividend?
- Is there a corporate charter? Granted by whom?

Or is "corporation" an imprecise term used here to describe something that's not quite a "government"?

Also, I could never find a lawyer or anyone else who knew of any real-world significance or effect of the gold-fringed flag, including a former government employee who had one in her home library. She knew it represented "admiralty law" or something, but that's about it. If a courtroom has a gold-fringed flag, is it secretly operating under some legal system other than the familiar one we can look up in the books? Maybe as a just-in-case measure of some kind? Is that even important?

Your thesis, this thesis, is interesting, but so far I'm unconvinced, to say the least, that it manifests any real consequences.

For instance, I think corporatism was well on its way to becoming the American Way long ahead of the Civil War.


(There's a great Gilbert Shelton comic about the "rise of the South" in the form of powerful Southern Democrats in Congress. It's the one with the refrain, "In Some Countries..." and ends with Wonder Warthog saying "You better believe it, bub." I can't find it in my comix collection but somehow it would so belong here.)

[American Dream]

Sounder, I think Zinn's account affirms what is valid within publius' narrative and also corrects the oversights and omissions so as to keep the rat poison clearly at bay.

Did you read it?

It’s my own problem that I’m tired of licking AD’s litmus test.

People might want to consider also that life was rough for many if not most folk back then, slave or not.

Huh???

[publius]

The long detailed discussion must rest on Reconstruction. U.S. Constitution 14th Amendment - Introduction
Several “Reconstruction Acts” were passed by the U.S. Congress after the Civil ... Because the 14th and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution DID NOT EXIST ...... Amendment in order to develop a scam for use in protecting corporations ...
www.14th-amendment.com/introduction.htm - Cached - Similar

Even US News reports in 1957 14th Amendment not ratified.

1871 Organic Act for D.C. creates the new CORPORATE UNITED STATES,

On the day of February 21, 1871 with the Forty-First Congress in session an Act was passed*. The title was "An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia" also known as the "Act of 1871."

This Act stated that Congress, which it had no constitutional authority to do, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which in reality is only a ten mile square piece of land.

In essence, this Act formed the corporation known as THE UNITED STATES. Note the capitalization, because it is important. This corporation, owned by foreign interests, moved right in and shoved the original "organic" version of the Constitution into a dusty corner. With the "Act of 1871," our Constitution was defaced in the sense that the title was block-capitalized and the word "for" was changed to the word "of" in the title. The original Constitution drafted by the Founding Fathers, was written in this manner:

"The Constitution for the united states of America".

The altered version reads: "THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA". It is the corporate constitution. It is NOT the same document you might think it is. The corporate constitution operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it is the same parchment that governs the Republic. It absolutely is not.

Capitalization — an insignificant change? Not when one is referring to the context of a legal document, it isn't. Such minor alterations have had major impacts on each subsequent generation born in this country. What the Congress did with the passage of the Act of 1871 was create an entirely new document, a constitution for the government of the District of Columbia. The kind of government THEY created was a corporation.

[JackRiddler]

.

Who are THEY and who are you saying THEY are today?

[American Dream]

Just found this:

http://ww4report.com/node/10748

Ron Paul: pro-Confederate crank

Submitted by Bill Weinberg on Sun, 01/22/2012 - 01:36.


NewsOne now brings to light a YouTube video in which Ron Paul gives a "South was Right" speech to an evident gathering of Confederacy nostalgists. No date or place is offered, but this supposed "libertarian" is speaking against the backdrop of a giant Confederate battle flag! The video was apparently first placed on YouTube by a neo-Confederate channel with the slightly ironic name "Patriot Review." In it, Paul regurgitates several of the usual revisionist tropes—he dismisses slavery as an "excuse" and "rabble-rousing issue" that "really wasn't the issue of why the war was fought"; he suggests differences over "protectionism" and the "banking system" were really behind the war; he points out that other countries "got rid of slavery without war" through "legislation" (as if the abolitionists hadn't fought generations for that!) or (of course, the free-market solution) "literally buying slaves' freedom." Et cetera. NewsOne adds:


Paul also fails to bring up the fact that it was the South that started the war by attacking the North in 1861. [Actually, attacking the federal Fort Sumter off Charleston, SC]

Ron Paul was also was the only member of congress to vote against honoring the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in on its 40th anniversary in 2004. Paul would also claim that he wouldn't have voted for it at the time, putting him on the side of the racists in both the fight against slavery and the fight against Jim Crow segregation, the two defining struggles of Black people in America.

Several Ron Paul supporters have asked that the video be taken down from the pro-Confederate channel, Patriot Review, but Patriot Review believes that the video could help Paul win South Carolina.


We have already noted Paul's opposition to the Civil Rights Act, as well as birthright citizenship, which was instated by the post-Civil War 14th Amendment. Further elucidation is provided by the Southern Poverty Law Center's Hatewatch blog, which noted some of the unseemly types Paul invited to testify last year before the House subcommittee he chaired that oversees the Federal Reserve bank:


One of the witnesses invited to testify was Thomas DiLorenzo, a longtime activist in the neo-Confederate hate group, League of the South (LOS). The LOS advocates for a second Southern secession and a society dominated by "Anglo-Celts"—that is, white people. LOS leaders have called slavery "God-ordained" and described segregation as necessary to the racial "integrity" of black and white alike. DiLorenzo also is an economics professor at Baltimore's Loyola College.

According to the Washington Post, "when Paul opened up the hearing to questions from committee members, Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Mo.) directly took on DiLorenzo for his membership in the League of the South," pointing to the designation of the LOS as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Clay also cited DiLorenzo’s many revisionist works about the Civil War and Lincoln, including "More Lies about the Civil War," "In Defense of Sedition," and "The First Dictator-President," which examines "how Lincoln’s myth has corrupted America."

"After reviewing your work and the so-called methods you employ, I still cannot understand you being invited to testify today on the unemployment crisis, but I do know that I have no questions for you," Clay concluded.


Would that everyone would be so short with these cranks. One of the more maddening things about Paul's YouTube spiel is his invoking of the New England individualist-anarchist Lysander Spooner, who he said despite being an abolitionist, "when it came down to the war, he identified with the South and said 'the South is on the right side...'" This is an utter distortion of Spooner's actual position. Let's see what the official Lysander Spooner website, maintained by Georgetown University legal scholar Randy E. Barnett, has to say. Here's what. Spooner devoted years to anti-slavery agitation, and sent copies of his book The Unconstitutionality of Slavery to every congressman, convinced that if he could reach the masses, they "would march up to the cannon's mouth in defense of the principles of my argument..." Nonetheless:


The Civil War, however, never aroused Spooner's enthusiasm as John Brown's adventure had. He felt the war was fought on the false issue of union; it should have been fought squarely on the issue of slavery. In 1864, he published an analysis of the [war] in [a] Letter to [Massachusetts Sen.] Charles Sumner. Spooner argued that: "the slaveholders would never had dared, in the face of the world, to attempt to overthrow a government that gave freedom to all, for the sake of establishing in its place one that should make slaves of those who, by the existing constitution, were free."

...In agreeing that the Constitution protected slavery, and by proposing compromises in 1861 to prevent [secession], Sumner and others only weakened the moral position of the North. Against the Northern politicians, generally, Spooner charged that "upon your heads, more even, if possible, than upon the slaveholders themselves, (who have acted only in accordance with their associations, interests, and avowed principles as slaveholders) rests the blood of this horrible, unnecessary, and therefore guilty, war."


So Spooner certainly did not take the side of the South, but argued that the North should have been more forthright in its opposition to slavery—which he certainly did recognize as the root cause of the war!

As, by the way, all the Confederates did at the time. It is only their contemporary apologists who try to obfuscate this point. A corrective perspective to the revisionists is provided by Yale constitutional law expert Jack M. Balkin on his Balkinization blog. Balkin quotes from Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens' "Cornerstone speech" of March 21, 1861, boasting of the new Confederate constitution:


The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact.


Balkin also notes that the Confederate constitution specifically codified the "right" to hold slaves:

Article I, section 9, clause 4:

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.


But even for those gullible (and unread) enough to fall for Paul's revisionism, his whole conciliatory attitude towards human bondage should gross you out. He's never grasped the message of Martin Luther King's "Why We Can't Wait." If preaching patience to the oppressed is ugly, it is infinitely more so to do so the enslaved! Which is what Paul implicitly does when he looks to "legislation," or compensating the slave-owners for their illegitimate human "property"! This mental midget and moral monester has no business invoking the great Lysander Spooner!

"Libertarian"? Friend of freedom? Fascistic wackjob is more like it.

Wake up, Paul-suckers!




See our last posts on the Ron Paul pathology and the politics of secession.

[Twyla LaSarc]

sorry, not semiotext(e) but Autonomedia. here it is:

Gone to Croatan
Origins of North American Dropout Culture
Edited by Ron Sakolsky and James Koehnline

Lost history viewed through cracks in the cartographies of control, including "tri-racial isolate" communities, buccaneers, "white Indians", black Islamic movements, the Maroons of the Great Dismal Swamp, the Métis nation, scandalous eugenics theories, rural "hippie" communes, and many other aspects of North American autonomous cultures. A festschrift honoring late historian Hugo Leaming Bey of the Moorish Science Temple.

http://bookstore.autonomedia.org/index. ... ucts_id=75

great read, if i may say so. found it in a used bookstore in SF sometime in the late nineties.

*



*

Wonderful book. Still have my invite to the release party stashed somewhere. I miss Ron's dance parties, talk about TAZ. He's co-edited some other stuff on world music and politics which is worth the read as well. I regret I never got to chat much with him one on one (although I probably would have just clammed up in awe...I had a huge crush on him back in the day... ).

[publius]

The War State is formed under Lincoln and it does not go away when he dies. The War State crystallizes in the Civil War and becomes the CORPORATE UNITED STATES. American Fascism emerges. Federalism as governance is based on Macht Politik and criminal fraud. Rhetoric for Federal power is supporting this corporate state. From Barack Obama to Ron Paul options for self government at the Federal level are staggeringly lmited.

Do not weep, maiden, for war is kind,
Because your lover threw wild hands toward the sky
And the affrighted steed ran on alone,
Do not weep.
War is kind.

Hoarse, booming drums of the regiment,
Little souls who thirst for fight,
These men were born to drill and die.
The unexplained glory flies above them.
Great is the battle-god, great, and his kingdom--
A field where a thousand corpses lie.

Do not weep, babe, for war is kind.
Because your father tumbles in the yellow trenches,
Raged at his breast, gulped and died,
Do not weep.
War is kind.

Swift blazing flag of the regiment,
Eagle with crest of red and gold,
These men were born to drill and die.
Point for them the virtue of slaughter,
Make plain to them the excellence of killing
And a field where a thousand corpses lie.

Mother whose heart hung humble as a button
On the bright splendid shroud of your son,
Do not weep.
War is kind!

[Twyla LaSarc]

But the Irish are not only quarrelers, and rioters, and fighters, and drinkers, and despisers of niggers-they are a passionate, impulsive, warm-hearted, generous people, much given to powerful indignations, which break out suddenly when not compelled to smoulder sullenly-pestilent sympathizers too, and with a sufficient dose of American atmospheric air in their lungs, properly mixed with a right proportion of ardent spirits, there is no saying but what they might actually take to sympathy with the slaves, and I leave you to judge of the possible consequences. You perceive, I am sure, that they can by no means be allowed to work together on the Brunswick Canal.

May I suggest slaves might have found common cause with Irish indentured labor as well? They are still trying to keep one from seeing the plight of the other today, giving one party the role of 'honorary white people' and the privlege of overseership. (Rececent article suggesting whites are preferred for that 50 cent an hour bonus for supervision in retail:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/2 ... via=blog_1 )

As an American who found out their Irish ancestry quite late in life (as it was hidden along with messy ties to Native Americans and Gypsies by clucking anglo-scots purists) I have little use for the Irish (or any other formerly persecuted group) who betrayed their roots here in the states by greedily lapping up oppression by race as long as it benefited them and their descendants.

Evil system corrupts all it elevates beyond peasantry .

[Elvis]

I guess I'm more likely to get some real answers in the Whitley threads.

[Elvis]

Evil system corrupts all it elevates beyond peasantry.

Good thought-byte!

[Twyla LaSarc]

Evil system corrupts all it elevates beyond peasantry.

Good thought-byte!

Thanks, although I should by rights amend it to say that even peasants are bought off by rewards given according to skin color. From my own trailer park observations it is the basis of white supremacism..."I'm a fucking total loser, but at least I'm not black and thus subject to more abuse, and indeed can inflict a lick or two of my own"...many people seem to be so easily gratified by the ability to abuse.