Modern Day Carpetbaggers

Image result for carpetbagger political cartoon

I read the following comment on Facebook concerning Sherman’s march to the sea.

Sherman’s innovative strategy was to seize the food stores, and destroy whatever crops and livestock they couldn’t take — instead of seeking out enemy armies, and killing thousands of soldiers. There were less than 1000 casualties, both killed and wounded, on both sides, combined, in Sherman’s March to the Sea. Compare that to Gettysburg, where there were 51,000 casualties in one battle. It amazes me that some people think Sherman’s March was worse than massed armies fighting pitched battles with tens of thousands of casualties.

The man who wrote this comment lives in Cary, NC but went to school in Michigan. The comment was made on Rep. Blust’s post praising Lincoln and a veiled attack on Rep. Pittman’s comment stating the truth concerning the tyrant Lincoln. As shown in that post, people are woefully ignorant concerning the facts of the War of Northern Aggression. For anyone who is not familiar with the “innovative strategy” mentioned above, here is one excerpt:

Targeting Civilians

Americans are still fascinated by the war because many of us recognize it as the defining event in American history. Lincoln’s war established myriad precedents that have shaped the course of American government and society ever since: the centralization of governmental power, central banking, income taxation, protectionism, military conscription, the suspension of constitutional liberties, the “rewriting” of the Constitution by federal judges, “total war,” the quest for a worldwide empire, and the notion that government is one big “problem solver.”

Perhaps the most hideous precedent established by Lincoln’s war, however, was the intentional targeting of defenseless civilians. Human beings did not always engage in such barbaric acts as we have all watched in horror in recent days. Targeting civilians has been a common practice ever since World War II, but its roots lie in Lincoln’s war.

The fact is, the Lincoln government intentionally targeted civilians from the very beginning of the war. The administration’s battle plan was known as the “Anaconda Plan” because it sought to blockade all Southern ports and inland waterways and starving the Southern civilian economy. Even drugs and medicines were on the government’s list of items that were to be kept out of the hands of Southerners, as far as possible.

I am not classifying all Northern transplants as carpetbaggers. I am classifying those transplants who are ignorant of history and spread their ignorance as carpetbaggers. Imagine the outcry today if the federal government came in and killed 76 civilians for a BATFE fundraiser. Imagine the outcry if a president who won the Nobel Peace prize had killed innocent civilians around the world with drone strikes.

I could give more examples but the root cause of this is simple: people like power at all levels. And they are willing to justify its abuse. But there are judgment days on both earth and Heaven.

David DeGerolamo

Plugin by: PHP Freelancer
This entry was posted in Editorial. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Modern Day Carpetbaggers

  1. Average Joe says:

    Hear! Hear!

    Average Joe

  2. J Marshalek says:

    I am a refugee, can I move South? I promise I won’t bring the North with me.

  3. Tom Angle says:

    War has been waged on the civilian population goes back to at least the Old Testament times.

    An army cannot function without supplies and a war does not continue without the support of the populace. Since militaries do not grow bean, manufacture bullets and boots. Those that do are just as much a part of the military supply train and the person driving the supplies to the front lines. Once the will to continue the war is lost amongst the civilian population, that side will soon give up the fight.

    To think that a war can be waged without eliminating the enemies means to resupply and crushing their will to fight, leads to protracted war. There is no sense in fighting a war if you value the enemy’s life as much as you value your own.

    I am in no way advocating walking into a random village and killing everyone in it. But the people need to decide who they are going to side with and support. You cannot have people sympathetic to the enemy amongst you. It will be a cancer that grows and will incur more wars later on.

    War is a cruel and heinous endeavor. That is why every act of war should be debated fully and only acted upon when there is no other option.

    • lon a follower says:

      Tom, how does one pick a side when we begin to see the lies and deceptions at work on both sides?
      If more people would seek the high ground and expose the Truth and the lies including “the lies of omission.” All who do this gain a clearer picture of “the world stage.”
      Only sympathy for percieved enemies will cause us to seek the Truth.
      Below Hans speaks of Abraham Lincoln, someone we were all brought up to admire. Now many of us question what we were told. Many believe slavery was already on the decline. A natural process.
      Like it or not, the world always has slaves and masters, the Bible gives clear instructions to both sides.
      For a while now i am convinced picking worldly sides is not an option.
      Yah or mammon? We cannot serve two masters.

  4. Hans says:

    Two relevant thoughts on the subject of slaughter and war:

    “Abraham Lincoln did not cause the death of so many people from a mere love of slaughter, but only to bring about a state of consent that could not otherwise be secured for the government he had undertaken to administer. When a government has once reduced its people to a state of consent – that is, of submission to its will – it can put them to a much better use than to kill them; for it can then plunder them, enslave them, and use them as tools for plundering and enslaving others.” – Lysander Spooner

    “War Is Merely the Continuation of Policy by Other Means. We see, therefore, that war is not merely an act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse carried on with other means. What remains peculiar to war is simply the peculiar nature of its means.” -- Carl von Clauswitz

    Don’t even get me started on my thoughts about the inhabitants of Cary, NC. I came south by accident, but I embraced the smoldering embers of a culture of liberty that once waved its’ middle finger to the “north” and the tyranny of national government.

    • LT says:

      Hans, it was no accident that I came South, as a refugee from the abomination of northern ‘social collectivism’. And I will state my opinion with regards to the inhabitants of Cary (Morrisville, Chapel Hill, et. al.) -- they have turned that once free and precious ‘Carolina soil into a festering dungheap, by sullying it with the overflow of their collelctivist, corporation-worshiping, liberty hating, pseudo-intellectual diarrhea, with which their heads and lives are so profoundly full.

      There is a fine old saying which fits such ‘transplants’ to a tee -- “Give ’em an enema, and you could bury ’em in a shoebox.”

  5. daveburton says:

    Inconvenient fact #1: President Lincoln did not start the Civil War. The Civil War started when, at the direction of Confederate President Jefferson Davis, insurrectionists in South Carolina fired on a United States Ship, the Star of the West, and laid siege to a United States military fort, Fort Sumter, while Democrat James Buchanan was still President.

    Inconvenient fact #2: The North didn’t start the war, either. (See above.)

    Inconvenient fact #3: The North did not escalate the war, either. The conflict escalated after Lincoln took office, when President Jefferson Davis ordered the unprovoked attack on that Fort.

    People who call the American Civil War the “War of Northern Aggression” are either gently joking or completely out of touch with reality.

    Inconvenient fact #4: The Confederate insurrection was illegal.

    People who claim that secession was legal must play “living, breathing document” games with legal terms like “perpetual,” just like Chief Justice Roger Taney did to deny citizenship to African Americans in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case, and just like Justice Blackmun did to legalize killing babies in Roe v. Wade.

    Inconvenient fact #5: The insurrection was immoral.

    The insurrectionists started the bloodiest war in U.S. history for a profoundly evil purpose: the prolongation of the “Peculiar Institution” of human slavery. If your great, great, great grandpappy fought in that war on the side of the Confederacy, then I’m sorry, and I don’t blame you for that, but the truth is the truth: he fought for an evil cause.

    -Dave, in Cary
    who went to school in Michigan and Texas
    where they know how BBQ is really supposed to be cooked
    setting the record straight
    so there

    • Tom Angle says:

      1) Fort Sumter was in South Carolina’s borders and the Union Army was asked to leave and they did not. The Union was the aggressors.

      2) The above was an act of war by garrisoning unwanted troops in a foreign country.

      3) They raised armies and declared war on any (ex state) that would not allow then to march through to South Carolina. Which is an act of war.

      4) “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” The founder declared it a right and duty. To further back the this, look at the state of West Virginia. Is Secession was illegal, how is West Virginia legally a state? For it to be formed in Virginia was still part of the Union, Virginia would have had to vote to allow it to secede from the state. That is in the law. Apparently, they federal government at that time though secession to legal.

      Just a quick question. Do you think it is moral for the government to force someone to support another? Is that not slavery?

    • David says:

      So are you a carpetbagger, a scalawag or a cross of the two? Your inconvenient “facts” are based on your assumptions. Let’s start with your defense of Lincoln. Please explain your thoughts on the Corwin Amendment to the Constitution.

      • LT says:

        David, don’t waste your time. Dave Burton is a filthy pacifist, something far worse than being either a carpetbagger or a scalawag. He and his fellows are the ones who, regardless how righteous the cause or how urgent the need, will prevaricate upon a thousand minuscule points of law and language, for no better reason than to avoid entering into conflict themselves, and worse, to prevent the good people of their community and nation from entering without them, so as to avoid being singled out for the spineless, whimpering, corrupt excuses for men that they are.

        When we battle the alliance of communists and muslims here in ‘Carolina (a day which grows ever closer) it is “men” like dave burton whom we ought to dispatch to the enemy at the outset, to “negotiate peace” and thereby delay our enemies action, as we prepare for war.

        And what matter that his head shall be returned on a pike, or via the bore of a cannon -- for he himself has demeaned his life to such a low value by his own words, without the assistance of any other party.

        Such is the value of the “peace” which filth like this burton character promote, that it is demeaning for real men even to countenance his cringing propositions for longer than is required to spit upon them, as I have previously observed…

    • Average Joe says:

      It all comes down to, does one believe in the right of self government?

      From his specious claims I’d say ol’ carpetbagger Dave does not, and rather somehow thinks the founders would have actually signed a document that was in fact, not an agreement among gentlemen, on enumerated powers, but rather a suicide pact that provided for an all powerful central government that could force states to provide money and their sons to invade any and every state that want to leave the union. Personally, I find such a position bordering on power mad insanity but at least ol’ carpetbagger Dave has the bastard Lincoln on his side.

      Something ol’ carpet bagger Dave also seems to have missed is the long train of abuses and usurpations of the national government against the South that lead to their vote and attempt to peacefully leave the government which it agreed to and helped create. Just as in 1776, it wasn’t an overnight event where as I expect he, carpetbagger Dave thinks, a bunch of drunk rednecks decided ‘we hate us some Yankees and ain’t gonna give up our negroes so lets load up our muskets and attack!”, But rather a well considered course of action and an attempt to remove themselves from further abuses, having been left with no acceptable alternatives, you know, like rational people. Heck, not even the offer of the Corwin Amendment was enough to prevent a vote to leave. That alone should disprove any and every claim that “it was about slavery.”

      I expect one could provide numerous examples to educate ol’ carpetbagger Dave and dissuade him from his erroneous summation of the quest for Southern independence but having drunk the Kool-Aid of political correctness it would most likely be a futile attempt.

      With that in mind, I’d say ol’ Dave the carpetbagger is a fine representation of the arrogance, stupidity, and tyranny that motives us on the other side to maintain the efforts of our fathers and keep the home fires burning. In fact it reassures me that the use of the term “damn yankee” applies as much now as it did back in the day.

      No offense Dave.

      Average Joe


  6. daveburton says:

    David, after reading LT’s alt-right rants, above, and his even viler previous rants, can you see that the alt-right are every bit as unchristian as the communists, collectivists, Muslims & corporations whom he proposes to war against?

    I hope that is obvious, to you. But then the real question is, which side are you on? Who/which is first in your heart and your loyalties? Is it Christ or is it alt-right hatred?

    Ultimately, you need to decide. Which side are you on?

    You really can’t avoid deciding, because “no decision” is an decision, as well. [Mat 12:23]

    • David says:

      1. I don’t know what the “alt-right” is other than a new label designed to divide the country.
      2. I do not agree with LT’s viewpoints on every issue but then again, I could say this about most people outside of WNC and North Georgia. Why do you think I called this site NCRenegade?
      3. I hoped to have a site where people could discuss all issues. As I have said previously, I post articles from other sources to engage people: that does not mean that I agree with or support their content.
      4. I do not agree with or support vile personal attacks.
      5. I know which side I am on and what path I am taking. This path does not include labelled sides, political parties or any side offering division. I have prayed for guidance over the past several months and was told to unify people for a better future. As of now, I have failed since I see no avenue for unification or peace at this time.
      6. I do know that the community center will be opening soon. Whether this will free up enough time to write on NCRenegade again is doubtful.
      7. As I saw again last night at Dr. Forstchen’s speech in Waynesville, if we do not understand history, we will be doomed to repeat it.
      8. I pray that the community center will offer a means to unify people with common goals based in the Lord.

      • Average Joe says:

        Is anyone else waiting for carpetbagger Dave to criticize Christ for attacking the money changers? After all only by laying down and doing nothing can we accomplish…well, what exactly?

        I guess he was out of argument on the subject at hand and had to start hurling slanders like “alt right” and “unchristian” to change the subject and get everyone else on the defensive. It seems that’s is all the left has these days. Personally I am well past such godless Saul Alinsky tactics but maybe that bit of obfuscation still works on some.

        Here are some words to live by…

        Be without fear in the face of your enemies.

        Be brave and upright so the Lord may love you.

        Speak the truth, even if it leads to your death.

        Safeguard the helpless and do no wrong.

        Average Joe

    • LT says:

      You capitalized ‘muslim’, dave burton. Does that mean you recognize it as a “legitimate religion”? Or is it, as I have plainly stated, a satanic death cult? Because you can’t have it both ways.

      Either you’re a Christian, and you willingly declare that islam is a satanic cult, or you’re not a Christian at all, and “all religions are equally valid” to you, as the unwashed believe. John 14:6 -- “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.”
      There’s no third option, dave, so which is it?

      See, you’re the one choking on his duplicitous words. You’re the corruptor of the Word and an enemy of the Truth. You’re a liar and a hypocrite, all the way to your flaming final destination with those muslims you “love” so much, unless you repent and rectify yourself in Justice.

      • daveburton says:

        I capitalized “Muslim” because it is a proper noun, the name for an adherent of Islam, also called Mohammedanism, the cult of Mohammed. In English, proper nouns are capitalized.

        That includes the names of wonderful people and institutions we should all love and admire, like Live Action, Winston Churchill, Jim Elliot, President George W. Bush, President Vaclav Klaus, Halliburton, General Wm Tecumseh Sherman, Marco Rubio, C.S. Lewis, John Wesley, Heartland Institute, and Christ.

        It also includes the names of evil people and institutions we should rightly detest, like Planned Parenthood, Nicolae Ceausescu, Lumen View, President Barack Obama, President Raul Castro, The Potsdam Institute, Jefferson Davis, Alex Jones, Janet Reno, L. Ron Hubbard, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and Satan.

        Muslims are the primary victims of Islam, just as Bernie Madoff’s investors are his primary victims: they’ve been conned, except that Muslims are at risk of losing a lot more than their life savings.

  7. daveburton says:

    It amazes and horrifies me that, in this day and age, there still exist knuckle-dragging alt-righters, like Average Joe and Carpetbagger LT, who beat their chests and boast of their manliness while hiding behind pseudonyms, and still support slavery.

    As this article notes, the CSA Constitution forbade any State from ever abolishing “negro slavery.”

    Unlike the Founding Fathers of the United States Constitution, who were too embarrassed to mention slavery by name in their document, the Founding Fathers of the Confederate States Constitution refer to slavery explicitly throughout.

    Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 prohibited the Confederate government from restricting slavery in any way:

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

    Article IV, Section 2 also prohibited states from interfering with slavery:

    “The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.”

    Perhaps the most menacing provision of the Confederate States Constitution was the explicit protection Article IV, Section 3, Clause 3 offered to slavery in all future territories conquered or acquired by the Confederacy:

    “The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several States; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.”

    This provision ensured the perpetuation of slavery as long and as far as the Confederate States could extend it’s political reach, and more then a few Confederates had their eyes fixed on Cuba and Central and South America as objects of future conquest.

    Unlike the Confederate States Constitution, the United States Constitution freely permitted states to abolish slavery. If the day ever came when slavery was eliminated voluntarily throughout the United States of America, not one word of the United States Constitution would need to be changed, whereas slavery could never lawfully be abolished under the Confederate States Constitution.

    Moreover, five of the Confederate States issued “Declarations of Causes,” detailing their reasons for seceding from the Union. It is impossible to read those documents and not realize that the slavery was the reason that those States seceded. By my count, those five documents contain a total of over 140 references to slavery, which I’ve highlighted here:

    How about you, David Geronimo? Do you support slavery, too?

    • David says:

      Is there a reason for the spelling of my last name in your comment?

      I have made my position concerning slavery clear in the past. Your question is just subterfuge.

      I see that you did not respond to my request concerning the Corwin Amendment to the Constitution which negates your point concerning slavery.

      • daveburton says:

        Sorry, no. I don’t know how I did that. Trying to type too fast, I guess.

        My question is not subterfuge. If you support the alt-right neo-confederates, you support slavery. If you wish the Confederacy had won, you support slavery, because the entire purpose of the Confederacy was to prolong slavery.

        The Confederacy was thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery.

        I don’t see that the Corwin Amendment negates anything. It fizzled, which is a good thing, of course. What do you think is significant about it?

        • LT says:

          The Corwin Amendment would have explicitly prevented the federal government, whether through act of congress or through attempted amendment of the Constitution, or otherwise (i.e. via the Supreme Court) from legislating upon *any* domestic institution within the states.

          Only a purebred idiot could miss the implications -- had Corwin passed, Fed.Gov would not have later been able to force the states to allow abortion; or to force 0bamacare on us; or to redefine marriage; or to force the cities/counties to change their zoning ordinances for things like HUD housing requirements, etc., etc.

          There are literally hundreds of things which Fed.Gov has forced down our throats, which could have been prevented by effective employment of the Corwin Amendment…

          • daveburton says:

            Nonsense. The only thing the Corwin Amendment would have done is prolong slavery. It wouldn’t have even have done what it was intended to do, which was prevent the Civil War, because the insurrectionists were intent upon war, and would not be dissuaded from their disastrous course by any alternative.

            The federal government already flouts the Tenth Amendment, and exactly inverts the meaning of the first part of the First Amendment. Why do you suppose they would pay any more attention to the Corwin Amendment than they do the two most important Amendments in the Bill of Rights?

            The Corwin Amendment would not have prevented the SCOTUS from blatantly lying about the Constitution, like they’ve gotten away with doing in Dred Scott, Wickard v. Filburn, Griswold v. Connecticut, Schempp v Abington School District, Roe v. Wade, Obergefell v. Hodges, and so many other cases.

  8. LT says:

    David, he won’t respond to your inquiry re: the Corwin Amendment, because he can’t. Either he’s irredeemably ignorant, or he’s being willfully ignorant regarding that document exactly because it sours his entire argument beyond any reasonable consideration. (Heh — he just commented above, and proved that he’s irredeemably ignorant. Priceless. Thanks Dave)

    And, as for filthy pacifist burton’s accusation that I’m a racist or hold ‘Alt-Right’ views, perhaps it would help his understanding if I state that one of my closest friends and allies is married to a rather charming black lady, to which fact you can personally attest, and I have nothing but good things to say about her or their marriage.

    Lastly, I’ll [once again] address scalawag burton’s faux offense at my use of a pseudonym -- I have chosen to do so because I wish to deter prejudice and violence directed towards my family as a result of my viewpoint, for as long as possible. When I meet people in person, such as at Patcons, I always use my real name, as you can also attest. There is no subterfuge in my choice, only circumspect restraint. So, if burton were to meet me in person, and give reasonable assurance that he wouldn’t abuse the knowledge, I would provide him with my real name, as I do with everyone else… but he’ll never come to a Patcon, or a gun show, or a prep training where I am teaching, or any other venue where I could typically be found. Because scalawag burton lives in an entirely different world -- a world germinated in pure fantasy and fertilized with pure bull crap; a world where no one gets hurt, and everyone has everything they want and need; a world where ‘Love’ doesn’t include holding people to the consequences of their choices.

    Scalawag burton seems to forget that our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ Himself, holds each and every one of us fully accountable for our choices in life, whether we are loyal to Him and His teachings, or whether we defame His word and His company in favor of the world, and the easy pleasures by which it would beguile us. Christ’s love is tempered with reason and Judgement, and thus are we obliged to temper ourselves, also. But burton will not acknowledge this Truth; and thus I discern that the Truth does not abide in him; neither shall it, unless he dispose of his ignorance and mend his conscience as befits his transgressions.
    REF: Matt 10:16~25/2nd Timothy 1:6~12 (“I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents and simple as doves. But beware of men. For they will deliver you up to councils…“); 1st Corinthians 13:11 (“when I was a child, I thought as a child…“); Matthew 5:17~20 (“I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven“); and lastly Philippians 2:12~13 (“…with fear and trembling work out your salvation…“)

    I’m not ashamed of my views, nor am I afraid of people I have met knowing who I am, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to give the enemies of liberty a free and easy target -- in the form of my home and family -- by which to inflict intimidation upon me and thus attempt to silence my viewpoint.

    My anonymity is as much for their protection as it is for the protection of my family, because the minute someone brings violence to mine, I’m going to bring it right back to their doorstep, ten fold.
    Pacifists like burton have zero comprehension of the “Irredeemable Violence Axiom”, but he should at least be informed of the basics: in an oppressive society such as ours, where the ‘legal penalty’ for using violence in self defense is going to get a man ’10 years to life’, then the fulcrum of decision is pushed all the way to the stops at the end known as ‘restraint’ for any reasonable man; but when by unfortunate chance that barrier of restraint is once broken, then a reasonable man is obliged to acknowledge that there is no going back, and thus he ought rather to go ‘Through’…

    In plain language: Once you’ve begun killing your enemies, for whatever reason, With the law and conscience of our society being as corrupt and depraved as it is; there remains no legitimate reason to cease going down the path of violence, and in fact there is every reason to keep going, either until you are killed, or until your enemy is eliminated, because your society is going to kill you or incarcerate you for the rest of your life, whether your body count is ‘one’ or ‘thousands’.

    This is the nature of the Cold War which the left is presently inflicting upon us, and this will be the cause of it going ‘Hot’, too. We who would live in Rightful Liberty know that our backs are against a wall; those like burton who would have the government use violence to keep our backs against that wall are obliged to know the same compelling fact -- once the line of departure is crossed, the only destinations are victory, or death; there is no going back. And pacifists cannot possess victory, neither their hands nor their hearts are strong enough…

    • daveburton says:

      LT wrote, “Once you’ve begun killing your enemies, for whatever reason, With the law and conscience of our society being as corrupt and depraved as it is; there remains no legitimate reason to cease going down the path of violence, and in fact there is every reason to keep going, either until you are killed, or until your enemy is eliminated, because your society is going to kill you or incarcerate you for the rest of your life, whether your body count is ‘one’ or ‘thousands’.”

      Please get help, LT, before you hurt yourself or others.

  9. lon a follower says:

    Both sides seem to get off on the name calling and little jabs. Forgiving these slights and looking for content is the mission. Problem is there are so many different subjects and content when the shouting begins.
    dave burton posted a video: Was the civil war about slavery?
    Lies and lies of ommision all pertain to slavery. No lie is of the Truth. The more division we see the more we understand the whole world has been decieved.
    Interesting dates and details,

    • David says:

      The more lies we see, the more division is sown. And division is what will destroy both the country and our faith.

  10. David says:

    The Corwin Amendment:


    Resolved, By the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States, of America in Congress assembled, that the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of said Legislatures, shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution, viz:


    No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to 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 the laws of said State.

    Speaker of the Hous of Representatives.

    Vice President of the United States, and
    President of the Senate.

    Approved March 2, 1861.


  11. David says:

    I am closing comments on this post. But I will have the last word. Slavery is evil. It does not matter if it is outright ownership of another human or a family trapped in a factory town paid in company script used in the company store that is never enough to cover their debt to the “company”. The analogy of the Federal debt is today’s example. No one addressed the issue of the War of Northern Aggression’s real reason: the economic wealth of the South. No one addressed that there are more slaves today than at any point in history. No one addressed boycotting companies using slave labor today. No one addressed the tyranny of Lincoln or the abuses of the Constitution under his reign and then Reconstruction.

    Anyone who tries to defend Gen. Sherman’s tactics of murder and theft can do so on Judgment Day. Sherman’s army were war criminals and would have been tried and hanged for their crimes if the South had won.

    The discussion should have been about restoring the rule of law, the Constitution (unless you want a new government), slavery and war tactics today. How many civilians has the US killed as “collateral damage”.

    Lincoln had no jurisdiction to eliminate slavery in another sovereign country. He did not eliminate slavery in the North and enforced the still existing Fugitive Slave laws during the war. Today, the US does not issue proclamations outlawing slavery in Libya or Saudi Arabia. Don’t you think US sanctions would be in order against any country allowing slavery?

    I am not fighting the Civil War or waiting for the South to rise again (although I would celebrate it), I am pointing out the history that we are repeating today.

Comments are closed.