Michael Gaddy

(Author’s note: About two years ago I wrote a series of articles under the title of this piece in order to bring the light of truth to the events in our history known incorrectly as the Civil War. Since I wrote these articles there have been several events that have occurred in this country which have led to continued demonization of the people of the South, their culture, and their symbols. In reaction to the horrific shooting in Charleston, South Carolina, in June of 2015, several entities across this country began political, not historical, attacks on Southern symbols. Ironically, today, one can purchase an ISIS flag at Amazon but cannot purchase a Confederate Battle Flag. A personal friend has taken on the fight in Ft. Smith, Arkansas to challenge the local school board which made the decision to remove a school mascot, the school fight song and the name of a dance team as a personal sacrifice to the gods of Cultural Marxism. To this man and his efforts, I dedicate this series of articles. Thanks, Joey)

“Mr. Pendleton, if the Republicans lose their little war; they’re voted out in the next election and they return to their homes in New York, or Massachusetts or Illinois, fat with their war profits; if we lose, we lose our country, we lose our independence, we lose it all.” ~ General Thomas Jonathan Jackson (Stonewall) 1862.

At some point in late 1862, the Abraham Lincoln led republican administration realized their unconstitutional, immoral war, perpetrated on the people of the South, was generating a tremendous loss of life and property and at some point history would demand an explanation for what could only be considered treason. They also realized that should they lose this war there would certainly be legal repercussions for their blatant disregard for the limits of the Constitution. Lincoln had ordered up an Army of 75,000 soldiers to invade citizens of his own country without congressional approval.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. ~Article 3 Section 3, Constitution FOR the United States. (Emphasis added)

When their unconstitutional, immoral war(s) are killing thousands each and every week, tyrants are forced to seek some form of legal or moral high ground on which to base the reasoning for their crimes. Sometimes this requires the refutation of what one might have claimed previously.

“Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the amplest evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that–

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.

Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them;” ~Abraham Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address.

Killing all these people and destruction of private property, not to mention shutting down newspapers in the North, imprisoning members of the Maryland State Legislature and issuing an arrest warrant for the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, all because they dared challenge the war on constitutional principles, Lincoln was forced to come up with justification based on the same moral principles he had abandoned when he started his war. But, Lincoln and the Republicans had to be very careful for there were several states in the North which were most intolerant of the person of African descent.

“[R]ace prejudice seems stronger in those states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists, and nowhere is it more intolerant than in those states where slavery was never known.”

“So the Negro [in the North] is free, but he cannot share the rights, pleasures, labors, griefs, or even the tomb of him whose equal he has been declared; there is nowhere where he can meet him, neither in life nor in death.

In the South, where slavery still exists, less trouble is taken to keep the Negro apart: they sometimes share the labors and the pleasures of the white men; people are prepared to mix with them to some extent; legislation is more harsh against them, but customs are more tolerant and gentle.”  ~Alexis De Tocquville Democracy in America, p 343

“Both Indiana (1816) and Illinois (1818) abolished slavery by their constitutions. And both followed the Ohio policy of trying to prevent black immigration by passing laws requiring blacks who moved into the state to produce legal documents verifying that they were free and posting bond to guarantee their good behavior. The bond requirements ranged as high as $1,000, which was prohibitive for a black American in those days. Anti-immigration legislation passed in Illinois in 1819, 1829, and 1853. In Indiana, such laws were enacted in 1831 and 1852. Michigan Territory passed such a law in 1827; Iowa Territory passed one in 1839 and Iowa enacted another in 1851 after it became a state. Oregon Territory passed such a law in 1849. Blacks who violated the law faced punishments that included advertisement and sale at public auction (Illinois, 1853).” ~Slavery in the North (North of Slavery. The Negro in the Free States 1790-1860, University of Chicago Press)

So, Lincoln fell upon the idea of the Emancipation Proclamation; moral high ground on which to base his tyrannical, murderous war. Not a child goes through the Public Fool System without hearing of the Great Emancipator and his Emancipation Proclamation, but how many are told of the conditions of the Free Blacks in the North, the duplicity of Lincoln witnessed by his statements in his inaugural address, or the horrid treatment of those in the North who dared oppose Lincoln’s unconstitutional acts? Is withholding the truth any different than lying?

Conveniently, for those who worship at the feet of Lincoln and the unconstitutional government that has existed since what was actually the Second War for Independence in this country; intentionally left out of most descriptions of the Emancipation Proclamation is the fact it only freed the slaves in the parts of states where Lincoln had no control. It did not free any Blacks in the Border States or in the areas of the Southern States controlled by the Northern Army. Lincoln, acting through his military subordinates such as Benjamin “Beast” Butler in New Orleans, continued to use Blacks as slave labor to construct forts and other “needful” buildings.

“Despite this expansive wording, the Emancipation Proclamation was limited in many ways. It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal Border States. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon Union military victory.

Although the Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery in the nation, it captured the hearts and imagination of millions of Americans and fundamentally transformed the character of the war. ~National Archives and Records Administration

There we have it; the official government position from the National Archives, a branch of the central government. The truth does not matter—only how do you feel (Cultural Marxism) about any issue; in fact, it is not important you even know the truth, especially if it has to do with overreaching, therefore, unconstitutional government.

The Emancipation Proclamation, a piece of intentionally deceptive legislation, continues to this day to capture “the hearts and imagination of millions of Americans” but in so doing, it obfuscates the truth and does absolutely nothing to correct the inaccuracies of revisionist history taught to our children and the adults of this country. More importantly, it carries with it the automatic acceptance of a highly centralized and despotic government structure that is diametrically opposed to the true intent of our Constitution as ratified.

During the Reconstruction era in the South, the right to vote and own property was removed from anyone who had given “support” to the government of the Confederacy. Yankee near-do-wells came in droves to the Southern states to see the people of the South were properly chastised and punished for daring to stand for the concept of “consent of the governed.” Many of these people came from Northern states that did not allow Blacks to vote.

“Following the Civil War, Radical Republicans in Congress introduced a series of laws and constitutional amendments to try to secure civil and political rights for black people. This wing of the Republican Party was called “radical” because of its strong stance on these and other issues. The right that provoked the greatest controversy, especially in the North, concerned black male suffrage: the right of the black man to vote.

In 1867, Congress passed a law requiring the former Confederate states to include black male suffrage in their new state constitutions. Ironically, even though African American men began voting in the South after 1867, the majority of Northern states continued to deny them this basic right.” (Emphasis added) ~Constitutional Rights Foundation, African Americans, and the 15th Amendment.

These wonderful Yankees sent their holier-than-thou hypocrites into the South as teachers to indoctrinate the young people into acceptance of the tyrannical Reconstruction Act of 1867 and the casus belli of the war: freeing the Black man. Of course they were also there to teach the young people that the unconstitutional, highly centralized, tyrannical, despotic government they were living under was for the greater good of all.

Today our children are still taught the above by those indoctrinated in the so-called field of education and many so-called intelligent adults regurgitate the government provided pablum on demand. Again, it is all about the emotions of the situation and the truth is often irrelevant. We now see the manifestation of that doctrine in what is called “Common Core.”

“… [E]very man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late.  We can give but a faint idea when we say it means the loss of all we now hold most sacred … personal property, lands, homesteads, liberty, justice, safety, pride, manhood.  It means that the history of  this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy;  that our  youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the War, will be impressed by all influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, our maimed veterans as fit objects for their derision, it means the crushing of Southern manhood … to establish sectional superiority and a more centralised (spelling in the original) form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.” ~Gen. Patrick Cleburne, C.S.A. … 2 Jan 1864

(To be continued)


“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” ~Soren Kierkegaard

Written in the pages of our own sometimes inglorious history is the true facts, obscured by those who wish to govern by force and intimidation and see individual freedom and liberty as an impediment in their path to power, money and glory.

As a people, we can choose to deny our history, warts and all, or we can ignore it to our own detriment and to any chance for liberty for the citizen of today, or our posterity. Regardless of the path taken, the truth is the truth; no amount of obfuscation or false hero worship can change that.

We can embrace the comfortable lie known as political correctness, but to do so requires a moral and ethical price a truly free people cannot afford to pay. Political correctness is nothing but a denial of the truth and is a very frangible defense against the eventual onslaught of reality.

We can continue to ignore the truths of our history, but it does not alter reality in the least. How can we deal with any of our problems, present and future, if we refuse to acknowledge the historical lessons of the past?

The Constitution of our founders, as ratified, contained the tools needed by a people determined to live free without the encumbrances and violations of individual rights witnessed when government follows the inevitable path and becomes despotic and tyrannical.

To boil down the motives of Lincoln and his Republican Party leadership one must understand that to rob, destroy and murder a group of people and to avoid condemnation for that act, it is vitally important that the group so targeted must somehow appear to be the villains and deserving of such actions.

The unconstitutional, tyrannical government of 1861-2016, their house servants, better known in polite circles as the Mainstream Media and various and assorted shills and sycophants who inhabit the leadership/membership of both major political parties would have us all believe this country’s Second War of Independence was visited on the people of the South because the inhabitants of those states were prejudiced against people of color. Again this flies in the face of true history.

Seven Southern states seceded between December of 1860 (South Carolina) and February 1 of 1861. (Texas) Four states, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee did not secede until Lincoln unconstitutionally ordered up 75,000 volunteers to invade the states that had, at that point in time, seceded “because laws were being opposed and obstructed.” Lincoln ordered up these troops after Fort Sumter had been fired upon by Confederate Forces.

When Lincoln offered to make slavery constitutional in perpetuity, (Corwin Amendment) the Southern states still refused to rejoin the Union. This proves, beyond any question the war was not about slavery. Lincoln was willing to place the issue of slavery outside of the control of Congress in order to protect the increased flow of money gained with the recently passed Morrill Tariff into the coffers of the central government, the majority of which, like the previous tariffs, went into improvements in the North.

In actuality, when it comes to the resupply of Fort Sumter, Lincoln was advised by many in his cabinet such an act would be foolhardy and could lead to war.

“No answer could be made to this point, and the President saw that he was misled, and immediately ordered the reinforcement of Fort Sumter. . . It is impossible to exaggerate the importance and merit of this act . . . . It was (undertaken] by Lincoln with only the support of a single member of the Cabinet and he represented no State, and was the youngest and least distinguished member; and he was opposed by all the others, who were the leaders of the Republican Party and the representative men of the great Republican States. Lincoln himself was inexperienced, and those who opposed the stand he took had not only great experience in public affairs, but they were regarded by Lincoln himself as his superiors. [He resolved] to stand by his convictions . . . .” ~Letter from Montgomery Blair to Samuel Crawford, May 6, 1862

Most interesting is the Ordinance of Secession from the state of Virginia. In this proclamation, the State of Virginia was legally exercising an option that was made part of their ratification document of 1788, which by any definition constituted a contract or compact between the people of the state of Virginia and the central government. Here is the wording of that contract which was signed by the people of Virginia’s representatives on June 25, 1788.

“We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will…” (Emphasis added) Virginia Document ratifying the US Constitution, June 26, 1788

Now, copied below is an excerpt of the Ordinance of Secession constituted and signed by the people’s representatives of the State of Virginia on 17 April 1861.

“AN ORDINANCE to repeal the ratification of the Constitution of the United State of America by the State of Virginia, and to resume all the rights and powers granted under said Constitution.

The people of Virginia in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression, and the Federal Government having perverted said powers not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slave-holding States:

Now, therefore, we, the people of Virginia, do declare and ordain, That the ordinance adopted by the people of this State in convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and all acts of the General Assembly of this State ratifying and adopting amendments to said Constitution, are hereby repealed and abrogated; that the union between the State of Virginia and the other States under the Constitution aforesaid is hereby dissolved, and that the State of Virginia is in the full possession and exercise of all the rights of sovereignty which belong and appertain to a free and independent State.

And they do further declare, That said Constitution of the United States of America is no longer binding on any of the citizens of this State…” ~Convention of Virginia, April 1861 [Vote 132, 201 Yea, 37,451 Nay on 23 May 1861.]

Very plainly stated, in legal terms, ratified by a vote of the people of the state of Virginia, their ratification contract with the central government of the United States was repealed, not because of slavery but because the central government had broken the contract by exceeding the powers delegated to them in the original ratification contract. In very simple terms, the consent of the people of Virginia to be governed by the central government was withdrawn with prejudice.

Yes, the term “slave-holding states” was included in this Ordinance of Secession, but one must remember that slavery was indeed constitutional in 1861 as previously stated by President Lincoln in his First Inaugural Address and had been since the founding of the country. The flag of the United States Government had flown over the institution of Slavery for 73 years at that point in time. Most obviously Slavery was/is not morally correct and, in fact, reprehensible, but neither are many of the unconstitutional acts of our central government today. The illustrations of this fact are too numerous to mention.

Venturing forth into the arena of doing the wrong thing for the right reason(s), especially, allowing government and its employees any latitude outside the proper restraints of our Constitution are always devastating.

There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end, it leads to death.  ~Proverbs 16:25

Again, referencing Article IV Section II of the Constitution, if Virginia had the right to withdraw from their compact or contract with the central government then so did the other 10 states which voted on Ordinances of Secession, or any of the states for that matter.

In Early 1861, many of the newspapers of the North agreed with the right of the states to secede/nullify. The precedent had been set with the New England states who threatened to secede because of the Louisiana Purchase, the Hartford Convention of 1814 and the New England states who refused to participate in the War of 1812.

“[W]e sympathize with and justify the South…their rights have been invaded to the extreme limit possible within the forms of the Constitution.” ~Albany (NY) Atlas and Argus, November 1860

“[F]anatics and demagogues of the North waged war on the institutions of the South”   ~November 1860 Concord (NH) Democratic Standard

“We believe that the right of any member of this Confederacy to dissolve its political relations with the others and assume an independent position is absolute ­ that, in other words, if South Carolina wants to go out of the Union, she has the right to do so, and no party or power may justly say her nay.” ~Cincinnati Daily Press, November 1860

Perhaps the above will help the doubting Thomases come to grips with the reality that Lincoln shut down over 300 Northern newspapers along with arresting, according to the Columbia Law Journal, over 38,000 US Citizens without due process for daring to oppose his actions. In fact, Fort Lafayette in New York Harbor became known as the “American Bastille.”

Such actions should and can be associated with other political tyrants and despots in history. Lincoln actions closely resemble more modern tyrants such as Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot and Idi Amin Dada. Hitler did, after all, mention Lincoln’s actions favorably in Mein Kampf.

“[T]he individual states of the American Union . . . could not have possessed any state sovereignty of their own. For it was not these states that formed the Union, on the contrary, it was the Union which formed a great part of such so-called states.” ~Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, pg. 566

“[T]he Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence . . . by the Articles of Confederation in 1778 . . . and establishing the Constitution. . . . It follows from these views that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union . . .” ~Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, 4 March 1861

Please read thoughtfully and carefully the below  excerpt from Hitler’s magnum opus, Mein Kampf, and contemplate if the government system described by Hitler resembles at all the form of government we live under today in our country. A system of government where the states rights have been destroyed.

“National Socialism as a matter of principle must lay claim to the right to force its principles on the whole German nation without consideration of previous federated state boundaries, and to educate in its ideas and conceptions. Just as the churches do not feel bound and limited by political boundaries, no more does the National Socialist idea feel limited by the individual state territories of our fatherland. The National Socialist doctrine is not the servant of individual federated states, but shall some day become the master of the German nation. It must determine and reorder the life of a people, and must, therefore, imperiously claim the right to pass over [state] boundaries drawn by a development we have rejected” (p. 578). (Emphasis added)

Also, does the political system described above, by Hitler, resemble what we commonly call Reconstruction in the Southern states from 1865-1877? Was the Central Government led by the Radical Republicans “master’ over the people and did it “determine and reorder” their lives?

(Author’s note: This concludes Part Two. In Part Three, I will address the insanity that is the bigoted hatred toward the people of the South, their heritage and their symbols fostered by the Central Government, its employees, house servants, shills, willing dupes and useful idiots.)

2-6-2015 10-13-51 AM



Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: