Quote: Michael Hutcheson (January 20, 2014)

The Terrible Truth About Abraham Lincoln and the Confederate War

President Lincoln has been all but deified in America, with a god-like giant statue at a Parthenon-like memorial in Washington. Generations of school children have been indoctrinated with the story that “Honest Abe” Lincoln is a national hero who saved the Union and fought a noble war to end slavery, and that the “evil” Southern states seceded from the Union to protect slavery. This is the Yankee myth of history, written and promulgated by Northerners, and it is a complete falsity. It was produced and entrenched in the culture in large part to gloss over the terrible war crimes committed by Union soldiers in the War Between the States, as well as Lincoln’s violations of the law, his shredding of the Constitution, and other reprehensible acts. It has been very effective in keeping the average American ignorant of the real causes of the war, and the real nature, character and record of Lincoln. Let us look at some unpleasant facts.

In his first inaugural address, Lincoln stated clearly that (1) he had no legal authority to interfere with slavery where it existed, (2) that he had no inclination or intention to do so even if he had the legal authority, (3) that he would enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, returning runaway slaves escaping to the North to their masters in the South, and (4) that he fully supported the Thirteenth Amendment then being debated in Congress which would protect slavery in perpetuity and was irrevocable. He later famously stated, “Do not paint me with the Abolitionist brush.”

Although there was some opposition to slavery in the country, the government was willing to concede everything the South wanted regarding slavery to keep it in the Union. Given all these facts, the idea that the South seceded to protect slavery is as absurd as the idea that Lincoln fought the war to end slavery. Lincoln himself said in a famous letter after the war began that his sole purpose was to save the Union, and not to either save or end slavery; that if he could save the Union without freeing a single slave, he would. Nothing could be clearer.

For decades before the war, the South, through harsh tariffs, had been supplying about 85% of the country’s revenue, nearly all of which was being spent in the North to boost its economy, build manufacturing, infrastructure, railroads, canals, etc. With the passage of the 47% Morrill Tariff the final nail was in the coffin. The South did not secede to protect slavery, although certainly they wished to protect it; they seceded over a dispute about unfair taxation, an oppressive Federal government, and the right to separate from that oppression and be governed “by consent”, exactly the same issues over which the Founding Fathers fought the Revolutionary War. When a member of Lincoln’s cabinet suggested he let the South go in peace, Lincoln famously replied, “Let the South go? Where, then, would we get our revenue!” He then launched a brutal, empirical war to keep the free and sovereign states, by force of arms, in the Union they had created and voluntarily joined, and then voluntarily left. This began his reign of terror.

Lincoln was the greatest tyrant and despot in American history. In the first four months of his presidency, he created a complete military dictatorship, destroyed the Constitution, ended forever the constitutional republic which the Founding Fathers instituted, committed horrendous crimes against civilian citizens, and formed the tyrannical, overbearing and oppressive Federal government which the American people suffer under to this day. In his first four months, he

  1. Failed to call Congress into session after the South fired upon Fort Sumter, in direct violation of the Constitution.
  2. Called up an army of 75,000 men, bypassing the Congressional authority in direct violation of the Constitution.
  3. Unilaterally suspended the writ of habeas corpus, a function of Congress, violating the Constitution. This gave him the power, as he saw it, to arrest civilians without charge and imprison them indefinitely without trial—which he did.
  4. Ignored a Supreme Court order to restore the right of habeas corpus, thus violating the Constitution again and ignoring the Separation of Powers which the Founders put in place exactly for the purpose of preventing one man’s using tyrannical powers in the executive.
  5. When the Chief Justice forwarded a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision to Lincoln, he wrote out an order for the arrest of the Chief Justice and gave it to a U.S. Marshall for expedition, in violation of the Constitution.
  6. Unilaterally ordered a naval blockade of southern ports, an act of war, and a responsibility of Congress, in violation of the Constitution.
  7. Commandeered and closed over 300 newspapers in the North, because of editorials against his war policy and his illegal military invasion of the South. This clearly violated the First Amendment freedom of speech and press clauses.
  8. Sent in Army forces to destroy the printing presses and other machinery at those newspapers, in violation of the Constitution.
  9. Arrested the publishers, editors and owners of those newspapers, and imprisoned them without charge and without trial for the remainder of the war, all in direct violation of both the Constitution and the Supreme Court order aforementioned.
  10. Arrested and imprisoned, without charge or trial, another 15,000-20,000 U.S. citizens who dared to speak out against the war, his policies, or were suspected of anti-war feelings. (Relative to the population at the time, this would be equivalent to President G.W. Bush arresting and imprisoning roughly 150,000-200,000 Americans without trial for “disagreeing” with the Iraq war; can you imagine?)
  11. Sent the Army to arrest the entire legislature of Maryland to keep them from meeting legally, because they were debating a bill of secession; they were all imprisoned without charge or trial, in direct violation of the Constitution.
  12. Unilaterally created the state of West Virginia in direct violation of the Constitution.
  13. Sent 350,000 Northern men to their deaths to kill 350,000 Southern men in order to force the free and sovereign states of the South to remain in the Union they, the people, legally voted to peacefully withdraw from, all in order to continue the South’s revenue flow into the North.

These are just a few of the most egregious things Lincoln did during his despotic presidency. He set himself up as a tyrannical dictator with powers never before utilized or even imagined by any previous administration. During this four years of terrible war he was one of the greatest despots the world has ever known, his tyranny focused against his own countrymen, both North and South. He was called a despot and tyrant by many newspapers and citizens both North and South, until he had imprisoned nearly all those who dared to simply speak out against his unconstitutional usurpations of power. Those who disagreed with him were branded as “traitors”, just as were the brave and honorable men in the states which had legally seceded from the Union over just such issues as these criminal abuses of power by the Federal government.

Four months after Fort Sumter, when Lincoln finally called Congress back into session, no one dared oppose anything he wanted or speak out against him for fear of imprisonment, so completely had he entrenched his unilateral power and silenced his other many critics.

The Union army, under Generals Grant, Sherman, Sheridan and President Lincoln, committed active genocide against Southern civilians—this is difficult for some to believe, but it is explicit in their writings and dispatches at the time and indisputable in their actions. Tens of thousands of Southern men, women and children—civilians—white and black, slave and free alike—were shot, hanged, raped, imprisoned without trial, their homes, lands and possessions stolen, pillaged and burned, in one of the most horrific and brutal genocides ever inflicted upon a people anywhere; but the Yankee myth of history is silent in these well-documented matters. For an excellent expose of these war crimes and their terrible extent, see War Crimes Against Southern Civilians by Walter Brian Cisco.

Only after the Union had suffered two years of crushing defeats in battle did Lincoln resolve to “emancipate” the slaves, and only as a war measure, a military tactic, not for moral or humanitarian purposes. He admitted this, remarking, “We must change tactics or lose the game.” He was hoping, as his original draft of the document shows, that a slave uprising would occur, making it harder for Southerners to continue the war. His only interest in freeing the slaves was in forcing the South to remain in the Union. His Emancipation Proclamation was denounced by Northerners, Southerners and Europeans alike for its absurdity and hypocrisy; for, it only “freed” the slaves in the seceded states—where he could not reach them—and kept slavery intact in the North and the border states—where he could have freed them at once.

The Gettysburg Address, the most famous speech in American history, is an absurd piece of war rhetoric and a poetry of lies. We were not “engaged in a great Civil War, to see whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, can long endure.” The South was engaged in a War of Independence from a tyrannical North, and after having legally seceded, wished only “to be let alone.” The North was engaged in a war of empire, to keep the South involuntarily under its yoke. Government “of the people, by the people and for the people” would not have “perished from the earth” had the North lost the war; on the contrary, it perished in the United States when the North won the war; for, freely representative government, by consent of the governed, is exactly what the South was fighting for and exactly what Lincoln’s military victory destroyed.

The checks and balances of powers, the separation of powers, the constitutional constraints so carefully and deliberately put into place by the Founding Fathers, had all been destroyed in Lincoln’s first months. The Republic which the Founders gave us had been completely destroyed and a new nation-state was set up; one in which the free and sovereign States would afterward be only vassals and tributaries, slaves to an all-powerful, oppressive Federal government. This new nation-state is completely different in both nature and consequence to the original American Republic. One only has to look around today to see the end results and legacy of Lincoln’s war, his destruction of freedom, and his institution of despotic, centralized governmental power and tyranny.

In retrospect, it is a tragedy that John Wilkes Booth did not act four years earlier. Slavery would have ended naturally, as it has everywhere else (except in African and Arab states); the American Republic, liberty, and 700,000 lives would have been saved, and untold thousands of those young men would have lived to contribute their ingenuity, inventions, creativity and talents to the political, economic, literary, scientific and social legacy of our people. And the greatest despotic tyrant in American history would never have gained the foothold of power or been able to establish the oppressive and omnipotent Federal government we all suffer under today

Not “Lost Cause,” but “Cause Lost!”

In an editorial presented by Pres Kabacoff in the Memorial Day edition of the Baton Rouge Advocate, Mr. Kabacoff commits several errors. With due respect, they are common errors and not necessarily his alone.

There is an important difference between a “Lost Cause” and a “Cause Lost.” A lost cause implies that the action taken by a state to secede is legally faulty at the start. Yet even to this day there is no prescribed constitutional permission or restriction about a state having the right to secede or not to secede. When the Southern states embarked on secession it was a “cause” they believed lawful. Other states in the union of states believed otherwise and history shows that the contest of a state’s right to secede would ultimately be temporarily decided between the states on the battlefield.

The South lost that secession cause in that battle between states. However, the South could have won? Consequently, logic tells us that a state’s right to secede is still unsettled constitutional law because an issue decided at war is not constitutional law. Laws are written, and secession laws are yet undecided.

On the point that the removal of the monuments in New Orleans was necessary, Mr. Kabacoff states it was necessary because they were an “insult” to “chattel slavery.” Mr. Kabacoff needs to read more history. The proximate “cause” of the War between the States was secession, not slavery. President Lincoln added slavery as a later issue.

The monuments of those who fought in the War between the States are testaments to the heroics of 262,000 Southern military who gave up a life to a cause “lost.” But it was not a ”Lost Cause.”

Sam Walton is a good example

President Trump is being lambasted because of his practice of Twitting his thoughts. All the “experts” say he should stop the practice. One pundit remarked that he has to understand his Twitts become documents in the public record. Did it ever dawn of them that his Twitter practice is precisely that; unvarnished and unfiltered statements he wants understood. To an old-timer like me, that’s the way it used to be. Example.

When Sam Walton started Walmart he instituted the Walmart “no questions asked return policy.” As Walmart expanded and more stores were added the store managers were modifying the return policy. Sam Walton didn’t like that.  So, the story is told that at a company-wide store managers meeting, Sam Walton did this, and they say it did happen.

He told the store managers that he wanted to clarify his return policy. Sam Walton opened up a box containing a new toaster. He dropped it on the stage floor. Picked it up, looked at the audience of managers and said, “Refund it, no questions asked.” Words to that effect. How much clearer could have Sam Walton instruction been?

Donald Trump comes from the world of Sam Walton. Enough said.

My Final RV Sold

After 43 years of RVing, my last RV here is sold (2013). There comes a time when it ends. It started with a Jungle hammock, a Starcraft popup trailer, Holiday trailer, Airstream trailer, two Holiday Rambler motor homes, and the final Surveyor Select trailer.

RV Slide Side RV Rear RV Pull-Down TV RV Power Jack RV Outside TV Mount RV Outside Speakers RV Outside Shower RV Kitchen RV Front RV Fancy Wheels RV Dinette RV Couch Area RV Bedroom RV Bedroom TV RV Bath#1 RV Awning Side RV Auto Jacks RV 360 Degree TV Antenna

Are we here?

Are we here?

Fillppo Mazzei was born in Tuscany, Italy in 1730. He was persuaded to come to America by Benjamin Franklin to produce certain agricultural commodities he was skilled in. Thomas Jefferson took a shine to him and Mazzei bought land next to Jefferson. Between Jefferson and Mazzei, Mazzei started writing political articles in Italian which Jefferson translated for printing. Here is a portion of one, the first part winding up in the Declaration Of Independence, but the concluding part is what predicts.

“All men are by nature equally free and independent. This equality is necessary to establish a free government. Each one must be equal to the other in natural rights. Class distinctions are not always static and will always be nothing more than an effective stumbling block, and the reason is most clear. Whenever you have many classes of men in one nation, it is necessary that you give each its share in the government; otherwise one class will tyrannize the others. But the shares cannot be made perfectly equal; and whenever one class takes power, human events will demonstrate that the classes are not in balance; and bit by bit the greater part of the machine will collapse.

For this reason all the ancient republics were short-lived. When they were stabilized, the inhabitants were divided by class and were always in dispute, each class trying to procure a greater share in government than the others; consequently the legislators came to yield to the prejudices of custom, to the contrary pretensions of the parties, and the best that could be had was a grotesque mixture of liberty and tyranny.”

Whose Empty Wagon?

Whether Donald Trump succeeds in gaining the Republican nomination for president or not, he has succeeded in reducing the political double talk connected with candidates running for office. The journalist Peggy Noonan in writing about Trump a few days ago said this about him, “Mr. Trump touched an important nerve in opposing the political correctness that has angered the American people for a quarter century. “ Or, political correctness is political double talk!

This has given me courage to state that I believe we have had an element of “correctness” when it comes to the Catholic Novus Ordo Mass. Saint John Paul II wrote in 1988, “Respect must everywhere be shown for the feelings of all those who are attached to the Latin liturgical tradition by a wide and generous application of the directives already issued some time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the typical edition of 1962.” Please note the use of the words, “generous application.” So, setting the predicate, the Church deems both Masses are valid, and the continued use of the traditional Latin Mass is to be generously applied. However in reality, the traditional Mass has not been offered as equally valid and has not been generously applied. Double talk!

Recently, I read an essay by a Priest that although the Latin Mass has become more accessible to congregations and has grown in great measure; those Catholics in love with the traditional Mass needed to get more involved in evangelizing others to the Mass or the gains will be lost. Yes, but I don’t fully agree 100% in that appraisal.

There is a saying in marketing that one “cannot sell from an empty wagon.” On Sunday morning, when there is no traditional Mass, or perhaps one, in a Diocese with 2-300,000 Catholics, is that not an empty wagon? And is not that empty wagon actually owned by the Diocese?

My case rests.

Trinity in the Family

Trinity Sunday is a Catholic celebration of the Trinity, the three Persons of God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is the “mystery of divine mysteries.” – The Maryknoll Fathers – “so complete that the divine Persons do not exist except in relation to one another.” Said simply, “3 is 1.”

Marriage has been profaned by the growing crusade by homosexuals to redefine marriage as including same-sex unions. The emotion used to sell the parity that same-sex unions may be called marriages has been the emotion of “love.” The new definition is that Marriage is the love uniting of two humans for one another. Frankly, Christianity may have lost the time-honored definition of marriage to now include same-sex unions. Maybe!

Soon, same-sex unions (marriages) will begin to co-opt the word, “family” as a first child is adopted by them, or procreated by a surrogate. In the Church, “family” is also a Trinity; Father, Mother, and Child. Under the natural law, and law of the Church, family is also “3 is 1.” However, I submit to you that a same-sex marriage cannot “ever” become “family” because the family members, Father, Mother, and Child in same-sex unions, “do not exist in relation to one another.”

In the natural order, Father is the seed of life. Mother is the vessel of life. Child is the new life. In same-sex unions, there is NO relation between the three. Trinity (3 is 1) is never met. Family defined for same-sex unions never exceeds “two” thus cannot be a Trinity. In a gay union, the one defined as Father may have the seed of life, but there is no “vessel of life” in the union so no Trinity. In a lesbian union, the one defined as Mother may be the vessel of life, but there is no “seed of Life” in the union so no Trinity. In the same-sex union, Child may be related to one of the partners, but not both, so there is no Trinity.

This is just an exposition about definition, not equity, meaning fairness. Example. A single person is not a married person. That’s definition. Life is inequitable. So there are many cases where traditional marriages do not meet the test of Trinity. However, a Catholic couple living their faith are open to new life, thus complimentary. The same-sex couple is closed to new life, thus a nullity. In sum, one was by Godly design possible, the other impossible. And I leave it at that. I hope it provokes much thought as it did me.

Happiness

Although the Conservative Party does, indeed, pay fidelity to the Constitution, it also honors all the documents of the founding of America. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

On this 2015 Memorial Day, we honor those servicemen who gave their lives for these Rights. Although “Life” and “Liberty” seem to be understood well, “Happiness” can get a bit foggy. How does Happiness figure in as an element defining government?

About 50 years ago, a young lady we only know as named Michelle took her life, but left this with us.

“My happiness is me, not you.
Not because you may be temporary,
But also because you want me to be what I am not.”

Happiness from government is more than the political argument; too big, too small, not caring, too much caring, etc. “My happiness is me, not you.”

There is no Federal budget aspect to happiness. No taxes are needed. There are no Federal crimes of happiness. No new laws are needed.

Quit telling me what should make me happy! “My happiness is me, not you.”

CP-LA April 13, 2015

A few days ago, the Baton Rouge Advocate presented two long articles about the two sides of a possible incorporation of a new municipality in East Baton Rouge Parish to be called St. George. We applaud the Advocate for it! The Conservative Party USA of which the Louisiana Conservative Party is an affiliated state party has always stressed the right of the voter to assert “self-determination” in presenting new ideas. After respectful debate, it is then at the ballot box that the “winner” is found. The fact that opposing sides exist does not mean there is a divided allegiance about the “public good.” We have to get away from the notion that one side possesses a superior answer to what is always the “public good.” No side or class is permitted to dominate in our country.

This evening, Florida Sen. Rubio will announce his candidacy for the position of the President of the United States, joining with already declared presidential candidates Sen. Cruz, Sen. Paul, and Hillary Clinton. In Louisiana, state-wide candidates are beginning to announce. The political “season” is heating up which is why I write.

The State of Louisiana has the most open election system in the country. Contrast that with the State of West Virginia which has not elected anyone but a major party candidate since 1906, or 109 years. In fairness, they are attempting to change that now. I hope you are as proud of our Louisiana system as I am. Louisiana voters can make a huge difference in Louisiana when it comes to voter “self-determination.” But the critics will say that’s why Louisiana can get a candidate the likes of David Duke. Yes, but that is freedom. When the freedom door is open, it’s open to all. That means you and the Louisiana Conservative Party can make a difference.

The Louisiana Conservative Party is looking to recruit a volunteer “Chief Political Officer.” You see, we believe in working “smart.” Our volunteers, and we are all unpaid volunteers, have strong conservative values, and express them often. However the “art” of politics requires talented experience. This would be a person that is experienced to walk the halls of our capital building. Loves to corner elected officials for commentary. And understands “spin” when it’s spoken.

Help us find that person. They, or if it’s you, should contact me at mail@cp-usa.org.

Go to jail in Indiana

Because we are a representative republic, citizens elect candidates to represent them in a political deliberative assembly, being a library board, city council, or some state and federal office, to name a few. Although the elected representative is expected to carry into the deliberative assembly the political culture of his or her constituents, once officiating, the elected representative is legally afforded the right to use his or her considered judgement in resolving issues brought before them for a vote.

Recent events on “talk radio” and cable news have initiated much discussion  about calling an Article V Amendment Convention. Simply stated, Article V of the U. S. Constitution provides for two methods of introducing amendments to the Constitution; either by Congress, or by States. In either case , final state ratification of amendments remains the same for both. Why two methods of introducing amendments? Our Founding Fathers understood human nature very well, that being that Congress would never proceed to introduce an amendment to the Constitution that ceased or diminished its own powers. Although a “call” is required in the case of a state requested Article V Amendment Convention, only Congress may do so. Congress is not authorized to debate the merits of the State submitted amendments, only call the convention.

When an Article V Amendment Convention is held, delegates to the convention are selected as “Representatives” by and of the peoples of the state from which they have been elected. Delegates to the amendment convention are not controlled by Congress, or state legislatures, except in the case of the states, where the state will oversee the nominating and election “procedure.”

Can you see where this is going? The Article V state introduced amendment process shifts to the “people” and away from Congress. Surprise, surprise. Congress has never made a “call” for an Article V convention. However, it may be getting close, which leads us to Indiana.

Just recently, fearing the future, the legislature of the State of Indiana passed into law (Sen. 224 & 225) what is considered beyond doubt by many legal scholars an unconstitutional Act. My reading of the Indiana law requires that SHOULD an Article V Amendment Convention be called by Congress, the Indiana delegates shall be agents of the state, not the state’s people, and if Indiana delegate “agents” do not follow the state’s instructions, they are to be removed from the convention and may be charged with a felony crime.  Like, JAIL!

This message of mine is to alert Indiana voters about something they may not know anything about, or were misled about what purpose the Indiana law set out to remedy. Surely there must be someone in Indiana that will sue to reverse the unconstitutional Indiana Act.