Posts Tagged ‘Congress’

Class Action Lawsuit

July 8, 2016
short url to this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-yk

By Dahni
© 2016, all rights reserved

ClassAction2

If pure law was made to protect the law-abiding (and it was) and not the lawless (and it wasn’t), why does it seem that the law-abiding are punished (and they often are) and the lawless get off FREE, (and they often do)? What is the problem? Is it the law or is it the lawyers? You can answer that for yourself.

But whether you intend to break the law (have criminal intent) or just break it because you are ignorant, unknowing or just incompetent, does this mean there should be little or no consequence? And please do not use the Bill Clinton (lawyer) response, “That it depends on what is, is.”

Dotting all the i’s and crossing all the t’s might be useful (but not necessarily, necessary to understand, in writing sentences and reading them, but it appears to be absolutely necessary; a requirement in legal terms, as is punctuation, capital letters or not, certain words, keywords, and all kinds of extraneous and a superfluity of bullshite loopholes. Lawyers make these legal terms or direct them.

I can certainly understand that punishment for ‘intent’ would be greater than the punishment, for just breaking the law, but because ‘intent’ has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, does not or should not mean that no charges are filed, there should not be a jury, or a grand jury, or judge only, should NOT hear the case, try the case and judge that consequences of breaking the law applies, convict if proven guilty and mete out a just punishment, swiftly!!!!

“Justice delayed is justice denied”

The quote above is a legal maxim— an established principle or proposition. Just like lawyers, and congress and government in general can’t agree on much of anything, no one seems to agree on where this quote came from either.

‘Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations, attributes it to William Ewart Gladstone, but it CANNOT be verified.

Some believe it was first used by William Penn in the form of, “to delay Justice is Injustice,” according to:

‘Penn, William (1693), ‘Some Fruits of Solitude, Headley, 1905, p. 86.

Mentions of ‘justice delayed and denied’ are found in the Pirkei Avot 5:7, a section of the Mishnah (1st century BCE – 2nd century CE): “Our Rabbis taught: …

“The sword comes into the world, because of justice delayed and justice denied…,”

10 Minutes of Torah. Ethical Teachings Selections’ from Pirkei Avot.
http://tmt.urj.net/archives/4jewishethics/052605.htm

The Magna Carta of 1215, clause 40 reads, “To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.”

Martin Luther King, Jr., used the phrase in the form, “Justice too long delayed is justice denied,” in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, smuggled out of jail in 1963, ascribing it to a “distinguished jurist of yesteryear”.

Chief Justice of the United States, Warren E. Burger noted in an address to the American Bar Association in 1970:

“A sense of confidence in the courts is essential to maintain the fabric of ordered liberty for a free people and three things could destroy that confidence and do incalculable damage to society: that people come to believe that inefficiency and delay will drain even a just judgment of its value; that people who have long been exploited in the smaller transactions of daily life come to believe that courts cannot vindicate their legal rights from fraud and over-reaching; that people come to believe the law – in the larger sense – cannot fulfill its primary function to protect them and their families in their homes, at their work, and on the public streets.

Burger, “What’s Wrong With the Courts: The Chief Justice Speaks Out”, U.S. News & World Report (vol. 69, No. 8, Aug. 24, 1970) 68, 71 (address to ABA meeting, Aug. 10, 1970).

The courts are made up of judges and judges are first, lawyers. Lawyers graduate from law schools. Law schools are supposed to teach law and many of the professors may be lawyers or former lawyers that also, graduated from some law school. Sometimes, presidents are lawyers or have a law background. Congress has many former lawyers. The supreme court judges are all, first and foremost, lawyers. The entire government is riddled with lawyers.

Our biggest problem is not with the law per se, it is with the lawyers or the executives, legislators and the judiciary that make the laws, enforce or not enforce them and are more prone to NOT seek justice, but to win their cases, make their arguments, profit from them, protect themselves and their profession; their intuitions of law, and rather than protecting the innocent, they protect the lawless. Loopholes and interpretations, legislating from the bench and not whether one is guilty or not, but what can be proved is, their training and their focus.

No matter what side you may be on with the latest FBI conclusion that no criminal charges against the former Secretary of State and presumptive Democrat nominee for president of the United States, Hilary Clinton, with her mishandling of classified material and the Justice Department accepting that recommendation and no criminal charges will be filed, it’s not the law which is troubling, but the lawyers that wrote, write, interpret, defend or prosecute them, apparently at their discretion and their benefit.

If this is purely political theater (as was said by those who seek to keep this matter going), the Republican Party response seems to go to yet another law and associate it with what the FBI and the Justice Department views as, a closed case. And what law is that? Did the former secretary lie to congress, but not the FBI? But the FBI did not include that testimony in their “comprehensive” investigation. When asked why not, the Director of the FBI said that Congress had not sent them a formal request. To this the person asking said, “You will have one shortly!” So, if this continues, it could only end in a charge or charges of perjury. But perjury will be difficult to prove. The entire matter is laden with corruption and perversion. If the “careless” mishandling of classified material were not concerning on its own, as it is, the lawyers or lawyer-directed legalese that have corrupted and perverted the intent of the law, the law of the land— which is, to protect US, WE the People, from the lawless and punish  the lawless, to me is even more egregious an a threat to national security!

I will give you an example of this corruption and perversion from my own state of New York and my own personal experience.

About a year ago, I was pulled over on the ramp of an entrance to a highway. It was an obvious traffic stop, looking for drunk drivers or to see if people were wearing their seat-belts, I supposed. This was, seat-belt related. After I stopped, an officer approached me and gave me a ticket, as he was told to do, by his supervisor. His supervisor said, that he saw me NOT wearing a seatbelt and to ticket me. Now of course, I would, as most people charged with anything would say, “I’m innocent.” And it does not matter if I really was or not, as you will shortly understand. But I had two choices. I could pay whatever fine was required by my state and county and etc. or try to fight it in court. I decided to go to court.

On my court date, I was given two more choices. I was to either plead guilty and pay whatever the judge said or I could have a trial. Ooops, and I thought I was at trial and the officer would be there? Nope.

OK, I wasn’t there because I was guilty, but before I said I wasn’t, I asked the judge a question, which he allowed. “If I come to trial and plead innocent and win, will they drop all charges and any costs to me, except for my time wasted in coming to court twice? Well the judge informed me that there are no court costs, but there is an administrative fee, which I would have to pay, one way or another. Sure, label that jar of peas, peanut butter, but it’s still peas! Costs or fees, it’s still monies. That’s legalese and PC (political correctness) all rolled into one lump court cost that’s not?

So, let me see if I have this straight? Plead guilty to something I did not do. Pay whatever fine the judge decides. Points are deducted from my license. Enter a plea of guilty that become public record. My insurance most likely will go up. AND I still have to pay the (about) $100, the administrative fee? Yes. And if I go to trial and lose, I may have to pay a larger fine and the $100 administrative fee? Yes. Oh, and one more thing. The police can give me a ticket, even if they know I’ve done nothing wrong because, one way or another, I’m going to have to pay that $100! Is this messed up or what? Does this sound like extortion, racketeering and collusion to you? Is it the law or the lawyers that wrote it or directed it? Well, my prosecution rests! 🙂

WE the People, should ALL file a class action suit against the law profession?! WE the People should just sue the legal profession, sue the hell out of them! But who would do it for US? Who could WE get to represent US?????

ClassAction

click image to enlarge

Another maxim—

“He who represents himself has a fool for a client.”

A supposed quote by Abraham Lincoln?

This proverb is based on the opinion, probably first expressed by a lawyer, that self-representation in court is likely to end badly. As with many proverbs, it is difficult to determine a precise origin, but this expression first began appearing in print in the early 19th century. An early example comes in ‘The flowers of Wit’, or a choice collection of bon mots, by Henry Kett, 1814:

…observed the eminent lawyer, “I hesitate not to pronounce, that every man who is his own lawyer, has a fool for a client.

In the play, King Lear, by William Shakespeare, In Act I, Sc. 4, the king’s fool makes a lengthy rhyming speech, containing a great many trite, but useful moral maxims, such as:

Have more than thou showest,
Speak less than thou knowest, &c.,

The king found that testy and flat and tiresome.

Lear. This is nothing, fool.
Fool. Then, ‘tis like the breath of an unfeed lawyer: you gave me nothing for it.

Representing oneself in Latin is, acting pro se, which means, for oneself.

If WE could find among US, a lawyer(s) that could and would represent US, would they be a fool, in representing themselves as well? And their profession might think them a fool, if they dare go against them? Are WE then just shite (old English term, you figure out its current meaning) out of luck? Are WE, without representation? Are WE, without a prayer? Are WE, up a creek without a paddle? NO!

WE the People have two, to represent us— The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. One these two documents, all the law and all the laws of the United States are supposed to be based on. The legal profession does NOT view them like that!

Regardless of what the courts might rule, the Declaration of Independence is not some past historical writing of its time and just some relic to be archived in a museum. I was then and remains a legal document, an affidavit  of fact and conclusions. In logic, it presents its factual premises (whereas) and its conclusions (therefore). It is the the foundation of Our Republic. It is Our raison d’être (reason to be). It is (WE are), The Apple of Gold in a picture of silver. It is Our Constitution which is the picture of silver, made of , by, and for WE the People, to protect, defend and preserve for ourselves and our  posterity, Our unalienable rights! The picture was made to serve US, WE the Apple of Gold, and NOT US, for the picture of silver!

Regardless of what any court might rule, the preamble to Our Constitution and the entirety of Our Constitution is relevant, essential and inseparable to the Declaration of Independence and to US, WE the People, the Apple of Gold! WE the people do have standing, and state, and original jurisdiction, to bring this case before them! Consider the following excerpts.

                                                                                                              

“The word “Unalienable” appears in one of the greatest phrases of The United States of America’s history.”

“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men [all-inclusive noun] 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.”

Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence 1776

“The Kansas City Court of Appeals for the State of Missouri quoted verbatim the above language of 1776 with approval in Morrison v. State, 252 S.W.2d 97 (Mo. Ct. App 1952), and then went on to say (also quoting):”

Inalienable is defined as incapable of being surrendered or transferred, at least without one’s consent.”

Webster New International Dictionary, Second Ed. Vol. 2,
Page 1254. 252 S.W.2d at 101.

Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.”

Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

“You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances, be surrendered or taken. All individuals have unalienable rights.”

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, 252 S.W.2d 97 (Mo. Ct. App. 1952).”

“You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons (not individuals) have inalienable rights.”

“Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights. Here we have the so-called same defined words of unalienable and
inalienable being separated, not as the same thing, but differently and by an appellate court judge.”

“You and I may think inalienable and unalienable mean the same thing, but apparently, courts and states do not. Therefore, what is unalienable cannot be taken or transferred and relates itself to rights, and what is inalienable, could be surrendered or transferred if by consent and relates itself to privileges. Words have meaning and carry rights and results or privileges and consequences.”

“In U.S. vs. JOHNSON (76 Fed, Supp. 538), Federal District Court Judge James Alger Fee ruled that,”

“The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, not to the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one who is indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It cannot be claimed by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in person.”

McAlister vs. Henkle, 201 U. S. 90, 26 S.Ct. 385, 50 L. Ed. 671; Commonwealth vs. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594, 50 Am. Dec. 813; Orum vs. State, 38 Ohio App. 171, 175 N.E. 876.

Here again we find a federal court judge using both the words “privilege” and “rights.” From the context, this is referring to the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Did you ever think that a judge would make such a ruling?”

“OUR privileges and inalienable rights could be taken or transferred, but if you or I want OUR unalienable rights protected, WE have to fight for them and become “belligerent.” WE out of necessity, to protect OUR rights, must stand in contempt of court. Words have meaning and they carry results or consequences.”

Here in the ruling is, but one example of division, or separation and in essence, an adversarial relationship.”

“If WE the People do not know OUR rights and fight for them, who will?”

Excerpts from: ‘RESET’ (An Un-alien’s Guide to Resetting Our Republic)
Copyright © 2012 by Dahni & I-Magine – All rights reserved.

                                                                                                      

Just imagine, just suppose we were able to actually get a court to hear this case. What do you think their decision would be? Yes, for themselves, the defendants! OK, so what if we get it appealed, all the way to the United States Supreme Court? What would be their decision? Would they allow US, WE the People, to RESET our Republic or rule in their favor, to keep their jobs appointed for life? Most likely to keep their job, but for US? Probably— NOT!!!!

Let’s sue the Legal Profession? Let’s bring a class action suit against the legal profession? Let US, WE the People, sue the legal profession, sue the hell out of them? Probably NOT!

Do you know why Lady Justice is blindfolded? Well, I used to believe she could see, but she blindfolded herself on purpose or purposefully, for equality; for equal justice. Now, I’m really starting to think the legal profession poked her eyes out so, she would not know the scales were being tipped (imbalanced) and the whole legal profession rigged the system, for their exclusive benefit!

ClassAction3

There must be a better way? There is! It involves bypassing the legal profession entirely, but it is legal and the legal profession must YIELD, to the authority and power of, WE the People! Another Blog post on another day. Look for, The Thirteen Coming Soon!
1 of WE,

Dahni

What Really Matters?

March 30, 2016
short url to this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-tF

Donald Trump on what are the three most important roles of government

by Dahni

© 2016, all rights reserved

In a recent Town Hall Meeting on CNN (3/29/16), hosted by Anderson Cooper, Republican candidate for president, Donald Trump, was asked a question by a member of the audience, a young veteran. The audience applauded the man’s service to our country whereas, Donald Trump did not.

The question asked by the veteran to Mr. Trump was, “In your opinion, what are the top three functions of the United States government?”

Mr Trump’s complete answer:

“Well, the greatest function of all by far is security for our nation. I would also say health care, I would also say education. I mean there are many, many things, but I would say the top three are security, security, security. We have to have security for our country so we can continue to exist as a country.”

His simple answer to much criticism was, “Security, Security, Security!”

A candidate that skipped a presidential debate in support of raising money for veterans and whose every rally, every debate, his website and his every public statement on the matter of the military (whether written or otherwise), has been in support of a strong military and support of our veterans. And because he did NOT applaud a veteran which asked him the question, it is taken to mean that he does not support the military and our veterans? Even worse, since he did not applaud this veteran it is because, Trump has no respect for this man’s service to our country and that he [Trump] does not care? I too have not always applauded every veteran, thanked them, said Happy Birthday to people and have missed feeding my cat on occasion. None of these things mean I do not care about them or do not respect them. It just means, like Donald Trump, we are both human. And like Mr. Trump, I have a pretty good track record (not perfect, but consistent) of demonstrating what and whom I care about!

Donald Trump is criticized for his statement in answering the veteran’s question because, it was not articulate enough for some. For others, it did not include Liberty or freedom or anything other than his simple and repeated answer to the question he was asked. Does this show he did not understand the question or answer it correctly? Let us look to our founding documents, The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States of America.

Declare

The Declaration

“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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”

Excerpt from: The Declaration of Independence

Which “unalienable” right such as, “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness,” could be realized without security? What is the purpose of government, but to— “secure these rights?”

Constit

The Constitution

Preamble to The Constitution of the United States of America

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

How is it possible to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility” [and] “provide for the common defense,” without a government to— “secure these rights” of which it was formed to do?

Article II

Section 1.

“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”

“Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

How could the president of the United States of America, “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” without the government, “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” to— “secure these rights?”

Which or what freedoms enumerated in the Constitution, would be possible without the government’s ability to— “secure” them?

Section 2.

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;…”

Is this not the responsibility of the president as, “Commander in Chief,” to— “secure these rights”?

Section 8.

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;…”

Is this not also, the purpose of Congress, to— “secure these rights”?

And what of the Supreme Court, the judicial branch of government? As a branch of government, as are the executive and legislative branches also branches, are they not purposely limited “from the consent of the governed,” to— “secure these rights”?

What right, liberty, freedom or privilege of WE the people is possible, without the government held by sworn oaths to “preserve, protect and defend” to— “secure these rights”?

“Security, Security, Security,” said Mr. Trump. There is no fault in what he said. The fault lies with those who do not understand what he said or understand that every right, our Liberty, our every freedom and every privilege afforded to every citizen of the United States of America, by WE the People who have given consent, for the government to– “SECURE THESE RIGHTS!”

I am however, grateful that Trump’s answers to the question as to the top three functions of government did not include: global warming (Bernie Sanders), Open Borders (Clinton, Cruz and Kasich) and everything I could possibly ever need or want from the womb to the tomb (democracy/socialism/communism/anarchy/tyranny)!

Maybe you do not like the simple answers given by Mr. Trump? But then again, maybe, just maybe, he understands what most of us don’t seem to understand? Perhaps he understands that our system of government and WE are so overwhelmed to distraction; our attention span so limited, all most of us can understand and remember is, ‘What Really Matters’ to most of us— “SECURITY, SECURITY, SECURITY?

The Declartion is the apple and the Constitution is the picture - "to secure these rights!"

The Declaration is, the apple of gold and the Constitution is, the picture of silver to- “secure these rights” and these are words, “fitly spoken!”

What really matters? That a candidate for the office of president of the United States of America applauds every time, for every veteran, or that he consistently supports them? What really matters? That a candidate for the office of president of the United States of America answers a question with the right tone and articulation; the opinionated and expected words such as rights, liberty, and freedom etc. or that he believes in “security, security, security, to— “secure these rights?” What really matters? Do we know what our rights are and that the government is empowered by US to— “secure these rights?” What really matters? Do WE the People merely mentally ascend to and profess these rights or do WE each and every one of us WE the People, do everything in our power to— “secure these rights?” WE the People are, the government of, by, and for the people to— “secure these rights!”

And if you consider Mr. Trump’s first answer was “security” and his second was “health” followed by “education,” what good is security if people are not healthy or know how to— “secure these rights?” But he ended with, “Security, Security, Security!” I do not know about you, but for me, to— “secure these rights” is,  ‘What Really Matters!’

 

1 of WE,

Dahni

As Eye See It

February 29, 2016
short url to this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-tb

Tuesday, March 1st, 2016

(I dare you to read)

By Dahni
© 2016, all rights reserved

AsEyeSeeIt

Dear reader, I write this NOT to convince anyone or persuade anyone of anything. I write it ONLY because, I care. I care about you! As Eye See it, the United States of America is at a crossroads of unknown challenges or consequences, IF we fail to get this one shot right! If WE the People fail to act, this may be our last opportunity? The time for uniting is far past. We are divided. We are upon a precipice. The past is rapidly disappearing behind US. The time for going back is no more. We must leap to something unknown. I dare you to continue below!

There are those that do not care; have never cared; will never care, but rather take pleasure in gutting this whole republic and seeing it burn down in flames! And those enemies are not only from without, they are among US, not a people supplanted or brought here, but our own. I dare you to continue below!

For many, with anger and fear, they find themselves upon unfamiliar ground to have to leap, to believe and trust in something they cannot see, hear, smell, taste or touch. But leap WE all must! I dare you to continue below!

But this is not yet, the time of despair, for as long as life beats within our chest and breath still fills our lungs, we are alive. As long as WE still have our Constitution, we have hope. HOPE, slim as it might be, but there is still hope. There is always hope, for some of us, if not all of us. I would like it to be, all of us! What is reflected in OUR eyes; in your eyes? What is in the apple of your eye and mine? What is the core or in the depth of your being and mine? I dare you to continue below!

Dear reader, I appeal to you to read this from start to finish. I dare you to share this with your every beloved and every friend you have un-friended or that has un-friended you; every enemy— to mail it, email it, post it, repost it, shout it and tweet it from sea to shining sea! I will submit this for your consideration and I will use whatever means I can, to communicate this, even to quote from little known and the most unlikely of sources. I dare you to continue below!

“The brutality of censorship.”
“The Consequences of free expression.”

“Beloved reader, I leave you now, a man who found freedom in the most unlikeliest places, in the bottom of an inkwell on the tip of a quill. Come I dare you, turn the page!”

All the above quotes are from, the Marquis de Sade. I dare you to search, the Marquis de Sade! Unlike the Marquis de Sade, the format in which you are reading this is not written with ink and quill and you may not be viewing it as a page in a book. Still, Dear Reader, still continue to the next line, I dare you!

Dear reader, have you not read; have you not heard, that truth, even on the lips of the devil is, still truth? Have you not read; have you not heard that truth can hurt? Do we not understand that even if we may be upon the right track, we can be run over, if we just stand there? Do we not understand that truth, the precious healing power of truth, can hurt if unheeded? Remember our quote of childhood, “sticks and stones can break our bones, but words can never hurt us?” Do we still teach this lie to our children? Have we ever recovered from broken bones? Can we EVER recover from the toxic words that can disintegrate our bones, break our hearts and cast us into the abyss of, as if we were, never known; have never lived, and will be remembered no more? Words can do that. “A remark generally hurts in proportion to its truth.”—Will Rogers, 20th century writer/speaker/humorist. Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

Our times are nothing new, but where we go from here, will be, to us and future generations, determined by, what we now do. But our times remind me of something I’ve read, long ago that was written far, far longer ago— “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair…” These are the opening words of chapter 1, ‘A Tale of Two Cities,’ by Charles Dickens in 1859. Dear reader, I dare you, to continue reading below.

This book was written about two cities, two main characters and two contrasts (possible outcomes or destinies) during the times of, the French Revolution. This is not unlike our times. Today, our choices reside in two dominant political parties, two ideas, two main characters and two possible outcomes. We are divided and this division between us is predominantly, fear and anger. Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

The Democratic-Republican Party was the American political party in the 1790’s of, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, formed in opposition to the centralizing policies of the Federalist party. It came to power in 1800, and dominated national and state affairs until the 1820’s, when it faded away. This party split and resurfaced as the separate parties we know today as, the Democrat and Republican parties. Each claim Jefferson as their founder, then later one was the party of Lincoln and the other of FDR or Franklin Delano Roosevelt. These two divided parties are still divided, but now more than ever, many of us have come to realize that they are the ones that divide us, to gain or maintain their political power and influence over us, for whom they treat US as their servants. They are angry and they are afraid and they pass this on to us, WE the People that they are, supposed to serve. Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

In short, these two parties target us by promising more from the government and the other promises us less government or limited government. And both promise democracy, but the power they hold is not by the majority of the people that give it, but by the money, delegates and the electoral college (the few) that decide the elections. We are angry and we are afraid and even more, we have never known or have forgotten, who and what we are. Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, he was asked a question by a woman (emphasis implied). It was NOT, “Well Doctor, what have we got, a [democracy] or a [oligarchy]?” It was a, “republic or a monarchy?” And his answer was not a democracy, but— “A republic if you can keep it.”— Benjamin Franklin. Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

In most of our lifetimes, this has been what we’ve been taught and what we still believe that we are a democracy. But this is NOT what the signers of our Constitution thought, taught or signed. For simplicity sake, let us be clear. A democracy is the rule by the majority. A Republic is the rule by law, NOT to limit US, but the government! Use the word “power” if you do not like the word “rule” for both. Laws are replaced with regulations by Congress, presidential proclamations or executive orders, and overthrown, upheld and even changed by the Supreme Court. Into the hands of our government, WE have surrendered more and more of our liberty under the fear of threat to national security, national crisis, state of emergency or the promises made, un-kept. “Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”— Benjamin Franklin. Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

Amidst the troubles of our times, our practical and all but declared bankruptcy, our loss of jobs and the fears for our futures and that of our children, we turn towards the government to help us or we turn from it. We are angry and we are afraid. Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

In the midst of this turmoil and in this presidential election year, it began quite simply with two presumed choices for president. One is named Clinton and the other is named Bush. But the people spoke and there has been an uproar and an uprising. Bush is out or has at least suspended his campaign, for perhaps the hope for something to happen or a brokered convention? But for now, he is out and Clinton is NOT the all-but-done deal. Over 60% of people asked, don’t trust her and yet, she has still been winning about 50% and more of the vote and a whole lot more of the delegates than she has earned. The math simply does not add up. Why, if she is not trusted, would so many vote for her? Is it experience? Is it fear of losing what they believe the last seven years has brought them? Is she their hope of continuing the legacy of the present administration? Is she just a vote against the anger and fear of the other party taking over? But there is fear and anger that what this administration means to many and what she stands for, does NOT do enough; go far enough! Enter another candidate that speaks to this anger and to this fear that even this administration has not done enough; gone far enough. Enter a democratic socialist. Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

Bernie Sanders has been made by not only the Democrat party, but the Republican party, the media and a divided people as well. He speaks to many with his voice, their silent voices of anger and fear. He is well liked. He is trusted. He is an insurgent who speaks of the wanton waste, abuse and corruption in government and capitalism, particularly of those of great wealth at the expense of all others and often even their bailout, by the people. But it is not so much his person that is met with anger and fear, it is what he represents. Few care or know that his first paycheck in life was at age forty and it was then and has been ever since, been provided by the government, “of, by and for the people…,” he so often quotes, Abraham Lincoln, a republican. But he himself, he is not a republican, he is a socialist, a democratic socialist. Some argue against any form of socialism and some argue that we already are, a socialist country, just as we are already, a democracy. But socialism is not new to this country. It has been here as a party in some form, since the 19th century. Many think of the ‘Hippies’ of the 1960’s as Utopian socialists. Socialists were here in the 70’s, 80’s, 90’s and are still here in the 21st century with several of their members serving, in our present government. But after losing many national elections, a leader of their party suggested they stop using the word socialist and use progressive instead and move it all, into the democrat party, and the people will vote for them! Most of us have no idea what socialism is. Democracy, progressiveness, and socialism are all, one and the same. They all share the idea that government must provide for all, all we need. But I will only be brief in a description of socialism. As Eye See It, democracy is, the goal of socialism. “The goal of socialism is communism.”— Vladimir Lenin. Dear reader, I dare you to search Lenin and then continue reading below.

In keeping with Charles Dickens and his Tale of Two Cities, Bernie Sanders represents the “best of times” because, he clearly shows the pulse of the divided country and brings to light clearly, what is on people’s minds. He rallies against waste, abuse and corruption. He defines our present government as an oligarchy. He has raised more individual contributions (about 4 million) than any candidate in history, with the average contribution of around $27. His support is broad-based among the many differences of many men and women. He is beholden to no major donors or super PACS (political action committees). Bernie Sanders is, “the best of times.” But, Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

Bernie Sanders represents, the “worst of times” because, he shows the pulse of the divided country and brings to light clearly, one possible outcome of our fragile republic. His support clearly shows how far people are willing to go to revolt and transform this country even further than, it already has been. Most don’t believe we now are under or understand what an oligarchy is until— they realize it basically means, power in the hands of a few. And if Sanders’ is successful in his call for revolution, he will become one of the few, a different kind of a few perhaps, but still one of the few. But his non-lead shows that either the majority of his party are not willing to go as far as his vision promotes or he is just not considered electable. Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

On the republican side, enter one outsider, made by both the Democrat and the Republican parties, the media and the divided country. His name is, Donald Trump. He is a wealthy billionaire businessman, celebrity and author. He has been made or brought to presidential candidate status by the perceived failures of the Democrat party. He has been made or brought to the forefront of the 2016 political process by, the very party he represents (the Republican party), and the media and a divided people, angry and afraid. He is greatly disliked and feared by the democrats, his own party, independents and the media. And despite all of this, he is outperforming ALL expectations. Pundits cannot figure him out. He is self-funding and beholden to no one, though many argue he is, only to himself and his own self-interests and his perceived, braggadocios and all encompassing ego. But he cannot seem to be caused to cave or pushed aside. His support is broad based and his supporters appear to be unmovable. He is the break against and the champion against, political correctness. In keeping with Charles Dickens and his Tale of Two Cities, Donald Trump represents the “best of times” because, he clearly shows the pulse of the divided country and brings to light clearly, what is on people’s minds. He rallies against waste, abuse and corruption and especially ineptitude and incompetence. His support is broad-based, for he appears to represent the former silent majority. Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

With Donald Trump, we have only to look at his history of business. Will like his business history, will he make a better deal in ‘making America great again’? Trump represents the “best of times” because, a better deal is, what many are seeking, not a politician, someone well-spoken, polite or even a deeply religious leader, but a better deal-maker. His own running clearly shows that our government has been poorly run as if, it were a business. Surely a businessman, could make a better deal? But these are also, the worst of times. Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

Donald Trump represents, the “worst of times” because, with his vision and the agenda he has set for America, he has brought out the opposite of a quote from the first inaugural address of Abraham Lincoln— “We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.” Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

Donald Trump represents, the “worst of times” because, we are not friends, but enemies; our passions have been strained perhaps, beyond measure  and our once united and bonds of affection are broken. And we are now so close to forgetting that there ever was a time we were united. The lie is now called the truth and the darkness is called the light. Those that believe he is nothing, but a con-man, are themselves conned. For WE all have been conned by the two parties of con! Donald Trump represents the “worst of times” because, those that oppose him clearly show that WE the People are divided. Many have promised or threatened to vote for the other party, not vote at all, leave the party or the country if, he becomes the republican nominee or is somehow elected president. These threats or promises (depending on your perspective) are not just from the democrats, but the republicans and independents too! In Donald Trump, we clearly see and vent the worst devils of our nature. These are, “the worst of times.” Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

Political unrest! Economic uncertainty! A future paused, interrupted or a republic lost! We are divided! We can no longer even agree to disagree. We are heading towards the unknown, fueled with a great and seemingly, bottomless reservoir of explosive anger and fear is a lit match. The time for uniting is, no more. We will either push off and on towards a revolution or a movement. Nothing stays the same; all will be changed. Whether we end up with more government or less of a government or even a functioning one, is only part of what lies ahead to be seen, if the smoke ever clears or any is left alive or still have eyes to see? The Supreme Court now has only the possibility of a 4-to-4 split. A new judge must be appointed to maintain the balance or totally transform it, depending on the results of the presidential election. There may soon be more judges, for the new president to appoint? The court will side towards either more or less government. The pendulum has already swung far left. Will it cease from swinging, swing further left and stop or swing far, far right? Either way, a pendulum swinging must return to its center; its balance. And for the moment of this writing, our only political hope for balance is, the Constitution of the United States of America. Whether it is allowed to remain as is; as was written; as was intended, a document written with a pen of iron, upon a rock, a bedrock, for all generations or as others believe, a ‘living thing’ changed at will, it is, still here! It is our contract with the government to limit the government or our right to abolish and form something new. If we head over the cliff in this revolution, it does not ever need to be replaced, as it remains now changed and thus, permanently altered? But if we head over the cliff of this movement, will we ever regain what it was? Will it then be replaced with or without our will, with something new? But it is, for now, still here! WE are divided. WE will either push US off this cliff to one possible outcome or the other. WE all will leap or we will be pushed. Dear reader, I dare you to continue reading below.

As Eye See it, what is in your eye? What do you behold? What WE all see is anger and fear of both parties, the media, business and greed! And I submit to you Dear reader that WE have allowed this. We have brought US to this day and time. I, in my own weakness and failure to stand for you and for what is right have diminished you! I, in my own ignorance have misled you, ill-fed you with unintended consequences and I, have in anger and fear aided and abetted the enemy as if, I had willingly conspired. No Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Sanders, Trump, or any other can unite us, there are no more those that can unite, nor are WE even looking for them. WE are, divided. ONLY WE the People can save us by what has been given to US and the truths and the principles upon which others lived; pledged their lives; their fortunes; their sacred honor; their“last ounce of devotion…,” — [Abraham Lincoln] and  died to defend! Now is not a time to unite, but to take a stand! And if over this cliff i or WE must, it is far, far better to stand upon our feet and leap, than to kneel and be pushed by the anger and fear of slavery, unless we kneel before the throne of mercy and find grace! What WE now hold in our hands will be left or lost to the next generations. But I give to you another option; another hope? I dare you to read my book, ‘RESET “An Un-alien’s Guide to Resetting Our Republic.”ResetBut_sm

Reset

And if time remains or God allows it to be so, another gift, another hope, the work I am trying to complete to give to you for FREE; on or before Tuesday, November 8th, 2016— ‘Apple of Gold in a Picture of Silver.’Apple of Gold in a Picture of Silver

Apple of Gold

But more than this, there remains hope. There is always hope! If not, for all of us, some of us. I would like it to be, for all of US! For myself, I will cling to my God and Father, His Word, my family and friends; guns if necessary, The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States of America, and the precious hope of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness! God Bless You and May God continue to Bless, the United States of America! All that I could have done and should have done and may want to do, may be too late, for tomorrow, I may be, out of time! Today, this moment is, all that any of US have! I cannot and will not tell you who to vote for, I just implore you to— VOTE! Dear reader, I leave you now with a few lines from the poem ‘Ulysses,’ by Alfred lord Tennyson, written in 1833 and published in, 1842. I dare you to read below, then turn the page to the future!

“We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.”

just 1 of WE,

Dahni

MySignature_clr

Why I’m Not Liberal; Not a Liberal, Not Conservative or a Conservative, just an Independent 4

July 27, 2015

short url to this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-qe

by Dahni
© 2015, all rights reserved

PART 4 of 4 FINAL

AppleEye3

I would like to be liberal; a liberal, but I CANNOT be now or in the future! I may have thought I was liberal; a liberal in the past, but I CANNOT be now or in the future!

A belief which is followed by actions where the word “liberal” has been hijacked and re-defined that in practice means something different or that it is something which it is NOT is, nothing less than, THEFT! How can anyone be set at liberty when to do so, others are enslaved? How can one’s “free” choice be really “free,” when it holds others captive? How can anyone be made free by taking from someone else? How can one be paid from funds they have not earned and that were taken from others without their permission, their will; their choice? How can anything that is bankrupt (non-existent) be given to anyone by borrowing it against the future of those that will be bound to even more lack-ah-nuttin’? How can your choice make me “free,” when it takes from others, burdens them, enslaves their futures and robs me from ever being free, to help make free, anyone else?

Today’s “liberal” is NOT free and cannot therefore, make “free,” anyone else! It is nothing more than like a carrot on a stick. The poor, brute, bridled beast keeps reaching for the promise of “freedom,” but will never taste that “freedom” nor eat of “liberty!”

Both the binder and the bound, dependent upon each other are, all in bondage!

Both the binders and the bound, dependent upon each other are, all in bondage!

So, I’m NOT liberal or a liberal! I must then be a conservative? I would like to say YES, this is true, IF by the meaning of “conserve” it would mean, “for ALL to enjoy the fruits of Liberty, for as long as possible! But, the words “conserve” and “conservative” have also, been hijacked by another political party, the Republican Party.

Poll after poll suggest that WE the People do not trust Congress and it is made up of many parties, but mostly and always and usually controlled by just 2, the Democrat and Republican parties. Only the media has just a slight edge above Congress, in these LESS THAN, UNFAVORABLE POLLS!

The facts are, WE are divided and perhaps more so now, than at any time in the history of the artist formerly known as, “The United States of America.” It seems that WE use our lives, liberties and happiness to pursue HOW to insult our political opponents like good ol’ Mer-cuns’ (Americans).

“A Pew Research Center report released this year concluded that “Republicans and Democrats are more divided along ideological lines—and partisan antipathy is deeper and more extensive—than at any point in the last two decades.” As anyone who has ever looked through comments on a political blog can attest, this polarization often translates into venomous language, with Republicans and Democrats slinging insults at each other over the partisan divide.”

“American English has a specialized vocabulary of insults based on party affiliation. For instance, a Democrat deriding a Republican might use the term wingnut, combining the notion of right-wing extremism and irrational nuttiness, or Rethuglican (Rethug for short), a blend of Republican and thug. The lexicon of Republican insults for Democrats includes moonbat, which the late William Safire traced back to libertarian blogger Perry de Havilland in the fuller form “barking moonbat”, suggesting  ideology-crazed partisans howling at the moon. Even more common than moonbat in Oxford’s tracking corpus is the schoolyard-esque slur libtard (from liberal and –tard in retard, an offensive term for a person with intellectual disabilities). Liberal neologists have gotten in on the –tard act too, but Teatard (with reference to the conservative Tea Party movement), conservatard, and Republitard have thus far failed to achieve widespread currency.” 

excerpts from: How to insult your political opponents like an American

http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2014/11/political-insults/

Liberal8

How can anyone be “free” by insulting or putting down others? It CAN’T BE DONE! It is neither logical nor possible. Those negative terms from the chart above are NOT coming from as you would expect, little children. And they are not just coming from Mr., Mrs. & Ms. John or Patty Q. Common Public. Oh no, these words often originate with and/or are coming from our supposed servant/leaders. These insults are coming from, men and women highly educated and even financially successful (at least after they get their claws on other people’s money and resources) that are acting like, little children! Remember the Latin word, educatus? It means to lead out. To educate (“to lead out”) aligns, meshes or lines up perfectly with the words, “free” and “freedom” and page, pages (Latin liber a collection of books, hence Library) book, books and what liberal arts were supposed to be for, to make people “free!”

It is this two-party system (corrupt system), the Democrat and the Republican parties that have each and both and together, hijacked our liberty! As an expression goes…

Liberal9

…”there’s not a dime’s difference between them!”

Why a “dime?” Well, it is pretty thin and in fact, it’s not worth much; can’t buy much and is, the thinnest of all our current metal currency that presently, still, reads,

“In Congress the Media (oops sorry about that) “God” (soon to be crossed out too?) “We trust.”

This two-party is more like some big inverted V (^). Down shere,’ they look like Dumbo the Elephant and Buffo the Jackass. They’re miles apart in difference or so it seems. But way up yonder,’ there’s “not a dime’s difference between them.” Up there, they’re BFF’s and thick as thieves. Down here, we would just like them to get along and get things done. They will, if they have to, I guess? They call it, “The Compromise.”

Liberal10

“OK, today, you get the right pocket and I’ll take the left!”

Perhaps like you, I’m just an independent? No, I’m not a member of the Independent Party, just an independent. For myself anyway, I am an independent because, that’s what it says in the Declaration of Independence, the ‘apple of gold!’ This is what the Constitution, the ‘picture or frame of silver’ says. The picture or frame is, made for the apple and not the apple for the picture! And it is ALL, to protect and preserve. every single one of, WE the People! Oh, but what am I saying? The Declaration of Independence? That’s old school; just a dead and dusty parchment? And the Constitution, well, that’s just a flawed document anyway? But I’m just naive  enough, stupid enough and foolish enough to think, I’m one of, WE the People; I’m an independent. And besides all of that, I have never been invited to anyone’s party! 🙂

WE NEED TO RESET_but!

1 of WE the People,

MySignature_clr

Why I’m Not Liberal; Not a Liberal, Not Conservative or a Conservative, just an Independent 3

July 24, 2015

short url to this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-q7

by Dahni
© 2015, all rights reserved

 

 

PART 3 of 4

Liberal2We heard about the unfair advantages of the 1% at the expense of or on the backs of, the 99% or the rest of us. We are told it’s the mega-n-aires’ (mega million-aires’ and mega billion-aires’) and BIG OIL, and BIG BUSINESS that have taken advantage of the ‘system’. But who wrote, writes, controls and benefits the most, from the ‘system? Who writes all the laws, enforces all the laws and interprets all the laws? The legislative, executive and judicial branches of government – POLITICIANS, that’s who! Yes, even the judicial branch has become political! Who gets to decide what their rules and regulations are? Congress. Who gets to decide when and how much to raise their own salaries and benefits; the salaries and benefits of the other branches and even if or if not that the minimum wage gets raised, for the rest of us? Congress. They ARE, the way less than the 1%, for the rest of us, the 99%!!!

forcing the breaking of the chains that bind…

under the all-inclusive warm blanket of tolerance…

Why do they do this? Why do they seem to champion everyone and every thing? Could it possibly be, to win votes and maintain their control? Why do we continue to let them do this? Could it possibly be, for the promises they made? How well can one keep a promise, when there really is NOT enough to fulfill them? And the promises are made with full knowledge that it can NOT be fully, fulfilled! Still, I guess people want to believe in magic, fairy dust, hitting the lottery and all manner of fantasies? And in practice, they pit all of us together against each other because, we must be tolerant and accommodating of all people? So what if some lose and others win? Actually, there are no winners in this model, EVERYONE LOSES something, a little or a lot!

…Liberty is smothered

…Liberty is smothered

Now along with taking from the haves and giving to the have-nots, this liberal thinking NEVER takes into consideration, what happens to those that much is taken from. It’s one thing to want to help people and to save this or that, but what are the ramifications of these choices? How do good intentions, negatively impact others? You might want to save the great white sharks, but how does this impact my right to swim in the ocean?

You might want to protect chipmunks, but how does their increased population effect the integrity of my concrete sidewalk and the crawl space underneath my porch, where they tunnel constantly and live? Well sure, I have one of those ‘Have-A-Heart’ traps. What am I supposed to do with them after, I catch them on my own property? Let them go? Then why catch them in the first place? Transfer them someplace else? Sure, allow me to force my problems onto others? Oh, and if caught, I’d get fined, for moving them in my area, more than 3 miles because, their diseases (if they have any) might be different from those over three miles away. And did I mention, most likely they will come back if left, less than five miles away? And I would have to pay for and have to have a permit to transfer them. Am I then therefore, being forced to destroy them? And if I did or do, am I forced to run the risk of being reported, for animal abuse?

Just so you know, I put myself in this position, all by myself because, we just wanted to feed the birds. Birds? Oh, so many I can’t count them and cannot afford to feed them, but once a week. I made them dependent along with the chipmunks, birds of prey, foxes and coyotes that are now attracted because of, the abundance of birdseed and birds! Apparently I, I have screwed up the entire Eco system, where we live! 🙂

But YES, your desire to help others; save stuff and your freedom of will, deprives me of mine as well as all the critters I have kept from independently, fending for themselves. I have become a horrible and despicable person just because, I like watching the birds and wanted to feed them in exchange for my enjoyment of them.  🙂

Under the banner of non-offending and political correctness…

Under the banner of non-offending and political correctness…

Oh, I should not be allowed to express my opinion, UNLESS IT AGREES WITH YOURS? I shouldn’t use the word “liberal” as if, it were a four-letter expletive? I am probably offending someone? I am not not being sensitive or politically correct?

 

…Freedom of Speech is gagged

…Freedom of Speech is gagged

Perhaps the worst thing of all, is that if they do not help or “free” or “liberate” others, the deprived and down-trodden would not be able to do this for themselves? Somewhere in the twisted mind of the liberals, they must actually believe they are better than and smarter than, those they want to help? They surely must believe that without them, others cannot raise themselves up or “free” themselves? Surely they must feel quilty that they have so much, when others have so little? Giving out of guilt especially with someone else’s money or stuff, does not sound too “freeing,” to me!

This whole B.S. robs people of their initiative, their spirit, their confidence and from ever realizing their full potential! Generation after generation are born into and enslaved to, social programs, public assistance and welfare! Month after month, people are paid not to work and are paid more than they could make on their own, without the necessary specialized skills, training and education. There is no incentive to rise up and out of bondage. Instead of a hand up, people are given an almost endless supply of hand outs. Instead of teaching people how to fish that they would never starve a lifetime, the hungry are fed a fish, for the day and day after day. That is until, the fish run out or there is no more means (money and etc.) to acquire the fish or the fish become extinct. You know, this whole things sounds like a virus. It takes and destroys everything in its path and eventually dies off itself, due to, not having anything left to destroy.

 

continue to Part 4

Why I’m Not Liberal; Not a Liberal, Not Conservative or a Conservative, just an Independent 2

July 23, 2015

short url to this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-q5

by Dahni
© 2015, all rights reserved

Liberal3

PART 2 of 4

The word “liberal” has been associated in politics with a particular political party, the Democrat Party. It has been tied to socialism. But those in the party, do not like to be referred to as socialists and prefer to use the word “progressive” or our word, “liberal.”

But as a political ideology, being a “liberal” would include social and economic theories and practices. On the surface, a “liberal” champions all those that may seem to have no voice, minorities, the poor, down-trodden, the all-forms-of-challenges, the disenfranchised and etc. This certainly sounds like me! I mean, I’m for helping people who, for what ever reasons, cannot help themselves. Sure, I’m for everyone having the same opportunities in order that every one of us, WE the People, can enjoy our inalienable rights. Such rights as: Life, ‘Liberty’ and the right to, Pursue whatever makes us individually Happy, without burdening anyone else or depriving them of their same inalienable rights! But in practice, “liberalism” and “liberals” fail! It is like the true words of “liberalism” and “liberals” have been hijacked! The words have been re-defined and made into something in practice, something that they are, absolutely NOT!

The People of the United States have long been one of the most charitable people in the world! I believe current data would show that this is still true today. People do want to help others! Parents want to help their children and they want them to have more, be more and do more with their lives than what was available to them! On the surface, what’s wrong with any of this? Nothing, absolutely nothing! But we as a people have, a tendency to give out of our need. This can be argued as NOT being such a good thing. Consider instructions given to the passengers on a plane by the attendants. Do they not instruct, in case of an emergency, to first take care of yourself with say, the oxygen mask and then to help your children? Yes, of course, every airline tell us this! Common sense explains why. If we cannot breathe, we can’t really help our children can we? NO, we cannot! As to giving and receiving, isn’t it or wouldn’t it be better, if we all had more than we needed and that we give from our abundance and not out of our need? Sure, you know this is true. But still, many of us, maybe most of us are, often willing to give out of our need. And here is where the current words of “liberalism” and “liberal” break down and fail as, they are defined and practiced today. The key word is, “willing.”

forcing the breaking of the chains that bind…

forcing chains to be shattered just to make more…

 

 

Liberal3

…bind all to bondage

If you decide and are willing to give to someone or to something out of your need, it is your choice. You are “free” to do so. But “liberalism” and “liberals” remove this choice; this freedom of will. A certain percentage of the population decide, for the good of others, to take from them that have and give it to them that have not. In a court of law, this is a crime and it’s called stealing or theft. The fictional and romantic deeds of Robin Hood and his Merry Men/Maidens might sound good on paper, or view well at the movies, but they were still thieves, robbing from the rich and giving to the poor. Now one could argue that the king stole all the money from the poor in the first place, but how does the same crime, justify the ends?  Oh sure, morally, to take back what belongs to you may be argued as NOT stealing or theft, but legally, and yes, we are still technically a republic and based on laws, it would be breaking the law. Stealing is, still stealing! Stealing is stealing and theft is theft!

Modern-day liberalism borders on “taxation without representation.” Sure, we supposedly or technically have representatives or representation in Congress, but who gets to decide who gets what, who gets taxed, how much you are taxed, where your money goes and who benefits from it? Certainly NOT the individual! But 435 representatives, 100 senators, 9 supreme court justices, 1 president and perhaps, a few thousand bureaucrats make most of the decisions, for over 300 million of the rest of us! Not only that, there is really NOT enough to go around, to meet every need. We know this is true because, we are in debt to the tune of trillions of dollars and we are borrowing money, not to pay off any of this debt, but mostly just to pay the interest, on servicing the debt. And speaking of debt, why do WE often hear about “raising the debt ceiling?” Would not a better and more accurate analogy be, digging a deeper hole?

Modern-day “liberals” and “liberalism” might have good intentions, but it removes from every individual, the “free” choice. It forces us to pay beyond our need, forces us deeper into debt, forces these debts upon our children, their children and on and on, way into the future. IT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED! If it cannot be sustained, there goes the future! If I am broke, you cannot get anymore from me and that’s just a fact. Forcing you to fill my lack will eventually make you go broke and that’s a fact. This is what is called, ‘redistribution of wealth.’ Nothing is ever made nor is wealth ever created, it’s just redistributed, somewhere else to someone else. Now why would any intelligent person (and most of our politicians are, if not intelligent, they are, highly educated) want to continue such an idiotic ideology and practice?

continue to Part 3

Why I’m Not Liberal; Not a Liberal, Not Conservative or a Conservative, just an Independent

July 22, 2015

short url to this post: http://wp.me/pGfx1-py

by Dahni
© 2015, all rights reserved

 

To begin, though this post may appear to be lengthy, it has taken me years to be able to understand my own personal feelings about this subject and to articulate it or put it into words. Perhaps for some, I am merely “preaching to the choir,” as it is already something you agree with? To others, no matter how logical it may be, if I try to convince you beyond your will, won’t you remain of the same opinion still? But to those that are open-minded, unsure or are, “on the fence,” perhaps it will be of some benefit to you? That is my intention!

But to understand why I am not a liberal, we need to understand what a liberal is. One would think that the dictionary would be the best place to define the word, but it’s not! According to dictionary.com, there are 13+ definitions. No help! So let’s look at the origin. Again, according to dictionary.com which gets its information from the following:

 

Collins English Dictionary – Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition
© William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012

We read—

 

“1325-75; Middle English < Latin līberālis of freedom, befitting the free, equivalent to līber free + -ālis -al1”

 

So, līberālis basically meant “free” + “all” or “free all.” This was what it meant to be liberal or to be a liberal. OK, now we are getting somewhere. Hmmm, is the word ‘Liberty’ a derivative? I wonder if there is an association with the word, “library?” In fact, just a small accent mark is all that separates the root words of say, ‘liberty’  [Latin – līber] and ‘Library’ [Latin – liber] which is a collection of books. ‘Liber (without the accent mark)  from Latin is, defined as —”of a tree, the inner, bark: Because dried bark was anciently used to write on, a book, work, treatise:

 

“In ancient Roman religion and mythology, Liber (“the free one”; Latin: Līber [ˈliː.bɛr]), also known as Liber Pater (“the free Father”) was a god of viticulture and wine, fertility and freedom. He was a patron deity of Rome‘s plebeians and was part of their Aventine Triad. His festival of Liberalia (March 17) became associated with free speech and the rights attached to coming of age. His cult and functions were increasingly associated with Romanised forms of the Greek Dionysus/Bacchus, whose mythology he came to share.”

Grimal, Pierre, The Dictionary of Classical Mythology, Wiley-Blackwell, 1996,

 

Liberal arts were taught and practiced in the ancient world. Perhaps at sometime, I will write a post about ‘Liberal Arts’ as it is, really, very interesting! The ancient Greeks and Romans likened these arts (7 total) as (knowledge/wisdom/understanding) being like, ‘ways’ of water, rivers flowing that would make one “free.” Now the 20th century only ended about 15 years ago. That’s not too long ago. For most of its 100 years, there were liberal colleges, liberal arts and a degree in liberal arts, used to mean something; it mattered; it was important. Liberal arts were to “broaden” the student’s understanding and make them able (“free”) to make a greater contribution to society as a whole and make them each, more successful, for themselves, their families, friends and again, society as a whole.

The Libertarian Party and I suppose to some degree or another, the Tea Party, has its roots in the Latin root word of līber, which means, “free.” On the surface, all this “free” stuff sounds great! Who wouldn’t want to be “free” or made “free” by knowledge, wisdom and understanding? No one right? Oh sure, everyone wants to be “free.” But the problem is, the word “liberal” does not mean what we think it means, as it is used today.

Liberal6

continue to Part 2

Truth Trust & Treasure

November 2, 2010

Many purport to speak for the American People of the United States. And these comments can be clearly seen in light of the 2010 mid-term elections. There are advocates for party, positions and platforms. There are negative ads and perceived media bias nearly everywhere, all across the country. The truth is, not everyone can be right and if not right, then they are wrong. Whether by intent or by an incorrect opinion formed by insufficient facts, if something is not the truth, then it is a lie. Pilate once asked Jesus Christ,

“What is Truth.”

John 18:38

The truth is poll after poll indicates that most of us do not believe the politicians or the media. And this brings us to trust. The truth is most of us do not trust politicians or the media. The truth is most of us do not believe what we treasure is being protected or preserved.

“Well, here’s what we’re gonna do. We’re gonna see how well we do in this election and I think a lot of it is gonna depend on whether we still have some support not only from Democrats, but also Republicans, but they’re gonna be paying attention to this election. And if Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, we’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us, if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s gonna be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.”

President Obama

These comments have been taken to mean that basically anyone not in agreement with the president, his agenda and the Democrat party, are enemies. The president has since tried to explain his comments, but the truth is those were the words he used.

The Tea party has been demonized by many and referred to as twits, being un-patriotic and a host of unsavory titles as well as anyone else that is in opposition to the direction of this country. The president and the Democrat party have been demonized as well. The truth is the Democrat, Republican and other parties are frought with error and have all taken part in the present debacle of this country.

If there is a change in power for the House and Senate from these mid-term elections, there are many speculating as to why and what will occur as to either the results or the consequences of these elections.

John Boehner has a message for President Obama and the Democrats: Don’t expect the Republicans to play nice if, as expected, they take over the House following next Tuesday’s elections.

“This is not a time for compromise, and I can tell you that we will not compromise on our principles.”

Congressman John Boehner – Republican minority speaker of the House

Those comments have been taken to mean that if the Republicans take control of the House, they would have been given a mandate by the people. The truth is it is not about them which matters most to us, WE the People. If elected, their party is just as much responsible for our present crisis as any other party. The truth is, if elected, they are on probation with the American people.

Sarah Palin has indicated that if the American people were to even vote in candidates that are on the extreme right, this would result in balancing out the extremes of both extreme left and extreme right. The truth is this may work with the pendulum of a clock, but not with politics.

Are the mid-term elections about changing the balance of power? Are they about changing party? The truth is, even if the House and the Senate changes to having a majority led by the Republican party, it is doubtful if not impossible, for them to have a ‘super’ majority. This super majority must occur for them to make any changes whatsoever, without the help of others. So then are these mid-term elections about compromise, about getting along and working together for the good of the country? The truth is that if the American people vote in some and vote out others, what is clearly on our minds is that what has been happening these past several years, is not working or working fast enough. So what is it that we want, if we vote today and these votes change the political landscape? The truth is most of us are not voting for anyone or against anyone, but as for as it were, a restraining order. Changing the political landscape in this way in essence is saying, stop!

The truth is there are more registered Democrats then there are Republicans. The truth is neither party can win any election without the Independent voters. The truth is that any changes resulting from these mid-term elections will be made by Democrats, Republicans and Independents. The truth is, this is who WE the people are!

But what is the truth? What is trust? What is treasure?

These three are fundamentally tied and inextricably bound to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The truth is that WE the people are endowed by certain –

“unalienable rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Excerpt from the Declaration of Independence 1776

The truth is that WE the people put our truth, trust and treasure in preserving, protecting and restoring life.

The truth is that WE the people put our trust in preserving, protecting and restoring our liberty.

The truth is that WE the people treasure the pursuit of happiness.

The truth is that these mid-term elections mean (if there are changes made in government), WE the people want to cease what is believed to be a loss of truth – of life, of trust – our liberty, and of our treasure – the pursuit of happiness. The truth is, this is or these are the only reasons; the only purposes for which WE the people should vote for today!

E plurbis unum

(out of many one)

see also: http://wp.me/p17B2q-2A

 

Vote Now animated gif © 2010 by Dahni & I-Magine all rights reserved

1 of WE,

Dahni

Civil War Ignorance – Southern Perspective

April 7, 2010

by Dahni

© Copyright 4/7/10

all rights reserved

HOW can WE the People regain control of OUR right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?” WE have delved into what won’t work in order to find what will work.

The List (simplified)

8.   Establish a new service to restore OUR rights to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Today: Civil War Ignorance – Southern Perspective

Last time WE looked at Civil War Ignorance from the Northern Perspective and its part in shaping the corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system” within and around OUR republic. In the midst of so learned and freedom seeking society in the 1800’s in what is now the U.S.A., ignorance still prevailed in matters of slavery. Generation after generation passed this ignorance forward often without detection, but certainly without correction. Over time, this ignorance – justified and rationalized, became a ‘mindset.’ WE need to understand how this “mindset,” this ignorance; this corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system” caused the Civil War. Today WE will look at the Southern Perspective. WE will look at 1 man – Alexander H. Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States, his ‘Cornerstone Speech’ and the Confederate Constitution for the justification or rationalization of this ignorance from the Southern Perspective.

Before WE begin, it is important to understand why Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederate States was not chosen in comparing his inaugural address to that of Abraham Lincoln, which WE have already detailed, from the Northern Perspective. However, some of Jefferson Davis’ speech will be presented to follow.

Having read Jefferson Davis’ inaugural speech in its entirety and several times, it is interesting to note that he does not even one single time, mention or imply the word “slavery” or any of it’s forms. One would think that if slavery were the cause or the issue of the American Civil War, surely the president of the Confederate States would have mentioned it at least once in his inaugural address? He did not!

From the northern perspective, the issue rested solely on the belief that no single or several states could secede from the Union as it was ‘perpetual’ and only all the states could disband it. Therefore, what the southern states did, were considering, doing or that other states would later do, was illegal, according to the Union perspective. The resolve of the Union was to suppress or put down what it considered to be a rebellion or an insurrection. Lincoln made slavery the single issue which caused the separation and could not, would not address the possibility of any other cause.

Jefferson Davis in his inaugural address as president of the Confederate States had a completely different perspective.

“Our present condition, achieved in a manner unprecedented in the history of nations, illustrates the American idea that governments rest upon the consent of the governed, and that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish governments whenever they become destructive of the ends for which they were established.”

Jefferson Davis’s Inaugural Address
Montgomery, Alabama, February 18, 1861
Excerpt from the 2nd paragraph

Davis drew his perspective above from the Declaration of Independence. He continues with the view that the former Union, which the Confederate States had withdrawn from, was a “compact,” a contract which could be rescinded by any of the parties in concern.

The declared purpose of the compact of Union from which we have withdrawn was “to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity;” and when, in the judgment of the sovereign States now composing this Confederacy, it had been perverted from the purposes for which it was ordained, and had ceased to answer the ends for which it was established, a peaceful appeal to the ballot-box declared that so far as they were concerned, the government created by that compact should cease to exist. In this they merely asserted a right which the Declaration of Independence of 1776 had defined to be inalienable…”

Jefferson Davis’s Inaugural Address
Montgomery, Alabama, February18, 1861,
Excerpt from the 3rd paragraph

It is clear from Davis’ words above that the separation centered upon states rights and ultimately, the right of the people. His view was that their former association with the Union was considered a “compact” and that this agreement or contract had become perverted which necessitated their withdrawal from it. Much of the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of his address alludes to the Declaration of Independence and implies their reasoning for the separation. It is interesting that Davis uses the word “inalienable,” above. This supposedly is taken from the Declaration of Independence. However, the word “inalienable” was not used in this document, it was the word “unalienable,” in at least as it has come to US.  Several copies of Jefferson Davis’ inaugural address were compared and each uses the same word “inalienable.”

This word was either intentional or an oversight. If an oversight, it was due to Davis or on the part of those which copied his original text with the original word having been “unalienable, ” which is the word actually used in the Declaration of independence. Words have meaning. Do the words “inalienable” and “unalienable mean the same thing?

According to most dictionaries in common use today, they apparently are defined the same and used interchangeably. Later, WE will look at these two words and find that there is a distinction between them. Abraham Lincoln in his inaugural addresses in March of this same year basically considered this new Constitution, was an illegal act. Therefore, all those that voted for it and all those which had or would vote to secede were considered to have been involved in illegal acts. Again, from Davis’ address we read:

“…rights of States subsequently admitted into the Union of 1789, undeniably recognize in the people the power to resume the authority delegated for the purposes of government. Thus the sovereign States here represented proceeded to form this Confederacy, and it is by abuse of language that their act has been denominated a revolution.”

Jefferson Davis’s Inaugural Address
Montgomery, Alabama, February 18, 1861,
Excerpt from the 3rd paragraph

“As a necessity, not a choice, we have resorted to the remedy of separation; and henceforth our energies must be directed to the conduct of our own affairs, and the perpetuity of the Confederacy…”

Jefferson Davis’s Inaugural Address
Montgomery, Alabama, February 18, 1861,
Excerpt from the 5th paragraph

Just as Lincoln would argue the idea of ‘perpetuity’ in his inaugural address less than 30 days later on March 4, 1861, Davis used the same idea here. The idea of a perpetual Confederacy is just as illogical as the Union being perpetual from which the Southern States had or would withdraw from. How can one separate from something considered perpetual (the Union) and suggest the perpetuity of a Confederacy? This is just ignorance.

Actuated solely by the desire to preserve our own rights and promote our own welfare, the separation of the Confederate States has been marked by no aggression upon others and followed by no domestic convulsion. Our industrial pursuits have received no check. The cultivation of our fields has progressed as heretofore, and even should we be involved in war there would be no considerable diminution in the production of the staples which have constituted our exports and in which the commercial world has an interest scarcely less than our own.”

Jefferson Davis’s Inaugural Address
Montgomery, Alabama, February18, 1861,
Excerpt from the 9th paragraph
According to Davis, the whole cause of separation was the preservation of rights and the promotion of their own welfare.

“When they entered into the Union of 1789, it was with the undeniable recognition of the power of the people to resume the authority delegated for the purposes of that government whenever, in their opinion, its functions were perverted and its ends defeated. By virtue of this authority, the time and occasion requiring them to exercise it having arrived, the sovereign States here represented have seceded from that Union, and it is a gross abuse of language to denominate the act rebellion or revolution.”

Jefferson Davis’s Inaugural Address
Montgomery, Alabama, February 18, 1861,
Excerpts from the 2nd paragraph
“As a necessity, not a choice we have resorted to separation, and henceforth our energies must be devoted to the conducting of our own affairs, and perpetuating the Confederacy we have formed.”

Jefferson Davis’s Inaugural Address
Montgomery, Alabama, February 18, 1861,
Excerpt from the 5th paragraph
Here again, Davis addresses the idea of perpetuity. Lincoln apparently having read this address, would argue the same ignorance in perpetuating the Union.

It is quite clear in Davis’ address that he believed along with all those which voted to secede from the former Union, had every right to do so. It is clear that their cause was assumed just, for the preservation of state rights and ultimately the individual. It is also clear that their cause for separation was the promotion of their own welfare which would suggest it was not being promoted on their behalf, by their former association with the Union.

Newspapers across the country at the time, including those principal papers in New York, were in support of the right to secede. The idea was not new to the times!

“If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation…to a continuance in union… I have no hesitation in saying, ‘let us separate.’ “

Thomas Jefferson

With relative ease some may seek to quote and invoke the name and words of someone of fame and or of historical significance when attempting to justify their position. It is quite another matter when words of others are interpreted, omitted or taken out of context to support some cause for its justification. Lincoln did not know or chose not to include the words of Thomas Jefferson when he would declare in his inaugural address that the Union being perpetual was “unbroken.” Jefferson Davis in his address with 5 of the 11 states which would make up the Confederate States having already seceded or separated suggests the concept is unchanged in “perpetuating the Confederacy.”

The idea of perpetuity is indefensible and wholly ignorant from both the northern and southern perspectives. How can perpetuity be argued when the original 13 colonies had separated from England? How could Lincoln have argued perpetuity, but that all the states could disband it? How could the south argue that they had the right to secede from the Union in order to form a perpetual Confederacy?

It is my firm belief that that the South and any state today, has the right to secede if they so choose. Having separated from mother country (England) or from sister states (the Union), each have the right to form whatever government they deem appropriate to the needs of the people. While both Constitutions of the United States and the Confederate States are remarkably similar and in many ways, word-for-word declarations identical, the Southern version cannot be considered an interpretation in how the original was changed. They had every right to make whatever changes they deemed necessary. For comparison, look at the Preamble to their Constitution.

Preamble

“We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity — invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God — do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America.”

From the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, March 11, 1861

Notice some of the differences from the U.S. Constitution in bold red italics above. The C.S. Constitution adds to and makes clear the sovereignty and independent character of each state, which would indicate that they had the right to secede again if they so chose. Notice how they changed “in order to form a more perfect Union,” to “in order to form a permanent government.” If the word “permanent” does not refer to the idea of perpetuity then perhaps it refers to the provisional government from which the Constitution of the Confederate States sprang. What may have been alluded to in the U.S. Constitution, the C.S. Constitution was clear in the inclusion of God in their government. Although no preamble carries the same legal force of the Constitution’s intentions, it does show the foundation upon which it was built.

From the entire address of Jefferson Davis’ inaugural speech and at this point in the Confederate Constitution, there is no mention or implication of slavery as to the cause, a cause or even an issue existing which precipitated the South to separate from the North. WE will need to look deeper into the Confederate Constitution and the ‘Cornerstone Speech’ by Alexander Hamilton Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America.

Alexander Hamilton Stephens was an American politician from Georgia. He was Vice President of the Confederate States of America during the American Civil War. He also served as a U.S. Representative from Georgia before the Civil War and after the Reconstruction period, after the Civil War. He later became Governor of Georgia from 1882 until his death in 1883.

The great principle of religious liberty, which was the honor and pride of the old constitution, is still maintained and secured. All the essentials of the old constitution, which have endeared it to the hearts of the American people, have been preserved and perpetuated…”

Excerpt from the 4th paragraph: Cornerstone Speech
Alexander H. Stephens, March 21, 1861
Savannah, Georgia

Stephens alludes to the essence of the former constitution was preserved in the new one and also uses the word “perpetuated.” WE have previously and more than sufficiently have dealt with the ignorant notion of perpetuity and need not address this any further.

Allow me briefly to allude to some of these improvements. The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged. This old thorn of the tariff, which was the cause of so much irritation in the old body politic, is removed forever from the new.”

Alexander H. Stephens
Cornerstone Speech, 5th paragraph March 21, 1861

Stephens here by the words “revenue power” is referring to the power of Congress to tax and the broadly used Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The principal way in which revenue was raised during these times was the ‘tariff,’ which is basically a tax. Federal law prohibited tariffs or taxes on exported goods. The North was primarily concerned with industry and the South with agriculture, particularly cotton. The South often needed to import other goods and services from either a foreign country or states from the former Union. On their imports, tariffs were applied, but not on their exports.

Raw cotton was exported to the North to be turned into finished goods. The North was not taxed or did not have the tariff applied to what was exported from the South. Once the raw goods were finished, if the South needed them, it was considered an export from the North and they were not taxed or the tariff did not apply to them. In many cases, the South was taxed twice. Once for whatever goods they needed to produce the cotton and the second time in importing ‘finished’ goods made with the cotton they had produced.

This inequality fell on deaf ears in Congress though the South technically had representation. In essence, the Southern perspective was similar to that of the original 13 colonies when they cried, “taxation without representation.” So here, Stephen lays out both the causes which had resulted in their separation from the Union and how the Constitution of the Confederate States had resolved the issues for their future.

Again, the subject of internal improvements, under the power of Congress to regulate commerce, is put at rest under our system.

Notwithstanding this opposition, millions of money, from the common treasury had been drawn for such purposes. Our opposition sprang from no hostility to commerce, or to all necessary aids for facilitating it. With us it was simply a question upon whom the burden should fall.

“…we were compelled to pay into the common treasury several millions of dollars for the privilege of importing the iron, after the price was paid for it abroad.”

The true principle is to subject the commerce of every locality, to whatever burdens may be necessary to facilitate it.”

This is again the broad principle of perfect equality and justice, and it is especially set forth and established in our new constitution.”

Alexander H. Stephens
Cornerstone Speech, Excepts from the 6th paragraph

The South, in order to compensate for what they saw as an unequal tax burden, would by necessity, force them to reduce their costs. With the invention of Eli Whitney’s cotton gin, their prospects for success and their production increased greatly, but the cotton would still have to be brought in from the fields to be ginned. They needed manual labor and cheap labor to accomplish this to remain competitive and profitable.

The labor of slaves long in the history of the United States and even before the South separated from the Union, had been used. Slave labor and the cotton gin enabled the South to produce even more raw cotton and as their production went up, so did their tariffs or taxes. To the South, this process was unequal and no longer acceptable.

Another change in the constitution relates to the length of the tenure of the presidential office. In the new constitution it is six years instead of four, and the President rendered ineligible for a reelection.”

Alexander H. Stephens
Cornerstone Speech, 9th paragraph
“This is certainly a decidedly conservative change. It will remove from the incumbent all temptation to use his office or exert the powers confided to him for any objects of personal ambition. The only incentive to that higher ambition which should move and actuate one holding such high trusts in his hands, will be the good of the people, the advancement, prosperity, happiness, safety, honor, and true glory of the confederacy.”

Alexander H. Stephens
Cornerstone Speech, 10th paragraph

Note: This change might appear to and clearly intends to limit the term of office of the president. It would however, eliminate wasted time and resources of the People, particularly the last year of a four-year term in trying to get reelected for another term. In contrast, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was in his third term as president of the United States. This precipitated the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1951, which would only allow anyone to serve in this capacity, only two four-year terms, maximum. But no matter the length of term, it does not prevent corruption of the one holding office or the possible consequences of that term of office held. Just remember the words from Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address.

“…no Administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously injure the Government in the short space of four years.”

Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861, Excerpt from the 35th paragraph

Under the title of ‘Divide and Conquer’ WE will look to see what was done, “in the short space of four years.”

Having established the justification for the South to have seceded from the Union, under such issues as equality, state rights, fair and just taxation, Stephens then moved to the subject of slavery.

“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.”

Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.””

Alexander H. Stephens
Cornerstone Speech, Excerpts from the11th paragraph
Note the words “peculiar institution,” from above. It is not clear to whom Stephens was speaking as slavery was familiar to most people in the country, even while Thomas Jefferson penned the famous words, “all men are created equal,” from the Declaration of Independence. Slavery by circumstance and population had become familiar in the South, years before Stephens made his ‘Cornerstone Speech,’ in 1861.

Stephens considered slavery as the “proper status” of the slave. According to Stephens, slavery was “the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution,” which caused their separation from the Union. If this were so, then why did not Jefferson Davis, the new president of the Confederacy, in his inaugural address, mention or imply slavery even once? And in the Constitution of the Confederate States, slaves were not mentioned until Section Nine. Stephens made slavery an issue and now begins to justify this position. He even quotes Jefferson in saying this was the “rock upon which the old Union would split.”

Note: This quote believed to be made by Thomas Jefferson, has not been verified as to him being the author. Every Internet reference to this quote that was found (at least 100), points to the ‘Cornerstone Speech,’ by Stephens.

Going back to November of 1860, after Lincoln had been elected President, Governor Joe Brown of Georgia called the legislature into session to consider the question of calling a secession convention. The legislature heard from the leading Georgians of the day on the question. The following excerpt from his speech to the legislature, future Secretary of State for the Confederate States, Robert Toombs, delivered on Nov. 13, 1860, the following:

“…In 1790 we had less than eight hundred thousand slaves. Under our mild and humane administration of the system they have increased above four millions. The country has expanded to meet this growing want, and Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri, have received this increasing tide of African labor; before the end of this century, at precisely the same rate of increase, the Africans among us in a subordinate condition will amount to eleven millions of persons. What shall be done with them? We must expand or perish. We are constrained by an inexorable necessity to accept expansion or extermination. Those who tell you that the territorial question is an abstraction, that you can never colonize another territory without the African slavetrade, are both deaf and blind to the history of the last sixty years. All just reasoning, all past history, condemn the fallacy. The North understand it better – they have told us for twenty years that their object was to pen up slavery within its present limits – surround it with a border of free States, and like the scorpion surrounded with fire, they will make it sting itself to death.”

Excerpt from: Robert Toombs’s Speech to the Georgia Legislature, Nov. 13, 1860

Though slavery is mentioned above, it is in reference to future expansion of not the already determined borders of the then existing states, but the expansion of the entire country (The United States of America) in the forming of new states from the existing territories at the time.

Returning to the ‘Cornerstone Speech’ by Stephens, WE will see the clear and bold position of slavery in contrast to Lincoln’s non-stance on position of slavery and his promise to not interfere with slavery in his first inaugural address. Stephens however, makes his position clear.

“Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.”

Alexander H. Stephens
Cornerstone Speech, Excerpt from the12th paragraph

No one could dare argue that slavery was unique to the South. It had long been in existence in both the North and the South. Slavery cannot be argued solely from the standpoint of equality as both the North and the South viewed the slave as not being equal. For those which owned slaves and those which even near slaves, would break upon three viewpoints.

  1. A slave was not human, but more like an animal and force and even cruelty would be necessary to control the slave.
  2. A slave was not human, but more like an animal and humane discipline would be necessary to control and guide the slave to become a content with his or her place in life.
  3. A slave was a human being, just inferior to others; not able to have their own rights, but protected by compassionate treatment and perhaps then guided to some future freedom upon heaven’s shore in the hereafter.

But in all of these three, a slave was still considered to be property, by both the North and the South. The Southern viewpoint just made this position clear. As property, the Southern viewpoint was not about slavery as an institution, but among other things, it was about property rights. WE cannot even argue that this position was racist as the word was not used until 1865, after the American Civil War had ended. It is just ignorance, for it is what they knew and believed to be true. For any that knew it to be wrong for conscience sake, the conscience had long been seared as if by some hot iron, the nerves deadened, the ‘mindset’ of this ignorance no longer allowed them to feel right from wrong.

Stephens said that, “slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.” WE cannot argue that the word “his” was a wholly Southern ‘sexist’ term as both the North and the South considered all females inferior to the male. This was just ignorance, for it is what they knew and believed to be true.

Not knowing or understanding ‘Mendel’s Law’ in the variations and the potential for the evolution of a species, based on internal and external circumstances, false conclusions end from having had false premises. It is just ignorance.

Not knowing or understanding genetics and functioning of the human brain, false conclusions end from having had false premises.

I am a man, but I am not nor ever will be as intelligent as Albert Einstein or as many great and notable women of many races. I can run, but have never been able nor will I ever be able to run a four minute mile. Because of my genetics, environmental conditions, my upbringing, educational background and other factors, I accept that I am inferior to others in many regards and in comparison to many races. But none of these things negate the truth that, “All men…” (all inclusive noun – women, races and by age of adulthood) “…are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.”

Alexander H. Stephens
Cornerstone Speech, 12th paragraph

Stephens accurately describes a logical argument in that false premises lead to false conclusions. However, he does not take into account that false premises and therefore false conclusions can not also, be due to ignorance as opposed to “fanaticism” and “insanity” as he purports. And he contradicts himself in concluding this paragraph with the words in reference to the slave as, “things equal which the Creator had made unequal.”

Having said those words, he must substantiate or justify those words. Truth needs no defense, only error does! Stephens will attempt to justify this ignorance.

“As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made “one star to differ from another star in glory.” The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders “is become the chief of the corner” the real “corner-stone” in our new edifice. I have been asked, what of the future? It has been apprehended by some that we would have arrayed against us the civilized world. I care not who or how many they may be against us, when we stand upon the eternal principles of truth, if we are true to ourselves and the principles for which we contend, we are obliged to, and must triumph.”

Alexander H. Stephens
Cornerstone Speech, 14th paragraph

It is no secret that for many years prior to the American Civil War, the negro race, the brown race, the black race, the African American race, the darker skinned race or what ever words you want to use, were considered to be cursed by God, which resulted in the color of their skin, inferiority and unequal status. It is interesting that it was not until around 1860, that “the curse against Canaan,” was first used to justify slavery.

Thousands of people who begin to understand these truths are not yet completely out of the shell; they do not see them in their length and breadth. We hear much of the civilization and Christianization of the barbarous tribes of Africa. In my judgment, those ends will never be attained, but by first teaching them the lesson taught to Adam, that “in the sweat of his brow he should eat his bread,” and teaching them to work, and feed, and clothe themselves.”

Alexander H. Stephens
Cornerstone Speech, 15th paragraph

What are these so-called “truths,” that Stephens alluded to and implied that people had or would need to evolve in their acceptance and understanding of them? What was, “the curse against Canaan?”

In forming the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, it was based upon the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the United States Constitution of 1789. In the Preamble of their new constitution, they added the words, “invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God…” Their constitution and the South as whole were based on Judeo-Christian beliefs in a Supreme Being, God the Father and God the Creator.

Stephens’ argument that a slave is a slave either by “nature” or as a direct result from “the curse against Canaan,” is based on the idea of natural superiority or religious belief. He does not explain either. He only presents them as established “truths.”

According to the Bible, all people descended from Adam and Eve. Wickedness and corruption dominated the entire world as it was populated at the time. A flood was prophesized to Noah and he was given instructions to build an ark. After the flood, Noah, his wife and the three sons of Noah and their wives would repopulate the earth. Noah had three sons, Japheth the elder (Genesis 10:21), Shem the middle son (Genesis 10:21) and Ham the youngest son (Genesis 9:24), from which all the nations of the earth, after the flood, would descend.

All the gentile nations would come out of Japheth such as, Europe including England where many of the fore-parents of the 13 original colonies came from.

Shem, the eldest son of Noah, is the father from which the Jews (Israelites), as well as the Semitic (“Shemitic”) nations in general have descended.

From Ham, the youngest son, would come Cush or Ethiopia (Genesis 10:6), after which comes Mitsrayim, or Egypt, then PuT or Libyia, and Canaan last.

Sometime after the flood, Noah planted and cared for vineyards. One time he was drunk from too much vine. Ham the younger son according to Genesis 9:22 “saw the nakedness,” of his father Noah and told his two brothers. When Noah awoke from his drunken state and understood what his younger son Ham had done, he cursed just one of Ham’s sons, Canaan. According to the belief formed in about 1860, this curse instantly turned the skin of Canaan black. This belief is purely ignorant and cannot be substantiated from biblical text, history or science.

According to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, it suggests the meaning of the names of Noah’s three sons as follows:

  • Japheth – “fair”
  • Shem –  “dusky”
  • Ham – “black” supported by the evidence of Hebrew and Arabic, in which the word chamam means “to be hot” and “to be black,” the latter signification being derived from the former.

If this is true, from a scientific point a view, Noah’s three sons by dominant and recessive genes were lighter, medium and darker skinned, that all. However, the nation of Egypt descending from Ham from the son of Canaan (see Psalms 105:23), were not as dark skinned as Cush, also a son of Ham.

As to a “perpetual” curse to the black race, this is ignorant as well and there is nothing to support it. In contrast, a curse was considered ended by the third of fourth generation.

You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.”

Exodus 20:5

In context, theses curses were a consequence of a ‘mindset’ which caused certain actions and the cause(s) was because they hated God, which means the walked a different path, contrary to the will and protection of God.

It is true however, that because of what Ham had done, his one son Canaan (not all his sons) would be cursed to the 3rd or fourth generation into servitude. Remember also, that Israel was enslaved in Egypt whose nation had descended also, from Ham through Canaan.

The Bible is full of mixed marriages, mixed blood, interracial relationships and even incest. There are two genealogical records in what many refer to as the four Gospels.

In the book of Matthew this genealogy traces the legal standing through Mary, the mother of Jesus, which enabled her son to be a king from the tribe of Judah, from David, the king of Israel. David was the son of Jesse. Jesse was the son of Obed. Obed was the son of Boaz and Ruth. Ruth was the daughter from one of the daughters-in-law of Lot. Lot’s daughter-in-laws husbands had died. They got their father Lot drunk and slept with him which resulted in them bearing children.

So Jesus Christ was born from a history of incest and interracial relationships.

Equality and superiority has absolutely nothing to do with pure bloodlines as this does not exist in the human species. But it does however, have absolutely everything to do with unalienable rights and that all are created equal for the same opportunity for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness!

Stephens’ arguments for slavery being property and this being the slave’s true status and race and skin color being the consequence of being a cursed is, just wholly ignorant. He would have just been better off never mentioning it, but at least he tried to justify it whereas, Lincoln was mostly uncommitted in defining slavery and promised not to interfere with it.

As to whether we shall have war with our late confederates, or whether all matters of differences between us shall be amicably settled, I can only say that the prospect for a peaceful adjustment is better, so far as I am informed, than it has been. The prospect of war is, at least, not so threatening as it has been. The idea of coercion, shadowed forth in President Lincoln’s inaugural, seems not to be followed up thus far so vigorously as was expected. Fort Sumter, it is believed, will soon be evacuated. What course will be pursued toward Fort Pickens, and the other forts on the gulf, is not so well understood. It is to be greatly desired that all of them should be surrendered. Our object is peace, not only with the North, but with the world. All matters relating to the public property, public liabilities of the Union when we were members of it, we are ready and willing to

adjust and settle upon the principles of right, equity, and good faith. War can be of no more benefit to the North than to us. Whether the intention of evacuating Fort Sumter is to be received as an evidence of a desire for a peaceful solution of our difficulties with the United States, or the result of necessity, I will not undertake to say. I would feign hope the former. Rumors are afloat, however, that it is the result of necessity. All I can say to you, therefore, on that point is, keep your armor bright and your powder dry.”

Alexander H. Stephens
Cornerstone Speech, 27th paragraph

The surest way to secure peace, is to show your ability to maintain your rights. The principles and position of the present administration of the United States the republican party present some puzzling questions. While it is a fixed principle with them never to allow the increase of a foot of slave territory, they seem to be equally determined not to part with an inch “of the accursed soil.”

Alexander H. Stephens
Cornerstone Speech, 28th paragraph

It is interesting to note that many believe that 80% of the population of the South which fought in the Civil War were neither slave owners nor fought for the institution of slavery. In the North, many refused to fight against slavery or for the black race. Clearly, there were more important issues from these facts alone!

Notwithstanding their clamor against the institution, they seemed to be equally opposed to getting more, or letting go what they have got. They were ready to fight on the accession of Texas, and are equally ready to fight now on her secession. Why is this? How can this strange paradox be accounted for? There seems to be but one rational solution and that is, notwithstanding their professions of humanity, they are disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor. Their philanthropy yields to their interest. The idea of enforcing the laws, has but one object, and that is a collection of the taxes, raised by slave labor to swell the fund necessary to meet their heavy appropriations. The spoils is what they are after though they come from the labor of the slave.”

Alexander H. Stephens
Cornerstone Speech, 29th paragraph

That as the admission of States by Congress under the constitution was an act of legislation, and in the nature of a contract or compact between the States admitted and the others admitting, why should not this contract or compact be regarded as of like character with all other civil contracts liable to be rescinded by mutual agreement of both parties? The seceding States have rescinded it on their part, they have resumed their sovereignty. Why cannot the whole question be settled, if the north desire peace, simply by the Congress, in both branches, with the concurrence of the President, giving their consent to the separation, and a recognition of our independence?”

Alexander H. Stephens
Cornerstone Speech, 30th and final paragraph

From the paragraph above, compare this to a paragraph in Lincoln’s inaugural address.

“It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.”

Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861, From the 19th paragraph

From these two paragraphs above, it clearly shows the perspectives of both the North and the South. There was only one true issue which caused the American Civil War. Lincoln believed along with many from the North that no state or less than all the states could get out of the Union. Stephens believed along with many from the South that any one or several states had every right to secede.

Everything else was secondary, but slavery was made the issue by both sides.

Not soon after Stephen’s speech, Fort Sumter was fired upon first by the South, April 12 – 14, in 1861, which officially was the start of the American Civil War.

Soon after, the Northern public wanted the military to march against the Confederate capitol of Richmond, Virginia, hopefully to put an early end to the war.

On Wilbur McLean’s farm near Manassas, Virginia, some 60,000 ‘green’ and unseasoned troops from the Union and Confederate armies met.

Former friends, neighbors and even family members drove wagons with their families and picnic lunches to watch the sight. Perhaps they were close enough to wave to those they knew on the other side of the armies which met in the middle. Perhaps some were there to be a part of history? Perhaps others had a sick sense of what they considered new, different and entertaining? Perhaps others like what WE refer to as ‘ambulance chasers’ today, felt that they needed something so traumatic, in order to feel something?

Whatever the motivations, this was the first major land Battle of the Civil War, known as the Battle of Manassas or Bull Run on July 21, 1861. It was on a farm owned by Wilmer Mclean. The entertainment was not expected to last very long. Perhaps it would be over before dinner?

It was however, like an omen, for not only was this one of the bloodiest battles of the Civil War, it would foreshadow the length of four years to come. It would in the costs of lives lost, be greater than all the wars fought in and by this country, from the Revolutionary War to the Vietnam War combined!

In coming full circle, four years later, it would end at Wilmer McLean’s new home in Appomattox, VA.  The signing of the surrender documents occurred in the parlor of the house owned by Wilmer McLean on the afternoon of April 9, 1865. On April 12, a formal ceremony marked the disbandment of the Army of Northern Virginia and the parole of its officers and men, effectively ending the Civil War.

Note: Wilmer McLean (May 3, 1814 – June 5, 1882) was a wholesale grocer from Virginia. Some say the Civil War started in his front yard (his farm in Manassas, VA) and ended in his front parlor of his home in Appomattox, VA.

But the seeds of ignorance; a ‘mindset;’ a corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system” had already begun to root and expand and is still among US to this present-day and in OUR present time.

WE here today, have the benefit of history to not make the same mistakes as OUR families, friends and neighbors past, from both the North and the South. If WE do not know this history of ignorance; this ‘mindset’ and this corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system,” then WE are sure to allow it to continue!

In closing, remember the words of Abraham Lincoln from his first inaugural address.

“…no Administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously injure the Government in the short space of four years.”

Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861, Excerpt from the 35th paragraph

This is where WE are going next time.

Next Time: Divide and Conquer

Check out the other blogs listed to the right. Come often. Bring others. Get involved. Do something. See:

How You Can Help


Ask not what your country can do for you

or what you can do for your country,

but what can WE the People do, for each other!”


1 of WE,

Dahni
An Amer-I-Can eagle

Next Post – Divide and Conquer Coming Soon
Previous Post – Civil War Ignorance – Northern Perspective
Front Page – Welcome & Introduction

Civil War Ignorance – Northern Perspective

April 2, 2010

by Dahni

© Copyright 4/2/10

all rights reserved

HOW can WE the People regain control of OUR right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?” WE have delved into what won’t work in order to find what will work.

The List (simplified)

8.   Establish a new service to restore OUR rights to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Today: Civil War Ignorance – Northern Perspective

Last time WE looked at ignorance and its part in shaping the corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system” within and around OUR republic.  In the midst of so learned and freedom seeking society in the 1600’s and 1700’s in what is now the U.S.A., ignorance still prevailed in matters of slavery. Generation after generation passed this ignorance forward often without detection, but certainly without correction. Over time, this ignorance – justified and rationalized, became a ‘mindset.’ WE need to understand how this “mindset,” this ignorance; this corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system” caused the Civil War. Today WE will look at the Northern Perspective. WE will look at 1 man – Abraham Lincoln, his first inaugural address and the U.S. Constitution for the justification or rationalization of this ignorance from the Northern Perspective.

Even before Lincoln was sworn in as president of the United States, several states had already seceded. After Lincoln’s first inaugural address, other states quickly followed. Representatives and Senators had already made their intentions known in Congress. Congress had already passed a motion to remove their names from the roll call, but not to expel them. Lincoln knew this.

In his first inaugural address, Lincoln begins with the issue of slavery.

4

“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.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
4th paragraphMarch 4, 1861

First of all, Lincoln in his opening remarks, made slavery an issue, because in his mind, the constitutions of the previously seceded states and those considering secession, already made slavery an issue. Remember the bold red and underlined words above, as WE will later see an apparent contradiction to each of them.

Lincoln’s address then proceeds to states rights.

5

“Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address, 5th paragraph
March 4, 1861

The words “domestic,” “perfection” and “lawless” are interesting. Domestic rights would by the omission here, exclude the state’s foreign rights to be exercised between other states, which would be foreign in the same sense that the state would have no rights to deal with a foreign country. The word “perfection” refers to OUR system of government and it would later in his address, imply that it is perfect. The word “lawless” would only mean that invasion by armed forces of any state or territory could only occur if there was such a law allowing it.

8

“There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Paragraph 8

9

[“No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”]

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Paragraph 9

(Lincoln quoting from the U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 2, 3rd paragraph)

His answer or solution to resolving this issue is in:

10

“Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Excerpt from paragraph 10

But then he argues that oaths should still be kept despite any difference of opinion as to how they should be kept.

11

“And should anyone in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Excerpt from paragraph 11

13

I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed than to violate any of them trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Excerpt from paragraph 13

Lincoln’s suggestion implies that those states which had seceded or that were considering secession were violating the law “to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional.”

Lincoln continues and addresses the idea or concept of secession.

15

“I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Paragraph 15

The words “I hold” are in direct contrast to the first three words of the Constitution which are, “WE the People.” Perpetuity though Lincoln believed it may be implied is not written in the Constitution to which his words “if not expressed” indicate his belief that perpetuity is implied. However, the absence of “perpetuity” in the Constitution relates to its jurisdiction (the creators not that which is created) which is, “WE the People.” The argument that no government including OURS has never provided a means for its own termination, may be true for other governments, but not OURS! OUR government may be changed by amendments by congress or the people and it may be terminated by the very source from which it began, by the same three first words of the Constitution, “WE the People.”

Lincoln continues to argue the perpetuity of OUR union.

16

“Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it-break it, so to speak-but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it? Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Paragraph 16

This is the address of the president and Chief Executive. Lincoln was a lawyer and he here presents a legal argument as if addressing the court, the judges being the people. His arguments are interpretative of the law. This is the first indication that the executive branch of government would take control of both the Legislative and Judiciary branches of government, which Lincoln would later do.  Not only does the Constitution not mention contracts and associations, neither does it mention perpetuity which Lincoln in his address has already indicated it was not mentioned.  He mentions that contracts cannot be peaceably terminated, but there is no mention that they could not be forcibly terminated by one or all parties in concern. The Constitution was not ratified by all the states, at the same time, but by a majority of the states and at specific times. His premise that all states would be necessary to break a contract or comparing contracts to a “government proper,” is based on the premise that OUR union is perpetual. He then uses history to substantiate his premise in support of his conclusion.

17

“Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The 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 in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was “to form a more perfect Union.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Paragraph 17

Although over a hundred years of associating with one another, confederating or constituting with one another, may seem like the union is perpetual, but this is not a logical argument, because the premise is wrong and therefore so likewise, is the conclusion. The only accurate reference in writing or in the above history to which Lincoln referred to in citing the word “perpetual,” was the Articles of Confederation. The literal title of this document is: The Articles of Confederation of the Union Perpetual. The word “perpetual” does not appear in the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution was a wholly new government which ended the previous one in replacing the Articles of Confederation. John Adams, Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson did not attend the Constitutional Convention. Jefferson referred to all those in attendance as “demigods.”

To be honest however, Jefferson later came to respect many of the changes made and the Constitution itself. But he and other founders of OUR republic wrote of the states rights to secede. Some states had even considered secession long before the birth of Lincoln. Newspapers all across the country in 1860 including New York wrote editorials in support of the states rights to secede. Of these historical facts, Lincoln does not mention in his first inaugural address when using history, endeavoring to argue that the union was perpetual.

Lincoln relates in his argument that the Union is perpetual with the words from the Constitution, “to form a more perfect Union.” WE need to understand these words and to be perfectly clear about them. They are not literal!!! They are a figure of speech. If they were literal, it would be completely illogical. If something is perfect, it cannot become more perfect or less perfect. As a figure of speech, the emphasis is on perfection as a goal to strive for. The Constitution was considered to be a better union than the previous Confederation. But the fact that Lincoln views these words in a more literal sense and to further make his argument on the perpetuity of the Union is seen, in his next paragraph of his first inaugural address.

18

“But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Paragraph 18

Lincoln himself uses a figure of speech to further his argument with the words, “less perfect.” His reasoning that the Union would be “less perfect” if it lost the “element of perpetuity is illogical.” It is illogical because his premise is incorrect. Less perfect in the literal sense is illogical. The figure of speech here emphasizes “perfect” as a goal, but to the infallible human being, perfection is not possible, nor is to make something more perfect or less perfect.

Having stated his false premises, Lincoln then makes his conclusion, which would also, be false.

19

“It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Paragraph 19

The words, “the authority of the United States,” clearly state Lincoln’s perspective and that of many of the north. This is indicative of the idea that the thing created (the Constitution) is superior to the creators, WE the People.

Lincoln according to his conclusion states that “acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.” According to the dictionary, an “insurrection” and a “revolution,” are defined as follows.

Insurrection: an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government.

Revolution: an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.

Definitions based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.

Lincoln further cements his conclusion with the following paragraph.

20

“I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Excerpt from paragraph 20

If the Union was “unbroken” according to Lincoln’s argument, there was no reason to state that “the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States,” unless the southern states by an “act of violence as either an insurrection or a revolution under the authority of the United States required it. This requirement would necessitate force, which contradicts what he already said and what WE have already read from the 5th paragraph of his first inaugural address. Here it is again:

5

“Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address, 5th paragraph
March 4, 1861

So this action would necessitate the South in essence, to fire first which would be responded to by the use of force. However, to execute the law in “all the States,” since the southern states were not abiding by this Union, either coercion or force would be necessary according to Lincoln’s argument. Coercion is defined as follows:

1. the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.

2. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.

Definition based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010

Coercion could include other means, methods and manners to enforce the law besides force, whereas the word force is clear.

Coercion or force is implied by Lincoln in his next paragraph.

21

“In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Excerpt from paragraph 21

How would it be possible to enforce the law in holding, occupying and possessing the property belong to Government unless by coercion or force if this property was questioned as to its ownership? How would it be possible to enforce the law in collecting duties and imposts unless by coercion or force if they were questioned as to its legitimacy? The southern states believed it was their property and as a foreign nation, they were not subject to the duties and imposts of the United States. Therefore, the only action the Union could take against the Confederacy would have to be by coercion or force, whether the South would invade or not.

Lincoln has gone further than as if to argue a case before a court. His conclusions and subsequent actions are indicative of judgment being made by a court. His interpretation of the Constitution is indicative of “legislating from the bench.” In his first inaugural address, Lincoln has become the Chief Executive, and has dominated both the Legislative and the Judiciary branches of the Government. This will be substantiated as WE continue here.

23

“That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events and are glad of any pretext to do it I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak?”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Paragraph 23

If he neither affirms nor denies that there are those that “seek to destroy the Union,”

Why bring this up and why use the word “destroy.” Was there only two types of people at this time, those that “seek to destroy the Union,” and those “who really love the Union?”

The opposite of this would be if you do not love the union then therefore you seek to destroy it. The words used here are inflammatory.

24

“Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from, will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Paragraph 24

Lincoln suggests here that perhaps there is no real reason for their secession and the possibility of greater consequences in leaving the Union. Is this statement to discredit the South and a veiled threat? This is the second use of the root word or “destroy.” He also suggests that perhaps there exists no “real” reason for the South to secede and the consequences would be greater in so doing than for having left it for no reason.

25

All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied? I think not. Happily, the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one.”

What is a vital right as opposed to a non-vital right? It is obvious that the south was not content to remain in the Union. If his argument is correct that there is no Constitutional reason for the South to secede, it must rest with slavery on the part of the South, according to Lincoln’s viewpoint.

25

“But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate nor any document of reasonable length, contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Excerpts from paragraph 25

This obviously shows that the Constitution is not perfect, was never intended to be perfect and the Union of the states are not nor ever were considered to be either perfect or perpetual. Again, Lincoln argues that no Constitutional right has been violated and so therefore the only disagreement between the Union and the Confederacy would be slavery? This is spelled out plainly in the next paragraph.

26

From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Excerpt from paragraph 26

Now his argument centers on two choices, to “acquiesce” or not and the latter would cause the government to cease. If neither the majority nor the minority are willing to cooperate, then another choice would be to separate? And if separate, government could still continue for both.

26

“There is no other alternative, for continuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Excerpt from paragraph 26

The words “the Government” relates to the 19th paragraph of this address with the words, “the authority of the United States.” Again the thing created appears to be greater than those that created it (WE the People), it is perpetual and only all the states could disband it.

27

Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new union as to produce harmony only and prevent renewed secession?”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Excerpt from paragraph 27

28

“Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Paragraph 28

First of all, what is the definition of “anarchy” and what was its origin?

Anarchy – a state of society without government or law.

Origin:
1530–40; (< MF anarchie or ML anarchia) < Gk, anarchía lawlessness, lit., lack of a leader, equiv. to ánarch(os) leaderless (an- an-1 +arch(ós) leader + -os adj. suffix) + -ia -y3

Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.

From where does Lincoln derive his interpretation that secession is anarchy? What would the Revolutionary War have been, anarchy? And just because changes to the Constitution are made from popular opinion or sentiment, does this mean any have lost their unalienable rights or opposing those changes would be considered anarchists flying to anarchy or despotism? According to Lincoln’s viewpoint and those of the North that agreed with him, it would be anarchy or despotism. But what then was the Revolutionary War? What then are unalienable rights?

According to Lincoln, it is only the Constitution which is, “the only true sovereign of a free people.” The Constitution is a created thing, created of, for and by the people, and it is OUR unalienable rights which are the true sovereignty of a free people! And what are the sovereign nations of the Native American Indians and in many respects, the nature of exemptions of the Amish people?

Lincoln states that, “Unanimity is impossible.” Was not the Declaration of Independence a unanimous decision? Was not the Articles of Confederation of the Union Perpetual, a unanimous decision? Do not all members “All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution,” (from Lincoln’s 10th paragraph) and is this not unanimous? Seventy two years later in 1933 and even though only ¾ of the states were required to amend the constitution (36 of 48 states at the time), 39 states ratified the 20th Amendment to the Constitution. This included all the former Confederate States except for Florida. However nine additional states including Florida subsequently ratified this amendment.  Since Hawaii and Alaska were not then states in 1933, 48 states were unanimous in ratifying this amendment. Total agreement or unanimity may not always be probable or possible, but it is not impossible!

29

“I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Paragraph 29

The words in bold red italics are the true purpose of secession, that the people are the rulers (creators) and not the government (the created thing).

30

One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive-slave clause of the Constitution and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, can not be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Excerpts from paragraph 30

Again, slavery is made an issue here and that according to Lincoln, “the only substantial dispute.” In as he has thus argued, the Union is perfect, to withdraw from it would make it “less perfect,” and “the only substantial dispute,” (slavery) “can not be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before.”

31

“Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Paragraph 31

Why would is not be possible to physically separate? Why would it not be possible to build a wall of separation between the North and the South, impractical, but why not possible? China built a wall thousands of years ago. Kingdoms built walls for protection to keep enemies out. The analogy of a divorced couple is inappropriate. It is possible to divorce and due to custody and other issues, the former husband and wife could remain in the same location and even the same house with or without ever speaking to each other. So the states could do the same thing.

“Suppose you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.” Who is the word “you” repeatedly used here referring to? Is it not the Confederate States? And are WE not in essence face to face with Canada and yet separate nations, but for the most part WE each maintain an amicable relationship? The words here are accusatory – you go to war, you can’t fight forever, you cease fighting and then, “the same old identical questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.”

32

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Excerpt from paragraph 32

These two sentences are accurate, but WE have already seen from Lincoln’s address that “the people” refer to all the people of the United States. His argument is that the Union is perpetual, the Constitution was written as “a more perfect union,” and to disband it would make it “less perfect.” Along with perpetuity and perfection he equates the “revolutionary right” in overthrowing the government can only be done by all the people of all the states since all got into the Union when OUR country first began. This would therefore be a unanimous decision and Lincoln has already stated that “unanimity is not possible.” This all appears to be contradictory. He finishes out this paragraph in basically referring to Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution about amendments.

32

“I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution — which amendment, however, I have not seen — has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Excerpt from paragraph 32

The amendment referred to here was called The Corwin Amendment and was passed by Congress on March 2, 1861 and just two days before his inaugural address. The proposed amendment would have forbidden attempts to subsequently amend the Constitution to empower the Congress to “abolish or interfere” with the “domestic institutions” of the states, including “persons held to labor or service” (a reference to slavery). The Corwin Amendment was intended to prohibit the Congress from banning slavery in those states whose laws permitted it. This amendment has never been ratified by the states, although it was submitted to the states without any time restraints. Adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment, abolishing slavery, ended any realistic chance of it ever being adopted. It reads as follows:

“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.”

Non-ratified Corwin Amendment

Why did Lincoln bring up this amendment other than to strengthen his point that it was only slavery which was the sole point of division between the North and the South? See paragraph 30 previously and note the words:

“One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Excerpt from paragraph 30

33

The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have referred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also they choose, but the Executive as such has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present Government as it came to his hands and to transmit it unimpaired by him to his successor.”

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address,
Excerpt from paragraph 33

Magistrate – mag·is·trate    (māj’ĭ-strāt’, -strĭt)  noun

a. A civil officer with power to administer and enforce law, as:

b. A local member of the judiciary having limited jurisdiction, especially in criminal cases.

[Middle English magistrat, from Old French, from Latin magistrātus, from magister, magistr-, master; see meg- in Indo-European roots.]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

It is interesting that Lincoln chose the word “magistrate” here, having its root in the word “master.” As president of the United States he was the Chief Executive and he states that authority “comes from the people.” He also stated that there was no authority to “fix the terms for the separation of the states,” and the duty is to administer the government as received and pass it on to the next executive, “unimpaired.”  Then why has he presented in his first inaugural address arguments as if before a court? Why has he interpreted the Constitution? In so doing, he is as if legislating from the bench and by his conclusions, he makes rulings as if a judge. In essence, which will become clear in a future presentation here – ‘Divide and Conquer,’ Lincoln would later dominate both the Legislative and Judiciary branches of government in prosecution of the American Civil War, or technically, the suppression of a rebellion.

35

“By the frame of the Government under which we live this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief, and have with equal wisdom provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance no Administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously injure the Government in the short space of four years.”

Paragraph 35

Even though the Constitution with its set of checks and balances had endured to this point, if it were perfect and all the people were content, then secession would never have been considered throughout the history of the United States nor first attempted by the Confederate States of America. Lincoln stated that no administration “by any extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously injure the Government in the short space of four years.”

For now, this is where we will leave off.  But WE will look at the consequences of those four years another time under the title of: ‘The Basis and Consequences of Ignorance.’

37

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to “preserve, protect, and defend it.”

Paragraph 37

Although the Confederacy technically fired fist on Fort Sumter, which officially started the Civil War, there is more than sufficient evidence to support that Lincoln manipulated the response in favor of Union justification to put down a rebellion.

38

“I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

Paragraph 38

Perhaps, there are no equal words to compare with these? Where is a clearer example as to heartfelt and sincere desire for peace among the states and to avert war? If a man is to be believed to say what he means and to mean what he says, perhaps there is no greater proof of the intentions and the innermost being of President Abraham Lincoln, than this last paragraph of his inaugural address. But sadly, these words of a man and for those which agreed with him were from decisions based on ignorance. False premises lead to false conclusions. These conclusions led to consequences so great, they are still felt by every person within United States of America and maybe even the entire world today!

Next Time: Civil War Ignorance  – Southern Perspective

Check out the other blogs listed to the right. Come often. Bring others. Get involved. Do something. See:

How You Can Help


Ask not what your country can do for you

or what you can do for your country,

but what can WE the People do, for each other!”


1 of WE,

Dahni
An Amer-I-Can eagle

Next Post – Civil War Ignorance – Southern Perspective Soon
Previous Post Civil War Ignorance
Front Page – Welcome & Introduction