Posts Tagged ‘Restoration’

Happily Ever After Constitution Day!

September 17, 2017

short url to this post:

By Dahni

© 2017, all rights reserved

Happily Ever After Birthday Constitution!

Today marks two hundred and thirty years since 1787. It is Constitution Day! Today commemorates the formation and signing of the U.S. Constitution, by thirty-nine brave souls, on September 17, 1787, recognizing all who are born in the U.S. or by naturalization, have become citizens. It was signed in Philadelphia, PA, the city of “brotherly love (and sisters too). For better or worse, indifferent or just different, WE’re still here! That in and of itself is a reason to celebrate. That’s it for history today. Rather than a lengthy essay or a long drawn-out post, let’s us just take some time today, to consider:

  1. How far those original 13 colonies had come in 1776
  2. How far those sovereign 13 states had come, from being so anarchistic and so un-united, in 1787
  3. How far this republic has come since 1787
  4. How far you and I have come in 2017
  5. How much further, are WE willing to go

How Much Further?

Happy Birthday!










1 of WE,





WE the People

May 31, 2017

Short url to this post:

By Dahni
© 2017, all rights reserved

This September 17, 2017, We will celebrate the 230th birthday of the signing of, Our Constitution. Whether WE are history buffs or not, most will know the following quotes:

“WE hold these truths…”

excerpt from: The Declaration of Independence July 4th, 1776


“WE the People…”

excerpt from: The Constitution of the United States of America, Signed, September 17th, 1787

These two documents represent our founding. The first, declaratory of such things as equality and unalienable rights and etc. Those signing, represented the People of the thirteen colonies which were declaring their god-given right to be free and independent states. Please note, no court in our country recognizes this as a legal document which has no standing and no state, according to, Our supposed-to-be-serving US, judicial branch. But that is WRONG! The same WE that held those “truths” are the same “WE the People” in the Preamble to Our Constitution, and the same “WE the People” of, The United States of America today. But please note again, no court in our country recognizes the Preamble as having any force or effect in legal matters as pertaining to Our Constitution. And again, that is, WRONG, so very, very, WRONG!

There is a familiar expression that those who live under a monarchy either in ceremonial or actual power understand. It was familiar in the times of King James, the namesake of the authorized King James Version of the Bible, in 1611. It was familiar to and in the writings of, a contemporary then, William Shakespeare. And it was familiar to King George of Great Britain in, 1776 and to our founders. The phrase was and may still be used today, “WE the King” (or Queen or other ruling monarch), “of England” (or other kingdom – rule by a monarch). These words are a figure of speech. A figure of speech is a legitimate grammatical usage of words that are truer to truth than the literal statement of fact. This figure of speech empathizes the nearest noun as its antecedent which, in this phrase, would be the word, “king.” The power of the King is emphasized by including every person and even all the property and all resources of the kingdom.

Our founders were rejecting the rule of a monarch and the dominance of any religion in their desire to be free and independent states with each individual having equal and god-given (Laws of nature and Nature’s God), rights. “WE hold these truths” emphasizes the signers of the Declaration that behind them is, all of the people and all the property and all the resources of the thirteen colonies and not just their pledge of their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor, but all of Ours too! “WE hold these truths,” was then and is now, in direct opposition of and in contrast to the words, the meaning and the monarch of, “WE the King!”

“WE hold these truths” in essence is, repeated and made specific in Our Constitution in the opening of its (Our) Preamble, “WE the People!” “WE the People” emphasizes all of the people and the property and all of the resources of the Free and Independent States of 1787 and not just the signers of the Constitution of the United States of America. “WE the People” was then and still are, in direct opposition of and in contrast to the words, “WE the King,” the meaning and the rule of any monarch, even a democracy (rule by majority) or any of the three branches of Our government, THEN and still TODAY!

“WE the People” are, the authors, the writers, the signers, the power and the authority and hold original jurisdiction over all our property and all of Our resources, Our Constitution, and Our Republic. “WE the People,” are, the rule of Law (the Republic), the Law of the Land! Never, Ever forget this!! WE made the government to serve US! We do NOT serve the government!

So, in preparation of the signing of Our Constitution’s 230th Birthday, September 17, 2017, How about baking a cake?! 🙂

Happily Ever After Birthday Constitution— Love, WE the People


For Instruction on how to bake this cake, see:









For her recipe and how to make Our cake see:

“Get A Rise Out of Baking”

“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.”

Preamble to the U.S. Constitution

Please note, it is my purpose and intent to repeat the entire Preamble word for word throughout this series. Perhaps WE all will have it memorized at its conclusion and keep it!


1 of WE,






Next time: ‘In order to form a more perfect Union’
Last Time: ‘Ambling the Preamble’

Ambling the Preamble

May 31, 2017

short url to this post:

By Dahni
© 2017, all rights reserved


Preamble — an introductory statement; preface; introduction.
Ambling — to go at a slow, easy pace; stroll; saunter:

“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.”

Preamble to the U.S. Constitution

This is what I am proposing to do with these next few posts. Before WE can amble, this here is the preamble. 🙂

Out of many WE the People are!


1 of WE,






Please note, it is my purpose and intent to repeat the entire Preamble word for word throughout this series. Perhaps WE all will have it memorized at its conclusion and keep it!

Next time: ‘We the People’

Class Action Lawsuit

July 8, 2016
short url to this post:

By Dahni
© 2016, all rights reserved


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.

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?????


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!


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,


Call Em’ What They Are

February 18, 2015

by Dahni

© 2015, all rights reserved


“We’re killing a lot of them, and we’re going to keep killing more of them. So are the Egyptians, so are the Jordanians. They’re in this fight with us. But we cannot win this war by killing them. We cannot kill our way out of this war. We need in the medium to longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it’s a lack of opportunity for jobs, whether …” 

“We can work with countries around the world to help improve their governance.” “We can help them build their economies so they can have job opportunities for these people.”

State Department spokeswoman, Marie Harf


“These people?” What people? Following these words back to the nearest antecedent (a thing or event that existed before or logically precedes another. noun) would be “people that join these groups.” What groups? Following these words back to the nearest antecedent (a thing or event that existed before or logically precedes another. noun) would be the “Islamic State.” 

So not only does she recognize the Islamic State (which other Muslim or Islamic countries do NOT, we should help countries find jobs for “these people,” these evil murdering terrorists?

But the justice Department has another idea.

“Whenever you’re getting criticized by both sides, it probably means you’re probably getting it right. We spend more time, more time talking about what you call it, as opposed to what do you do about it, you know? I mean really.” 

“Radical Islam, Islamic extremism; I’m not sure an awful lot is gained by saying that. It doesn’t have any impact on our military posture; it doesn’t have any impact on what we call it, on the policies that we put in place. What we have to do is defined not by the terms that we use, but by the facts on the ground. So I don’t worry an awful lot about what the appropriate terminology ought to be.”

 Attorney General, Eric Holder


So basically, these are not evil people, they are just misunderstood. They need jobs and hugs and their own sovereign state (the whole world)?

This is not about religion? Then why are so many other Muslim or Islamic countries attacking them, if not for the evil they do and the corruption brought to their religion?

Name one single war that was ever ended by giving the enemy jobs and hugs. Or did they just surrender when they had enough force brought against them for their own actions?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t those that that signed the Declaration of Independence pledge their lives, their fortunes and sacred honor, for the unalienable rights such as: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I don’t think they gave up until the King decided he had, had enough!

WE need to, RESET_but!


1 of WE the People,


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:


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

1 of WE,


The Conservative and The Liberal

May 19, 2010

By Dahni

© 2010 all rights reserved

Once upon a recent day, somewhere on Main Street America, a group of conservatives got together to ‘peaceably’ protest something. The police were called. A bias media was informed. The media showed up and branded the marchers with all kinds of unsavory names like “twits,” “Far Right Extremists,” “dangerous,” “radicals” and “racists.” The police dispersed the crowd.

A little time went by and a group of liberals got together to ‘peaceably’ protest something. The police were called. A bias media was informed. The media showed up and branded these marchers also, with all kinds of unsavory names like “Libs,” “Far Left Extremists,” “dangerous,” “radicals” and “racists.” The police dispersed the crowd.

A few days later, two couples crossed paths on the sidewalk and recognized one another. One couple had been supporters, marchers and protestors at the conservative gathering earlier. The other couple had been supporters, marchers and protestors at the liberal rally previously.

The couples were mixed – one White American, one Black American or African American or Negro American, one Chinese American and one Hispanic American or Latino American or Spanish Origin American.

After a few angry words were exchanged, they walked out into the center of the street. The police were called and the media was informed.

Some enterprising American Indian Americans, Alaskan Native Americans, Mexican Americans or Chicano Americans, Puerto Rican Americans, Cuban Americans, Asian Indian Americans, Japanese Americans, Native Hawaiian Americans, Korean Americans, Guarmanian Americans or Chamorro Americans, Filipino Americans, Vietnamese Americans, Samoan Americans, Other Asian Americans, Other Pacific Islander Americans, and some Other Race Americans, all kids (youts’ or youths) plus Miss Piggy and Kermit the frog, set up a lemonade stand.

Disclaimer: All the above racial and ethnic categories come from the U.S. 2010 Census form, so don’t get mad at me.

Anyway, some environmental people stood in trees while others sat on benches made from trees. Some rode horses and other were crossing guards for an endangered species of turtles. The global warmers sat inside air-conditioned homes and others could not understand why it was so cold outside.

Some Christians, Roman Catholics, Jews, Moslems and ‘Other Religions’ religious people prayed. Some Agnostics could not decide if they should pray or not pray. Some Atheists, it was assumed, just Un-prayed.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) took the day off as there was no minority or disadvantaged people to represent.

The whole neighborhood turned out and it was a small representation of everything and everyone on planet earth.

The media never showed up as there was no story for any of them to ‘spin,’ so they just ran with a re-make of yesterday’s news or made up stuff.

Government was upset as there was no apparent crisis to solve or muck up.

When the police finally arrived, they did not know what to do, so they left, leaving the two couples in the middle of the street, to “work it out.”

After the police left and no one in the neighborhood seemed to care anymore, everyone went home or to where-ever. The street was quiet.

The two guys proceeded to beat the crap out of each other. The ladies got down and dirty in a knock-down; drag-out cat fight.

The guys were last seen arm-n-arm, with red, white and blue bruises and black eyes. They were each drinking their favorite All-American beer or near-beer. One ate an All-American backyard burger (meat or non-meat) and the other an All-American hotdog (meat or non-meat). Then one had some Fourth of July Cherry Pie (with or without sugar) and the other a piece of American Mom’s Apple Pie (with or without sugar). Together they stood smiling, laughing and screaming; rooting for their own favorite baseball team. And there at the stadium, the score was tied. Score – Conservative won and the Liberal won. And the bent, bruised and twisted sisters went shopping.

Yep, they were more than equally divided, but they found a way to Unite! What about you and me and US, WE the People? OUR American math may be complicated long division, but WE the People are the result of simple addition.

Divide & Conquer

April 10, 2010

by Dahni

© Copyright 4/10/10

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: Divide and Conquer

Last time WE looked at Civil War Ignorance from the Southern 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” not only caused the Civil War, the the so-called Reconstruction period after and has reached all the way to our present day.

Today WE will look at what transpired in the four years of the American Civil War and the consequences WE the People are still adversely affected by today.

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.”

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

Perhaps I could have titled this ‘What Could Happen in Just Four Years,’ but since its effects were so far reaching; so generational and remains with US today, ‘Divide and Conquer’ just has a better fit. The idea may bring to mind military tactics and that is appropriate since the beginning or the setting of this ‘mindset;’ this ignorance and corrupt, corrupting and corruptible ‘system’ was the American Civil War.

Lincoln had promised in his inaugural address March 4, 1861, not to interfere with slavery.

“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.”

Lincoln, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861, Paragraph 4

But about eighteen months later, he apparently had some purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with slavery and believed he had the lawful right and inclination to do so. For what reason or purpose was this apparent contradiction or hypocritical change made?

“That on the first day of January in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State, or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free;”

Lincoln, Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, September 22, 1862

Note: Only the slaves from those states which had seceded from the Union were freed.

The South fired first on Fort Sumter which was the official start of the Civil War. Lincoln believed this was sufficient justification to suppress a rebellion or an insurrection against the authority of the United States. Both the North and the South were now firmly engaged in defense of their perspectives. The principal revenue of the South was from agriculture and specifically, cotton. Most of their revenue and their entire economy including the need to raise money for the conflict between the North and South depended largely on cotton. Slavery was used to produce this revenue. So why would Lincoln only free the slaves of those states then part of the Confederate states under their control. Here is the first use of the idea of dividing and conquering. WE need to understand southern culture of these times.

Though many slaves could neither read nor write, they could hear and they could speak. Contrary to the beliefs of many, slaves could think too! Southern plantations depended on slavery to not only for the production of their chief revenue producing crop, cotton, but for the continuance of Southern culture and comforts. Slaves not only worked in the fields, but they served their masters in the master’s home. Slaves did most of the cooking and cleaning, but basically everything necessary for the comforts of their masters including entertainment. Some slaves were house servants and were privy to many conversations of their owners and guests which gathered and discussed the events of the day.

Imagine a dinner party in some southern plantation. People are gathered around and discussing Lincoln’s audacity in freeing ‘their’ slaves. No doubt some may even stated that Lincoln was wholly ignorant and that this action would avail to nothing. Meanwhile, house slaves and perhaps were serving the guests cookies, cake and punch. These house slaves could hear the conversations and their masters would need not be concerned about it because after all, they were ignorant and slaves, what could they possibly understand or do anything about it? Well they could think and they could hope and they could talk to other slaves on the plantation. Some were emboldened to escape with just a small hope that if they could just get to the North or some area under the control of the North, they would be free!

There were some whites of both the North and the South who would help them to become freed because they were compassionate people and rejected either the cruelty towards slaves or the idea of slavery. There were also those whites from both the North and South that saw this as an opportunity to start a new business and make a lot of money in helping slaves escape. Some would for a certain price help the slave escape and for another fee, get the same slave back into the control of their former masters. Often re-captured slaves were subjected to horrible cruelty and sometimes even death to make them examples to other slaves. Lincoln’s first emancipation proclamation was to some degree effective, but it also came with great costs, especially to the slaves.

The board was set and the pieces were in motion. The North at all cost must put down this rebellion. The South at all costs must defend itself. WE now return to the onset of this conflict, about a month after Lincoln’s inaugural address in March of 1861. Plans must be made to divide and conquer the South and bring them back into the Union under the authority of the United States government.

Lincoln as commander and chief had begun to fortify the nation’s capitol in Washington, D.C. with troops. This came to the attention of Congress and particularly the Senate. They wanted to no why the troops were there, how many there were and their purpose and the how long they would be in place. The questions went unanswered by Lincoln. Congress adjourned sine die (without a day) to reconvene. On April 15, 1861, Lincoln made the following proclamation.

“Now therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States of the Union,…”

Proclamation Calling Militia and Convening Congress, 2nd Paragraph

“And I hereby command the persons composing the combinations aforesaid to disperse, and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within twenty days from this date. Deeming that the present condition of public affairs presents an extraordinary occasion, I do hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene both Houses of Congress. Senators and Representatives are therefore summoned to assemble at their respective chambers, at 12 o’clock, noon, on Thursday, the fourth day of July, next,…

Proclamation Calling Militia and Convening Congress, 5th Paragraph

Lincoln’s authority was based on sections of the U.S. Constitution

Article II

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;…

Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall…

Under the “extraordinary Occasions’ clause, in calling out the military and convening the Congress, Lincoln assumes power normally granted to Congress, but according to his interpretation, he was exercising his power from the Constitution to suppress a “rebellion” or an “invasion.”

Article I

Section 9. The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

With this section from the Constitution, and with the “extraordinary Occasions” clause and in calling out the military and convening Congress, Lincoln is essentially setting up the framework of Martial Law. Martial Law would actually be declared, but basically, the Congress, the Judiciary and the military were under the jurisdiction of the Executive branch of government and ultimately the president of the United States.

Article IV

Section 3. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Part of Virginia remained loyal to the Union and out of the state of Virginia a new state would be formed which is and remains to this day, the state of West Virginia.

Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Article VI

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwith-standing.

U.S. Constitution

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

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.”

Lincoln, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861, 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.

“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.”

Lincoln, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861, Paragraph 38

Perhaps, there are no greater 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 for those which agreed 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 thee United States of America and maybe even the entire world today!

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.”

Yet in four years the loss of life was greater than that of all the conflicts involving the United States up to 1861-1865 and through the first year of the Vietnam War, combined.

In four years, the entire country was reformed under ‘legal fiction,’ having two separate United States and two separate sets of states with the same identical names.

In four years, the Constitutional Congress became an Executive Congress.

In four years, the Judiciary branch was dominated by the Executive branch.

In four years, the president of the United States called out the military and convened both houses of Congress.

In four years, the president instituted a military draft, excluding certain individuals including those that could afford to be excluded by either $300 dollars or sending an adequate replacement. In four years, as a direct result of this, the Conscription Act, riots broke out in the country and the worst of which was in New York City, the worse riot in injuries, loss of life and property damage from OUR beginnings since 1776 through the present-day.

In four years under the same Conscription Act, all of the states were set as “district” states under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. These “district states” still exist today. This presidential proclamation or order, having never been rescinded, cancelled or overturned since 1863 to OUR present day, remains in force.

In four years the Federal government would interfere with the institution of slavery, first by freeing only the slaves in the Confederate States in 1862 and then only certain slaves (not all) with the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863.

In four years it would take until 1871 for all the former Confederate states to be re-admitted into the Union and until 1965 for segregation to become officially abolished and Civil Rights to be enforced.

In four years, the banking industry would be taken over by the Federal Government as it remains to the present-day.

In four years the president of the United States declared Martial Law and suspended habeas corpus.

In four years, the term “legal fiction” would be first instituted and used in legal dictionaries.

In four years the seeds of the weeds of a corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system” were sown.

In four years a ‘mindset’ would be so established that it would place all the races, the sexes and adults above the age of eighteen, under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government of which is still in force today.

In four years a faux government, the United States, Inc. would be framed and would incorporate all the “district” states under the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia officially by an act of Congress in 1871.

In four years, Lincoln was officially the first president of the United States to have been assassinated while still in office.

Note: William Henry Harrison died of pneumonia after only 31 days in office, but some conspiracy theorists believe he was murdered. But to be sure, he was the first US president to die in office.

All of these thing were either done in four years or the blueprints for a nearly complete take-over of OUR republic were drafted and has continually been constructed and expanded ever since. All of this was instituted by the Executive branch of government which no doubt was passionate and committed to saving the Union. All of this began by ignorance and the consequences so grave, yet there is no evidence to support that it was of evil intent. The premises were wrong, the conclusions were wrong and this ‘mindset’ remains mostly still undetected and uncorrected to this day.

Lincoln was not alone in these actions which lead to such consequences and neither was the South in their part of this corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system.” This has been not an exercise to blame or to defame anyone, but to only show how ignorance; a ‘mindset’ and how a corrupt, corrupting and corruptible ‘system’ has become the dominate force in politics.

It is power that can corrupt and absolute power absolutely corrupts. Corruption cannot be changed or rehabilitated. It can only be eliminated.

Corrupt power can only be fed by more power. It only accepts equal power. It only recognizes greater power. OUR government was purposely designed to be limited and its limited powers were granted by US, WE the People. WE the People are, the greater power!

WE the People must detect and correct this corrupt, corrupting and corruptible ‘system!’ It’s only correction is its elimination!

The idea to divide and conquer has long been used as a military tactic throughout the history of the human race. This as a tactic was done in the American Civil War by the North to re-take the South, but it went much further. Next time WE will look at how this ‘mindset’ continued after Lincoln through what is referred to as the Reconstruction Period from 1865  – 1871. It is still going on today.

Next Time: De-Construction

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,

An Amer-I-Can eagle

Next Post – De-Construction Coming Soon
Previous Post – Civil War Ignorance – Southern Perspective
Front Page – Welcome & Introduction

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.


“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,

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

March 27, 2010

by Dahni

© Copyright 3/27/10

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

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.’

By 1860, this ‘mindset’ had so dominated the public consciousness and had so expanded that historians and experts of today, looking back, came or come to the conclusion that slavery was the cause of the Civil War. I believe this to be a false notion. However, both the North and the South made slavery an issue.

The consequences of ignorance lead to the attempted justification or rationalization for this ignorance. Justification or rationalization leads to hypocrisy and supremacy.

If slavery was not the cause of the Civil War, what was? If the North and the South both made slavery an issue, how was this done?

Today, the super information highway is the Internet. During the time of the Civil War, the super information highway was the telegraph. Today, content is made possible by technology in word processing etc. through a keyboard or some other input device. In the middle 1800’s their technology was notation or shorthand which enabled them to dictate word for word over the telegraph lines. Today our visual displays are varied, but primarily some digital screen. During the Civil War, their media of choice was through powerful and fast steam powered printing presses and mass distribution through newspapers. Today and then, information can be and could be communicated very quickly, across the whole of the country. The distribution of information is important to understand because, what was being communicated from the North or from the South, could be known quickly, if it went to press.

Civil War ignorance can be seen and argued from two perspectives, that of the North and of the South. Civil War ignorance can be seen and argued from two people, Abraham Lincoln, president of the United States and Alexander Stephens, vice president of the Confederate States. Civil War ignorance can be seen and argued from two recorded documents, that of Lincoln’s ‘First Inaugural Speech’ and Stephens’ ‘Cornerstone Speech,’ which came shortly afterwards. Civil War ignorance can be seen and argued from two Constitutions, that of the United States of America and the Confederate States of America. In these series of 2’s, the ‘mindset;’ the corrupt “system;” the cause of the Civil War and how slavery was made an issue by both the North and the South can be clearly seen. The press made all of this known, to all parties in concern, almost immediately.

WEthe People need to see both of these perspectives. WE need to understand that it was ignorance, a “mindset,” and a corrupt, corrupting and corruptible “system” which not only caused the Civil War, but has taken the liberty and the original jurisdiction from US, WEthe People, event to the present-day. It is only through the exposure and the elimination of this ignorance, that WE the people can reclaim OUR unalienable rights!

Next Time: Civil War Ignorance – Northern 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,

An Amer-I-Can eagle

Next Post – RESET ‘An UN-alien’s Guide to Resetting Our Republic 
Previous Post – Pre-Civil War Ignorance
Front Page – Welcome & Introduction