Did the Radical Republicans Assassinate Lincoln?

There are times when I wonder how much of our history is part factual and part propaganda. One only has to study the New Deal and the Great Depression to a get a feeling somethings not right. After all, the United States had economic calamities in the past, but nothing that earned the sobriquet of that magnitude. If you listen to liberal academia and their groupies in media and public office, you’d think the New Deal was a godsend. We’re told FDR saved capitalism from itself, and the New Green Deal will save humanity from ourselves. Why, there’s nothing these New Deals can’t save. Shamwow!

That brings me to the Lincoln assassination. Before I jump in, I’d like to preface this by saying I came to this hypothesis by watching how the deep state and the D.C. elite tried to commit a coup. Their contempt, and might I say outright fear, of President Trump brought about a hysteria unseen in modern American history. These people tried to commit a political assassination right before our eyes, and they almost got away with it. With that in mind, I believe it’s time to rethink the Lincoln assassination.

The Lincoln administration didn’t have a sprawling bureaucracy. Most of these agencies didn’t exist during his tenure. Hell, Congress didn’t create the Justice Department until 1870. These post-Lincoln bureaucracies weren’t even codified until the 1946 Administrative Procedures Act. The only semblance of a deep state was when Congress created The Office of Tenure Act which was designed to thwart Lincoln’s successor, President Andrew Johnson. So with that in mind, who else would have wanted Lincoln dead besides John Wilkes Booth?

One only has to look at the Radical Republicans and their treatment of President Johnson and the South to fully understand motive. These congressmen wanted vengeance. President Johnson was following the Lincoln model of “With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan…”

Well, the radicals wanted nothing to do with that. Thaddeus Stevens proclaimed he wanted to turn the South into a giant penitentiary. He and his cohorts were going to be the ones who decided the South’s fate, and that means everything from approval of state constitutions, representation in Congress, land distribution and commerce. There wasn’t going to be any binding up the wounds or forgive and forget; these radicals wanted to turn the South into vassal states.

Lincoln’s death served two purposes: more hatred for the South and Radical Reconstruction. Once again, who profits more from an assassination, the Radical Republicans, or an already vanquished South?

Source:

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-ushistory/chapter/the-battle-over-reconstruction/


https://revisedhistory.wordpress.com/2019/05/30/for-those-who-want-to-do-some-homework-on-the-lincoln-assassination/

Time to Declare: California is in a State of Rebellion

California is in a state of rebellion.  Their General Assembly passed a bill that gives sanctuary to millions of illegal aliens and are suing the Trump administration for building a wall.  This state is basically flouting our nation’s immigration laws.  They have become the Crimea of Mexico.

We cannot afford a populous state such as California to run roughshod over the rule of law and our nation’s sovereignty.  They have 53 House representatives along with 55 Electoral College votes.  It is safe to say that illegal aliens have more influence in Washington D.C. than American citizens and it is time to put a stop to it.  It is time to declare, California is in a state of rebellion.  

When the Yankees conquered the South in the War of Northern Aggression they passed the 14th Amendment which disenfranchised those who participated in the rebellion.  Sections 2 and 3 prohibited rebels from holding public office and reduced their representation in the House, along with their Electoral College votes.  

This measure didn’t just pertain to Confederate soldiers and a specific time period.  Twenty years after Reconstruction, a congressman reintroduced disenfranchisement as a form of punishment.  Here is an excerpt from Capitol Men:

In 1898, the Republican congressman Edgar D. Crumpacker of Indiana suggested that a 40 percent reduction in the Southern representation in Congress would adequately reflect the extensive disenfranchisement of Southern black citizens.  During the South Carolina convention, the Tillman forces had actually agreed that they would willingly reduce the state’s representation in the electoral college and in Congress, if necessary, because from their perspective, the ability to dominate state politics along racial lines meant far more than having a slightly larger voice in Washington.

 

The last black Southerner in Congress at the time,  North Carolina’s George H. White, also advocated for disenfranchisement.  Here is another excerpt:

White had remained true to the emancipation vision of Douglass and the postwar black Republicans, and in Congress he did not hesitate to assail racial injustice and inequality head-on.  Among other initiatives, he revived the idea that Southern states deserved a diminished representation in Congress because of their broad disenfranchisement of blacks…

Here is an interesting tidbit further down the paragraph:

...and he demanded that his white colleagues stop telling “darkie stories” and using “dialect and old plantation language” when trying to represent blacks’ views and beliefs.
 

Some things just don’t seem to change.

Congress is the only institution that can disenfranchise rebels in California and those fools can’t even pass a budget.  However, this shouldn’t be necessary.  The only reason illegal aliens have political clout is because the Census counts them.  That’s how we end up with traitors like Luis Gutierrez in Congress who advocate this third world invasion.    

If Americans are serious about illegal immigration, it will only happen if we convene a convention of States.  We cannot depend on Washington D.C. to correct a problem they created.  We must do it ourselves.  The rule of law and our national sovereignty depend on it.  

Source:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/16/california-goes-full-sanctuary-state-with-sweeping-immigration-bill/

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/california-file-lawsuit-over-trump-border-wall-130642062.html

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

Progressives Reconstruct History and the United States

Progressives have been on a mission to fundamentally transform the United States for over 150 years.  The great leap from federalism to nationalism couldn’t have happened without the War of Northern Aggression and Reconstruction.  Southern secession became a catalyst for centralized power and ironically will lead to the dissolution of a union the Yankee invaders purportedly wanted to save.

Before anyone gets offended, I want to emphasize this post is about Progressives, the U.S. Constitution and the federalist principles therein and not about slavery.  I realize this distinction can be difficult for some; however, one must try to analyze this perspective from a federalist viewpoint.

     

How can one define Reconstruction?  You would think it a term for an epoch in American history where the conquerors helped the vanquished get back on their feet by easing them into the union after a devastating civil war.  This interpretation is completely false.  What happened was the equivalent of the Progressive Era’s Eugenics Movement:  Southerners will restructure the way they think, act and live their lives according to the dictates of their Yankee masters, or be sterilized from the political process.  Congressional Reconstruction was all about power and control and to hell with federalism. 

  

The Radical Republicans wanted to ensure their hegemonic rule by forcing the 14^th Amendment upon a prostrate people.  Twelve states refused to swallow this poisoned pill, which had a provision that disenfranchised southerners who volunteered to fight for the Confederacy.  This act of defiance brought about the third phase of Reconstruction:  the South was divided into five military districts and ruled by military governors.

Military occupations breed resentment and enmity which ultimately leads to failure.  Reconstruction was and is considered a colossal failure.  A generation of historians, often referred to as the Dunning School, documented the abuses and corruption of the Radical Republicans and their agents of occupation.  This resentment manifested itself in the rise of the KKK and Jim Crow laws that were implemented shortly after the Northern occupation was lifted.

 If you are a student of the Reconstruction era, you’ll notice that today’s colleges and universities are filled with Marxist who has a bitter resentment toward the so-called Dunning School.  Almost every book I’ve read on this subject contains what can only be considered a smear campaign against these early historians.  Eric Foner in particular impugns the character of these men by assigning racist motives.  Ironically, these men were northerners and one reporter, James Pike, served in the Lincoln administration.  I’ve never experienced this kind of vitriol in other disciplines of history.

However, one must note today’s Reconstruction historians subscribe to the tactics of W.E.B. Du Bois who invented one of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

Du Boise seems to be a guiding figure for today’s historians, not to mention the fact that he too was a Marxist.  There seems to be a consensus by Progressives that the failures of Reconstruction were the defunding of the Freedmen’s Bureau and a lack of willingness to redistribute land and money which translates into confiscation of property.  Some even consider the withdrawal of troops a contributing factor as well.  Few are willing to accept that invasion, occupation, disenfranchisement, and forced homogenization were the main factors for the failures of Reconstruction.

One thing is for sure; Progressives will not accept the failures of a top-down centralized government, perhaps that’s why today’s Marxist historians are so vitriolic in their condemnation of critics of Reconstruction. 

Eric Foner: Distorting and Redefining History

A couple of years ago, I was shopping for books on military occupation of the South; or, as the victors like to call it, “Reconstruction.”  Before investing time and money on such a purchase, I research the author for leftist biases, especially if they’re from academia.  I want facts; not propaganda.  Sure enough, I came across Eric Foner’s, “Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution.”

Eric Foner is exactly what I suspected: a communist.  Both his father and uncle were blacklisted from academia for being “activist.”  The acorn didn’t fall far from the tree.  Here is a quote: 

"In the course of the past twenty years, American history has been remade. Inspired initially by the social movements of the 1960s and 1970s – which shattered the ‘consensus’ vision that had dominated historical writing – and influenced by new methods borrowed from other disciplines, American historians redefined the very nature of historical study." ~ Eric Foner.

Yes, Eric Foner has redefined and distorted American history.  I ended up buying his work at a used book store for a fraction of the retail price.  God knows I didn’t want to offend a communist by enhancing his bank account.  After all, capitalism is the evil of the world, so they tell us. 

Sure enough, this “respected” historian berated and dismissed others as racist propagandists for reporting the failures of the Northern occupation.  James S. Pike, in particular, raised Foner’s ire.

 

James S. Pike was a journalist for the New York Tribune.  He was a radical republican and an outspoken abolitionist who served as ambassador to the Netherlands during the Lincoln administration.  After the war, he wrote a series of scathing articles on the corruption of public officials which later became “The Prostrate State: South Carolina Under Negro Government.”  This did not sit well with Mr. Foner.

Pike was hardly a model of objectivity – he had long held racist views, had taken an active part in the Greeley campaign in 1872 (when his brother campaigned for Congress as a Liberal Republican), and had incorporated essentially the same critique in articles written before ever visiting the state.

I’ve read “The Prostrate State.”  Some of Mr. Foner’s assertions are plain false.  He attributes the pejorative “Sambo…” to Mr. Pike’s work.  I couldn’t find it.  As for being a racist, that kind of attitude was prevalent at that time.  Most, if not all, abolitionists were racist.  Even Lincoln could be considered a racist.

 

Mr. Foner admits this during a recent interview on C-SPAN.  By the way, I could have swore I heard him during the course of this interview make a Freudian slip by admitting he distorted history, but caught himself in mid-sentence.  I don’t know if this video was edited, but I’m sure he said it when broadcasted on television.

Mr. Foner would whitewash “Reconstruction” by declaiming critics as racist or white supremacist.  We could counter that “red diaper babies” have a fascination with oppressive governments that enjoy lording their power over a prostrate state.    

 Source:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2001/may/30/20010530-023410-9519r/

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1424

http://oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com/2009/02/foner-on-remaking-history.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Shepherd_Pike

http://www.c-span.org/video/?324420-1/words-eric-foner

Liberal Bigots Equate N.C. Voter ID to Post Civil War Occupation

Leave it to the Charlotte Observer to publish hyperbolic hogwash and a bastardization of history by agents of progressivism.  This Sunday’s funnies weren’t in the cartoon section where it should have been; instead, it was in the opinion pages.

Christopher Gergen and Stephen Martin inked out an op-ed entitled, “The Civil War and N.C. 2015,” warning North Carolinians of the precarious position minorities are in when Conservatives hold the reins of power.  They equated today’s voter ID laws to blacks being terrorized by the KKK during Reconstruction.  They went so far as to quote the “independent” U.S. Government Accountability Office that found blacks are the one minority group most impacted.

Does anyone still believe federal government agencies are disinterested and independent?  I laughed out loud when I read that.  As a matter of fact, liberal hysteria over disenfranchisement of black voters was proven just that: hysteria.  Tennessee implemented this common sense law before the 2012 elections.  The Heritage Foundation reported:

Black and Hispanic Turnout

In 2008, according to the Census Bureau, 60.8 percent of the black VAP voted in the general election, and 31.6 percent of the Hispanic VAP voted nationwide. In Tennessee, African American VAP turnout was 58.1 percent, and Hispanic VAP turnout was 19.2 percent.[14] Since white VAP turnout was only 53.7 percent, blacks voted at a higher rate than whites by slightly more than 4 percentage points.

In 2012, the national voter turnout of the African American VAP increased to 62 percent. Hispanic VAP turnout jumped modestly to 31.8 percent. Just as in 2008, African American voter turnout in Tennessee (57.4 percent) was below the national turnout rate. However, this result was a mere 0.7 percentage point decrease from 2008 and fell within the margin of error for the Census survey, so essentially there was no difference. Black Tennesseans still outvoted whites by 4 percentage points in 2012, since the white voting rate was only 53.4 percent.

Thus, even with a new photo ID requirement in place for the first time, blacks still voted at a higher rate than whites. Hispanic VAP turnout in Tennessee saw a huge increase in turnout in 2012, with 34.7 percent showing up to vote, nearly doubling turnout from 2008.

  

These two “concerned" writers were also dishonest on another sad chapter in North Carolina history.  Here is an excerpt from their op-ed:

They should study North Carolina’s Reconstruction era following the Civil War. With the KKK terrorizing blacks and their supporters in the late 1860’s, N.C. Governor William Woods Holden sent state troops into Alamance and Caswell counties to restore order.  Conservatives later got their revenge by impeaching Holden for illegally declaring martial law – making him the first governor in the U.S. to be impeached and removed from office.

Yes, Governor Holden was impeached for illegally declaring martial law.  He was also impeached for terrorizing disenfranchised North Carolinians.  Mind you, Holden was initially appointed by President Andrew Johnson as an occupational, provincial governor.

Holden’s political enemies brought forth eight charges.  Two charges were that Holden acted illegally by sending troops into Alamance and Caldwell counties when each county’s government remained in control.   Accusers also charged Holden with two counts of illegally arresting two men (Josiah Turner and John Kerr).   According to the prosecution, Holden also twice suspended the writ of habeas corpus when arresting the men.  Two other charges were that Holden refused to follow state laws when raising troops and acted illegally when paying troops. In essence, according to historian William S. Powell, Conservatives, under the leadership of Frederick N. Strudwick, charged Holden with “declaring martial law; unlawfully raising troops; illegally declaring counties to be in a state of insurrection; illegally arresting . . . citizens; . . . seizing, detaining, imprisoning, and depriving those citizens of their liberty and privileges as freemen; and . . . refusing to obey a writ of habeas corpus.

Liberals would have us believe there is a white sheet and hood in every conservative closet.  Those ghosts simply don’t exist, and if they do, they’re an insignificant minority.  However, I’ve yet to run into a liberal who wasn’t a bigot.

Source:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/03/lessons-from-the-voter-id-experience-in-tennessee

http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/260/entry/

http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/549/entry

Rev. Barber Calls for a New Era of Occupation

Rev. William Barber took his teat squawker road show to Detroit.  If there was ever a city that demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of progressive policies, it’s the Motor City.  I wonder if he took a tour of that poor, infected hellhole.  Chances are he stepped out of the airport into his limousine and drove straight to a luxury hotel.

The reverend is engaging in a new form of disinformation and mal-education.  He calls it “Moral Fusion.”  Apparently, it is a combination of bastardized history with a call for socialism.  They want a new Era of Reconstruction where the federal government occupies recalcitrant states, much like what happened to the South after the War of Northern Aggression. 

Today’s progressives have the same mentality as the Union occupiers.  They want to disenfranchise those who disagree with them and redistribute what little wealth they have, all the while belittling anyone who has a job and is trying to provide for his/her family.     

If you listen to the reverends harangue, you’ll notice in the beginning of his speech he quoted North Carolina’s constitution where it states that one has the right to enjoy the fruits of his own labor.  Yet, the reverend and his acolytes declare a birth right to others sweat, labor and property.  Such is the “morality” of progressives.

Source:  http://redalertpolitics.com/2014/07/20/netroots-nation-speaker-attempts-characterize-conservative-principles-immoral-says-sick-freedom-arguments/

Valerie Jarrett Promises Payback After Winning Election

If you thought the first term of an Obama presidency was intolerable, just wait for an untethered  second.  Here is an indication of what we can expect if the following report is true:

A rep from Jarrett office was in today. She gave us a finish line pep talk and then afterwards, heard her saying how Jarrett is very excited about a 2nd term agenda and a big part of that agenda is to punish everyone who opposed them during the first term and the campaign. Strange that everything was “Ms. Jarrett wants this, and Ms. Jarrett is looking forward to that”. You hardly heard Obama’s name mentioned by her which I guess reinforces what people are saying. Valerie Jarrett really is the power in the White House. I know that when her representative showed up it was like royalty was visiting. All the big dogs were lined up to meet her and acting real friendly and they gave us a heads up an hour before and told us we better “put on a good show” while she was here.

The part that really stuck out to me was when I overheard the rep say that Jarrett told them, “After we win this election, it’s our turn. Payback time. Everyone not with us is against us and they better be ready because we don’t forget. The ones who helped us will be rewarded, the ones who opposed us will get what they deserve. There is going to be hell to pay. Congress won’t be a problem for us this time. No election to worry about after this is over and we have two judges ready to go.” She was talking directly to about three of them. Sr. staff. And she wasn’t trying to be quiet about it at all. And they were all listening and shaking their heads and smiling while she said it. Pretty creepy.

Here is what retribution looks like under radicals.  The following took place in Louisiana during Reconstruction.  Revenge, payback and pilferage were the rage of carpetbaggers and their freedman underlings.

Under the rule of such men, the propertied class was being rapidly impoverished.  Scarcely five in a hundred men were not on the verge of ruin.  Houses had declined eighty percent in value in four years.  The distinguished citizen who wrote that ‘we are all ruined here and to hold property is to be taxed to death by our African communists’ painted the picture with fidelity.  The auctioneers and pawnbrokers of New Orleans were overworked, since elegant homes were being stripped piece by piece to buy necessities; families once comfortable were selling their beds to sleep on pallets on the floor, and bedsteads of rosewood and mahogany were going for from five to seven dollars.  In the spring of 1874, planters were being denied the customary spring advances.  One overwrought man, who had seen piece after piece of the family property sold for taxation until only one remained, wrote the sheriff that this was the sole possession of his mother and sister and the day it was put on sale he would attend with his shotgun.  ‘Now I know the man,’ wrote Nordhoff, ‘and know him to be a peaceable, law-abiding citizen, one of the most important and must useful members of the community.’  In the parish of St. Landry alone within two years 821 plantations had gone for taxes, and there had been 47,491 tax seizures by the sheriff in New Orleans.  Parish papers were giving three and four pages to advertisements of tax sales.

The radicals weren’t satisfied with property seizures; they also wanted to disarm the populace.  Sound familiar?

I don’t want to find out what the Obama regime has in store for us.  The first term was about as lawless as the Grant administration.  Can you imagine what a second would be like? 

 Source:  http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/11/01/valerie-jarret-after-we-win-this-election-its-our-turn-payback-time-wsi/

The Tragic Era – The Revolution After Lincoln

Obama's Hostile Carpetbagger Policies

The States and their citizens haven’t witnessed such hostilities from an overbearing federal government since the time of Reconstruction. The Obama administration has the vindictive attitude of a victorious Northern congressman, who instead of easing the conquered South back into the union, wanted to punish them and turn their territory into a giant penitentiary.

Under the Obama administration, States are treated as vassals without the concomitant protection under which such an arrangement is implied. We have been invaded by illegal aliens. States are trying to protect their citizens from this Third World horde, only to be stymied by Obama’s Justice Department and Homeland Security. Hell, this administration refuses to enforce the law, in effect aiding and abetting this invasion.

Obama’s hostility doesn’t end there. He, along with his surrogates – the modern day carpetbaggers – dictate to the States who can and can’t be funded with taxpayer largess (can anyone say Planned Parenthood). Voter rolls can’t be updated without the approval of the Justice Department. The thugs at the EPA have targeted energy producing States with specious “global warming” regulations. And a week doesn’t go by in which some new executive order is proclaimed from on-high.

President Andrew Johnson faced the same kind of mentality during his tenure in office. The Radical Republicans – the progressives of that era – wanted to punish and coerce Southerners at the point of a bayonet. They wanted to confiscate and redistribute property. They discouraged freedman (ex-slaves) from work. Worse, they taught the “negro” to hate, and stoked racial strife. But what was most dear to the Radicals was centralization. Here is an excerpt from one of President Johnson’s vetoes:

They interfere with the municipal regulations of the States, with the relations existing exclusively between a State and its citizens, or between inhabitants of the same State – an absorption and assumption of power by the General Government which, if acquiesced in, must sap and destroy our federative system of limited powers, and break down the barriers which preserve the rights of the States. It is another step, or rather stride, to centralization and the concentration of all legislative power in the National Government.

Today’s Radicals are the Democrats. Centralization of power is their goal. Obliterating the sovereignty of States is paramount. Woe to those who think otherwise. If Obama wins a second term, I wouldn’t be surprised to see another Reconstruction measure reinstituted: loyalty oaths.