Slavery and the Four Liberties in Early America

As a student of history, I cannot help but wonder how early Americans could reconcile liberty with the institution of slavery. Obviously, that round peg doesn’t fit in a square hole. Many of our founders - not to mention, framers of our Constitution - owned slaves. These same people frequently railed against a distant parliament and king who denied them their rights as Englishmen, relegating them to a state of enslavement. Our revolution is based upon this very premise. So what gives?

Well, first, we must understand the first waves of British migration to the new world and their definition of liberty. Each had their own milieu that was as distinctive as the section of England from whence they came. This prejudices - religious and cultural - cultivated themselves in the section of America each wave colonized. These seeds germinated, nearly a century later, into the bloodiest war in our history.

Albion’s Seed by David Hackett Fischer is probably the best book I’ve read on the various definitions of liberty and the cultures that embraced them. Here is an excerpt:

Exodus: The Four Great Migration, 1629-1750

After 1629 the major folk movements began to occur, in the series of waves that are the subject of this book. As we have seen, the first wave (1629-40) was an exodus of English Puritanswho came mainly from the eastern counties and planted in Massachusetts a very special culture with unique patterns of speech and architecture, distinctive ideas about marriage and the family nucleated settlements, congregational churches, town meetings, and a tradition of ordered liberty.

The second wave brought to Virginia a different set o English folkways, mainly from a broad belt of territory that extended from Kent and Devon north to Northhamptonshire and Warwickshire. This culture was characterized by scattered settlements, extreme hierarchies of rank, strong oligarchies, Anglican churches, a highly developed sense of honor and an idea of hegemonic liberty.

The third wave (ca. 1675-1715) was the Friends’ migration, which carried yet another culture from England's North Midlands to the Delaware Valley. It was founded on a Christian idea of spiritual equality, a work ethic of unusual intensity, a suspicion of social hierarchy, and an austerity which Max Weber called “world asceticism.” It also preserved many elements of North Midland speech, architecture, dress and food ways. Most important, it deliberately created a pluralistic system if reciprocal liberty in the Delaware Valley.

The fourth great migration (1717-75) came to the backcountry from the borderlands of North Britain- an area which included Scottish lowlands, the north of Ireland and England’s six northern counties. These emigrants were of different ethnic stocks, but shared a common border culture which was unique in its speech, architecture, family ways and child-bearing customs. Its material culture was marked by extreme inequalities of condition, and its public life was dominated by a distinctive ideal of natural liberty.

So, Mr. Fischer has distinguished four forms of liberty: ordered, hegemonic, reciprocal and natural. Two of these would come into serious conflict in the mid-1800’s. The same factions that were responsible for the English Civil War later became antagonists in the American Civil War: the roundheads and cavaliers. We have ordered liberty at war with hegemonic liberty.

For the purposes of understanding how slavery could coexist with liberty, one must look at the hegemonic version. Here is another excerpt from Albion’s Seed:

It never occured to most Virginia gentlemen that liberty belonged to everyone. It was thought to be the special birthright of free-born Englishmen - a property which set this “happy breed” apart from other mortals, and gave them a right to rule less fortunate people in the world. Even within their own society, hegemonic liberty was a hierarchical idea. One’s status in Virginia was defined by the liberties that one possessed. Men of high estate were thought to have more liberties than others of lesser rank. Servants possessed few liberties, and slaves none at all. This libertarian idea had nothing to do with equality. Many years later, John Randolph of Roanoke summarized his ancestral creed in a sentence: “I am an aristocrat,” he declared, “I love liberty; I hate equality.”

So now we know how slavery can exist in time when men preached and valued liberty against a distant parliament and king without feeling of hypocracy or guilt. We should also understand that slavery in the Americas was a British institution. Pennsylvania tried to outlaw the importation and practice of slavery but was rebuked by the Crown. Here is another excerpt from Albion’s Seed:

The Pennsylvania legislature took action in 1712, passing a prohibitive duty on the importation of slaves. This measure was disallowed by the English Crown, which had a heavy stake in the slave trade. In 1730 the Philadelphia yearly meeting cautioned its members, but still a few Friends continued to buy slaves. Other Quaker antislavery petitions and papers followed in increasing number. A close student of this material finds that Quaker “anti-slavery reformers never contended that slavery was economically unsound.” They insisted that is was morally corrupt, and at war with the deepest values of Christianity. The argument came down to the reciprocal principle of the golden rule. Quakers argued that if they did not wish to be slaves themselves, they had no right to enslave others.

Liberals love to hold slavery as an albatross around America’s neck. Maybe they wouldn’t hate our country if they picked up a book and tried to understand our past; it’s not that difficult.

Source:

https://www.amazon.com/Albions-Seed-British-Folkways-cultural/dp/0195069056/ref=sr_1_1?hvadid=77927940471905&hvbmt=be&hvdev=c&hvqmt=e&keywords=albion%27s+seed&qid=1562442821&s=gateway&sr=8-1

Reparations Another Progressive Phantom Guilt

How can one feel guilty about something that happened over 150 years ago? What kind of a mental case do you have to be? I for one, am tired of listening to people whining about something they’ve never experienced, yet, expect reparations for it. Worse, there are white liberals who want others to pay for something we had nothing to do with.

No one alive in American is a slave. Slavery only exist in their minds.

I liken this whole reparations nonsense to phantom guilt. It reminds of soldiers who’ve lost a limb in combat, but have a feeling it’s still there. I'm sure this is offensive to people who suffered an amputation, because they were actually injured, but this is the best analogy I can think of.  Come to find out, this is an actual psychosis.  Check out the link below.





Thank God, there are black Americans out there rejecting this nonsense. Burgess Owens took these Democrats to the woodshed and gave them a sound spanking. However, we must face the facts. Liberals are incorrigible opportunist. They’ll exploit anything that gives them power over others even if it’s phantom guilt like slavery.

Source:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/48638/burgess-owens-torches-democrats-party-slavery-kkk-ryan-saavedra

https://gracewards.wordpress.com/2016/01/18/dealing-with-phantom-guilt/  

The Problem with Collective Responsibility

Funny how that happens.  

The American Civil War: The North Couldn't Afford Secession

A couple of years ago, I wrote a blogpost questioning the reasons for the American Civil War. I stated that there was more to the North’s naked aggression than just slavery. Historians, for the most part, have neglected northern complacency and the financial repercussions had the South left the union.


Today, California radicals are proposing a referendum to leave the union. Many people, such as myself, are just fine with that. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass!

I’m sure this is the same attitude many Northerners had at the time the South seceded. My suspicions were correct. Here is an excerpt from an article published in the Abbeville Institute by Philip Leigh about an interview on PBS:


She fails to consider that Northerners could have let the cotton states leave in peace, thereby avoiding a Civil War altogether. The original seven-state Confederacy was so weak that many believed her component states might end up humbly asking to be readmitted to the Federal Union. According to historian David Potter: “No one was much impressed with the Gulf Coast Confederacy. No one was convinced that it would be economically or politically viable.”[1]

Moreover, many Northern leaders were prepared to “Let the erring sisters go in peace.” Among them was abolitionist Horace Greeley, then editor of The New York Tribune, which was America’s largest newspaper. Greeley wrote, “We have repeatedly said . . . that if the slave states choose to form an independent nation, they have the right to do so.” President James Buchanan added that many Republicans shared Greeley’s opinion when he wrote: “Leading Republicans everywhere scornfully exclaimed ‘Let them go;’ ‘We can do better without them;’ ‘Let the Union slide,’ and other language of the same import.” Ohio lawyer and future Republican President Rutherford Hayes was satisfied to let the free states remain alone as his January 4, 1861 diary entry reveals: “The [twenty] free states alone . . . will make a glorious nation . . . scarcely inferior in real power to the thirty-three states we had on the first of November.”[2] Similarly, President Lincoln’s future War Secretary, Edwin Stanton, said, “Oh, I would let the South go; they will be clamoring to get back in three years.”

Interesting. How about the economic consequences of the South leaving the union? There are a couple of possibilities the North would have to confront. Mr. Leigh continues:

First, it could not hope to maintain a favorable balance of payments. The South accounted for about 80% of America’s exports on the eve of the Civil War. Thus, without the South’s export economy, America would become a perpetual debtor nation forever at the mercy of its stronger trading partners that would deplete her gold supply in order to settle the persistent trade imbalances.

Second, since the Confederate constitution outlawed protective tariffs, her lower tariffs would confront the remaining states of the abridged Union with two consequences. First, since ninety percent of Federal taxes came from tariffs, the government’s revenue loss would be sizable. Articles imported into the Confederacy from Europe would divert tariff revenue from the North to the South. Second, and even more importantly, a low Confederate tariff would induce Southerners to buy manufactured goods from Europe as opposed to the Northern states where prices were inflated by protective tariffs.

In other words, the North couldn’t afford to let the South go. I wasn’t taught that in school and no doubt neither was the rest of the country, not even Southerners. What’s that saying? To the victor belongs the spoils. And that goes for history as well.

Source:

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/causes-of-the-civil-war/?mc_cid=abd07423aa&mc_eid=3fe7d9c1ad



https://costonscomplaint.blogspot.com/2016/01/have-progressive-historians-bastardized.html

Western Civilization has a Self-Loathing Disease

A disease is spreading throughout the West. Heirs of a great civilization have come to the conclusion we are unworthy of our success; that our preeminent status has been built upon imperialism that denied lesser cultures their opportunity at greatness. Self-loathing has become fashionable. These aggrieved philosophers bask in a faux humility by begging the world to forgive us for modernity.


I will not apologize for modernity. As a matter of fact, I believe it’s an accomplishment that people have the leisure to ponder the benefits this great civilization has gifted the world, while complaining about it. And without a doubt one of the biggest beneficiaries of Western civilization are women.


Today’s women have the leisure to attend college, enroll in women’s studies and bitch about men. But it was men who liberated women from the drudgery of household work. Take for instance the electric washing machine. Elva J. Fisher invented Thor back in 1910 and life was made easier. Here is an excerpt from the Irish Times:


This morning I placed the dirty laundry in the washing machine, pressed start and went next door for coffee. Later I transferred the clothes to my dryer, pressed a button and “wash day” was over.

Gone is the drudgery of wash day of my childhood in rural Ireland in the 1950s. Monday was laundry day. I helped when I was not in school. Mam was up early bringing water from the nearby pump. The big pot was boiling on the cooker and the two big galvanised metal tubs were ready in the scullery. The laundry was separated in piles according to colour and soiling. The whites were washed first, and that water was reused, topped up with hot water and the water changed as necessary. We used Rinso soap powder with carbolic soap to help remove stains.

Our washboard was a wooden frame with panels of fluted tin. It was the bane of my life. My hands were sore and chapped from rubbing dirty clothes up and down the board. We had a mangle outside the back door, and the clothes were fed through the rollers to remove the excess water. A blue bag was added to the rinsing water to whiten the shirts and detached collars and cuffs. My dad’s shirts needed to be starched, requiring yet another basin of water.


And that was in the 1950’s! There are women in Third World countries knee deep in a river beating clothes with rocks. I bet they would appreciate a little Western civilization right about now.


Oh, and let’s not forget two of the greatest crimes Western civilization has wrought upon humanity: slavery and imperialism. Today’s intellectuals would have us believe the West invented the twin sisters of the apocalypse. But that again is faux history. Here is an excerpt from an article by Philip Carl Salzman entitled, It’s Time to Fight for Western Civilization:


This make-believe postcolonial theory is based on willful blindness to the facts of history. Imperialism was a major phenomenon of world history for millennia prior to the venturing forth of the Europeans in the 16th century: the Akkadian Empire of 2300 BC, the Hittite Empire of 1700 BC, the Babylonian Empire of 1600 BC, the Persian Empire of the 6th century BC, the Chinese Empire 221 BC to 1911, the Arab Muslim Empire 632-1258, the Mongol Empire of 1206- 1405, the Ottoman Empire 1299-1922, the Russian Empire 1721-1917, and dozens and dozens of others.


So, the impression that post-colonialists wish to impart, that imperialism was uniquely a product of the West, that Western imperialism was uniquely evil, and that it corrupted through violence and imposition a peaceful and happy world, has no basis in historical reality. In addition to all of the earlier empires, societies outside imperial reach were often tribal societies characterized by a constant jockeying, competition, conflict, and warfare among tribes for access to resources and for honor and glory.

Postcolonialism exhibits a double standard: The West is condemned for its imperialism, but Asian, African, and pre-Columbian American (Aztec and Inka) empires are ignored. This theory also offers a racism of low expectations in describing non-Western cultures and societies solely as victims, lacking in their own agency, subject only to the will of their Western conquerors. Postmodernism is false history.


This article is well worth the read.


I believe we’re all getting sick and tired of aggrieved classes complaining about nothing. These people have no appreciation for where they live, nor do they have a comprehensive understanding of history, or the world at large. It’s time to call these thumb suckers out.


Source:


https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/thank-you-alva-j-fisher-inventor-of-the-electric-washing-machine-1.3018802


https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2018/06/06/its-time-to-defend-and-protect-western-civilization/

Look to the North for Reparations; The South Already Paid

A couple of months ago, I read an article about a woman in North Carolina who was still collecting a pension for her father’s service in the War of Northern Aggression. Obviously, he was a Union soldier.


I was absolutely floored. That war ended over 150 years ago and there’s still a pensioner. This is a testament to the endurance of a federal government program. At what point and time do we put a stop to this nonsense?


Well, if Democrats get their way, Americans will end up paying reparations for an institution that died with the Confederacy. These grievance mongers are trying to shackle their ancestors to our pocketbooks. It’s not enough that over 630,000 soldiers lost their lives; no, their bloodlust extends to a perpetual welfare program.


I’ll make the argument the South already paid reparations in the form of Union pensions, protective tariffs, government bonds, carpetbagger theft, and northern monopolies. The 14th Amendment precluded, as a condition of readmission to the union, southern states interference to pay off the federal government’s debt in suppressing the late “rebellion.”


Civil War pensions became an astronomic expense of which the South didn’t benefit. To give you an idea on this transfer of wealth program, here is an excerpt from Southern Reconstruction:


Meanwhile, Republicans increasingly favored reducing the budget surplus by liberalizing Union veterans’ pensions. They succeeded with the 1890 Dependent Pensions Act. It enlarged the number of people who could qualify for assistance. Any soldier who served a mere ninety days and wives who married veterans anytime prior to 1890 became eligible. Any soldier injured during the war who later became unable to perform manual labor was covered. Within four years, pension disbursements doubled from $80 million to $165 million. The budget surplus vanished. Republicans dropped the Blair proposal, thereby demonstrating that protective tariffs and veterans’ pensions were higher priorities than the education of youthful African Americans.


In 1904, President Theodore Roosevelt released an executive order that made all veterans over age sixty-two eligible for pensions. The disability platform was essentially augmented to also become an old age assistance program. From 1862 to 1942, accumulated Union veterans’ pensions totaled almost $8 billion. About $7 billion of that went to the North, and the remaining $1 billion was divided between the South and West.


For more than fifty years after the war, pension policy was linked to protective tariffs. Like interest payments on Civil War federal debt and the retirement of such debts, Union veterans’ pensions represented a distributive income policy that transferred income from the impoverished South to the prosperous North.


So, for all those teat squawkers who’re looking for a handout, I suggest you look to the North for reparations; the South already paid.


Source:

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-08-08/civil-war-vets-pension-still-remains-on-governments-payroll-151-years-after-last-shot-fired


http://freebeacon.com/politics/revealed-dream-democrat-agenda-includes-reparations/?utm_source=Freedom+Mail&utm_campaign=47f55f78b8-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_04_19&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b5e6e0e9ea-47f55f78b8-45647961

Professor States Islamic Slavery and Rape is a Quid Pro Quo Arrangement

Americans are constantly berated for the original sin of slavery.  The Civil War ended 150 years ago; yet, progressives act as though this institution were alive and well to this day.  If you’re a white Anglo-Protestant Christian then you owe reparations simply because of your skin color.  It doesn’t matter if your ancestors fought for the Union and ultimately the abolishment of an evil institution.  You’re guilty, whitey!

However, if you’re a Muslim then slavery is a benign institution, both master and slave benefit from a quid pro quo arrangement.  That is what Professor George Brown of Georgetown stated in a lecture at the International Institute of Islamic Thought.  Here is an excerpt from Heat Street:

Brown defended slavery, stating, “It’s not immoral for one human to own another human” by comparing it to marriage—a quid pro quo arrangement in which both slave and master benefited from the arrangement.

“I don’t think it’s morally evil to own somebody because we own lots of people all around us and we’re owned by people,” said Brown.

A female attendee asked Brown about the permissibility of sex with slaves, to which the professor stated that “Consent isn’t necessary for lawful sex,” and defined consent as a Western concept that emerged with women’s suffrage and female body autonomy. Brown, he said, believes that marital rape was an invalid concept in Islam.

Had Prof. Brown’s words been spoken by a practicing member of any other religion, they would’ve lost their jobs and shunned out of the academic world

Muhammad codified slavery as he did with almost every aspect of Islamic life including rape.  Why are we allowing this ideology to creep into Western civilization?  Better yet, why are progressives aligning themselves with a people who would enslave and rape them the first chance they get? 

Source:

http://heatst.com/culture-wars/georgetown-islamic-studies-professor-slavery-ok-so-is-non-consensual-sex/

Breaking the Shackles of Bureaucracy

Britons showed incredible courage by voting to get out of the European Union.  They have demonstrated a fundamental truth that people want control of their destiny which can only be accomplished through self-governance.  Nameless, faceless bureaucrats in a foreign capital dictating policy is the antithesis of freedom.  You might as well be a slave.

Politicians find it much easier to schlep their responsibilities onto government bureaucrats.  They can have a pencil pusher rubberstamp their ill-conceived agenda without having to face an irate citizenry.  It’s the perfect foil for unscrupulous characters whose main job is to get reelected.  Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher knew what was going on when she called out the Labor Party as demonstrated in the video below.

We in the United States have a similar problem despite what foolish libtards say.  The Constitution of the United States grants legislative authority only to Congress.  But that body has abrogated its responsibilities to unelected and unaccountable federal bureaucrats.  What is happening in Washington D.C. is a flagrant violation of our social compact.  We are being ruled by an unscrupulous president and his infestation of progressive minions.  Is it any wonder Democrats laugh when we cite the Constitution?

Christopher HayesVerified account‏@chrislhayes

I think all the #texit stuff is largely tongue-in-cheek and the situations aren't AT ALL analogous BUT: what would the vote be?

• RETWEETS40
• LIKES147
• 

4:14 PM - 24 Jun 2016

 Manhattan, NY

40 retweets147 likes

 

 

 

As of now, Texans are grumbling for secession and who can blame them?  We’re citizens not subjects.  You can bet Washington D.C. sees us as the latter.

 Source:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/24/after-brexit-support-soars-texas-secession-push/

United Nations Demand U.S. Pay Slavery Reparations

Barack Obama has led the American people down a treacherous path.  This so-called president has shown nothing but contempt for the American people, the rule of law and the Constitution of the United States.  Others have taken notice.  Foreign organizations have been handed the baton and are running with wild accusations and demands that are outright preposterous.  The latest absurdity comes from the United Nations.  This corrupt pseudo-government body has embarked on a “fact finding” mission and has concluded the following:

American citizens must pay reparations for slavery past and present.  According to these geniuses, mass incarcerations of blacks for drug offenses are a form of slavery.  Of course, the rule of law and moral authority means nothing to a body that consists of murderers, Islamist and dictators.

“The devastating impact of the ‘war on drugs’ has led to mass incarceration and is compared to enslavement, due to exploitation and dehumanization of African Americans,” they declared

These interlopers also want to dictate what we teach in our classrooms.

The three – French law professor Mireille Fanon Mendes-France, Filipino human rights lawyer Ricardo Sunga and South African legal scholar Sabelo Gumedze – called for a greater emphasis in school curricula on the history of colonization and the transatlantic slave trade.

They also recommended that “monuments, memorials and markers” highlighting the slavery issue be erected, and for federal and state legislation “recognizing the experience of enslavement” to be passed.

The three stooges will present their recommendations to the United Nations Human Rights Council.

“The colonial history, the legacy of enslavement, racial subordination and segregation, racial terrorism, and racial inequality in the U.S. remains a serious challenge as there has been no real commitment to reparations and to truth and reconciliation for people of African descent,” it said.

The American Civil War ended slavery over 150 years ago.  No one alive today in the United States has experienced slavery, however, that can't be said in other parts of the world.  Here is more from these three fools.

“Despite substantial changes since the end of the enforcement of Jim Crow and the fight for civil rights, ideology ensuring the domination of one group over another, continues to negatively impact the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of African Americans today.

“The dangerous ideology of white supremacy inhibits social cohesion amongst the U.S. population.”

What are they talking about?  We don't have white supremacy!  If anything, we have white guilt!  There are students publicly defacing themselves on college campuses.  This is an absurd statement.

These three "experts" applauded the Affordable Care Act and condemned voter ID along with stand your ground legislation.  Doesn’t that sound like Barack Obama and the Democratic Party’s agenda?  May I ask, why are we still members of this corrupt organization?

Source:

http://overpassesforamerica.com/?p=23839

Progressives Promote the Ghettoization of America

Lip-smacking Marxists crave nothing more than a great leveling of American society.  They’ve concocted all sorts of half-baked schemes to disenfranchise the citizenry, except of course, themselves.  The most obvious is global warming scientists fattening their wallets with government grants by skewing data to reach predetermined results.  Government organizations use that research to promote and enhance an authoritative state.  And so it goes, governmental agencies bribing institutions with cash for corruption.

Not all scientists and institutions have been tainted by the federal mafia.  There are principled individuals who’ve questioned and spoken out against this fraud.  We do have watchdogs treeing these robbers of integrity and treasury.  However, there are more insidious schemes that are harder to tackle; schemes that are designed to ghettoize America.

Our so-called institutions of higher learning have, for decades, promoted multiculturalism, not as an American melting pot where cultures meld into a common weal, but as a tool for contention and tribalism.  Progressives have nurtured minority resentment by emphasizing and exaggerating Western crimes against the third-world.  This manifests itself into a sense of entitlement from the perceived aggrieved and guilt by European ancestry.

This yin and yang of multicultural sophistry has become a catalyst for denouncing our founding principles of life, liberty, property and ultimately prosperity.  An Obama appointee for a judgeship in a District Court in Minnesota exemplifies this dangerous philosophy.  Here is an excerpt from Daniel Horowitz’s article in Conservative Review:

On Tuesday afternoon, Republicans will vote to confirm Wilhelmina Marie Wright, a sitting member of the Minnesota state Supreme Court, to the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Just who is Ms. Wright?

Writing a short entry for the UCLA Law Review in 1990 (page 18-19 of PDF), Ms. Wright brazenly asserted that, “[T]he practice of American racism is based on two principles: the sanctity of property and the belief in the hierarchy of races.” She concludes as follows:

The failure of today’s racial discourse is its reliance on the notion that property is neutral, that the deed to a suburban home is ‘property’ while the opportunity to move out of a slum is not. The fungibility of property can be no better exemplified than it is by slavery. The fact that our Constitution once recognized one person’s very life and liberty as another’s property should teach us the danger of letting property determine liberty rather than looking to liberty to define property.

The original sin of slavery is forever ingrained in the aggrieved even though not one of these people has experienced the restrains of a shackle except for the one that strangles their minds and for that they are willing to destroy every vestige that has been the envy of the world for over 200 years.

Mr. Horowitz further explains:

If you want to know why every Democrat-appointed and many GOP-appointed judges believe the Constitution is unconstitutional, here’s the source. They oppose the fundamental negative rights expressed in our founding documents, replace them with man-made positive rights for favored classes, and point to flaws with the settlement of our continent with regard to slavery as justification for upending the Constitution outside the legitimate amendment process.

Thus we have special rights for the aggrieved and second class status for the “inheritors of wealth and prosperity” which are those who are cursed with white privilege.  Let the ghettoization of America begin!

Source:

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/01/gop-to-confirm-property-rights-are-white-and-racist-judge#sthash.8nslIMSd.dpuf

Here's to Islam's Peculiar Institution

H/T: NC Renegade

Empire of Cotton: One Big Bloody Boll

What would have happened if “King Cotton” had packed up its bags and left the antebellum South?  Would slavery, as an institution, have survived emerging markets from across the globe?  Were there emerging markets?  Would slavery have withered on the branch had there been adequate competition?  Would the War of Northern Aggression been inevitable without slavery?  These questions and more have piqued my interest for years.

Empire of Cotton: A Global History by Sven Beckert was published in 2014.  Normally, I try to stay away from comprehensive histories.  Most are usually too broad in scope, and often than not, subjected to the political inclinations of its author which in today’s academia is progressive, if not outright Marxist.

One must be careful when purchasing a history book.  I first research the author and then the reviews.  Empire of Cotton received acclamations from progressive publications such as The Nation, Slate and other usual suspects.  So-called historian, leftist propagandist and red diaper baby, Eric Foner, also wrote a high praise for this work.  Come to find out, Mr. Beckert acknowledged Foner as a friend and thanked him for his valuable input.  Again, when reading today’s history, one must proceed with a wary eye and a skeptical mind.

When reading this tome it won’t take long before you’re assaulted with an ethos that is pervasive in today’s academia: Eurocentric self-loathing, anti-capitalism rants, Luddite sentimentalism, and of course, the illegitimate and criminal enterprise that is the United States.

Mr. Berkert was kind enough to classify certain types of capitalism, the foremost being war capitalism.  War capitalism consists of violence, coercion, and modernity; in the case of the United States it is slavery, expropriation of lands from the native Indians and infrastructure projects that invaded the tranquil paradise of subsistence farmers.  Here is an excerpt:

The muscle of armed trade enabled the creation of a complex, Eurocentric maritime trade web; the forging of a military-fiscal state allowed for the projection of power into the far-flung corners of the world; the invention of financial instruments – from marine insurance to bills of lading – allowed for the transfer of capital and goods over long distances; the development  of a legal system gave a modicum of security to global investments; the construction of alliances with distant capitalists and rulers provided access to local weavers and cotton growers; the expropriation of land and the deportation of Africans created flourishing plantations.  Unbeknownst to contemporaries, these alterations were the first steps toward the Industrial Revolution.

Who knew bills of lading, maritime insurance and a legal system could be considered weapons of mass destruction? 

Mr. Berkert advances progressive hyperbole on one of the pillars of American illegitimacy.  Slave owners were sadistic task masters seething with unbridled, wanton violence.  He gives the impression that the “masters of the lash” whipped their slaves from sunup to sundown, squeezing every ounce of energy that could be had in a 17 hour work day.  Of course, he didn’t mention that states, like North Carolina, had laws that forbade abuse of slaves.  Of course, abuses did happen, but it wasn’t as prevalent as the author would have us believe.  Slaves were expensive.  What good would they have been if they were crippled or maimed?  Common sense should carry the day.

And let’s not forget the other pillar.  What would a progressive polemic be without the abuses of the bunny rabbit people: the North American Indian.  Here is an excerpt:

Native Americans understood the underlying foundations of the expanding military-cotton complex: Upon removal in 1836, the chief of the Cherokees, John Ross, in a letter to Congress decried that “our property may be plundered before our eyes; violence may be committed on our persons; even our lives may be taken away, and there is none to regard our complaints.  We are denationalized; we are disenfranchised.  We are deprived of membership in the human family!”  The coercion and violence required to mobilize slave labor was matched only by the demands of an expansionist war against indigenous people.  Nothing of this kind had ever been dreamed of in Anatolia or Gujarat.

The Trail of Tears is probably one of the most misunderstood, if not, the most distorted event in American history.   The most honest description I’ve read, so far, on the removal of the indigenous peoples is in The Life of Andrew Jackson by Robert V. Remini.  Here is an excerpt:

Jackson believed that the steady increase and movement of the white population was slowly surrounding and pressuring the Indians into adopting one of two possible courses of action: either “to become industrious Citizens” and accept the sovereignty of the states in which they lived; or “remove to a Country where they can retain their ancient customs, so dear to them, that they cannot give them up in exchange for regular society.” 

It would have been nice if Mr. Beckert had added some context on Indian removal.  It would also be of some help had he given a brief history of Chief John Ross and the schism within the ranks of the Cherokee nation.  Since he refused to do so, I will.  Mr. Ross was one of the richest men in Northern Georgia.  He owned a number of businesses along with a 200 acre farm that was worked by SLAVES.  That’s right, the man who lamented the deprivation of his humanity owned slaves.  And when the Civil War broke out, Ross sided with the Union while a sizeable faction sided with the Confederacy under Stand Watie.  Nothing is as simplistic as progressives would have us believe, nor is the displacement of peoples unique to the United States.  To suggest so is dishonest.

Empire of Cotton does have redeeming qualities and it is an interesting read if you can get past the self-loathing and insatiable bloodletting that a mountain of cotton bolls couldn’t absorb.  For instance, this book did answer the questions about emerging markets prior to the American Civil War, and the surprising amount of U.S. cotton production after the abolishment of slavery.

Sven Beckert’s history on the evolution (or devolution depending on your outlook) of cotton and how this one commodity advanced capitalism and became the indispensible fabric that bound the global marketplace met my expectations in some areas and exceeded in others.  It is worth the read.    

Source:

http://www.aboutnorthgeorgia.com/ang/John_Ross

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ross_(Cherokee_chief)

Christian Slavery in the Age of Obama

Progressives and their henchmen are making sure Christians can no longer practice freedom of religion as they see fit.  Jim Crow has been resurrected.  He maybe color blind, but he sure as hell can sniff out a cross bearer.

 

Agents of totalitarianism have long established tax codes that silences dissent at the pulpit (unless you’re a protected class).  Now, they’re out to set your mind right, even if it means destroying your business and reputation.

 

The hunt for Christians has begun.  Progressives are going to slap the chains of conformity around your conscience.  Your toil, thoughts and actions are not your own in the Age of Obama.  There will be failure to communicate.

The 13^th Amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude except as a punishment for a crime whereas the accused was duly convicted.  Since when did Christianity become a felony?   

       

Source:

http://costonscomplaint.blogspot.com/2012/04/progressives-muzzle-churches-through.html

Democrats Demand a New Form of Slavery

A band of Democrats are clamoring for an Obama dictatorship.  They want the Anointed One to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling using the 14^th Amendment as his vehicle.  This is a post Civil War amendment that was designed to ensure that the South couldn’t prohibit the payment of war debt.  It was not designed for irresponsible politicians to run up god awful deficits a century and a half later.

There is another provision in the 14^th Amendment I’m sure others aren’t aware.  Vindictive Northerners like Thaddeus Stevens wanted to keep vanquished Southern rebels from participating in the legislative process.  A compromise was made and here it is:

Section 3

No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil, or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid and comfort to the enemies thereof.  But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Obviously, the 14^th Amendment is antiquated, and should be repealed.  We no longer have slaves, and the rebel veterans have long passed away, along with the subsequent war debt.  However, the federal judiciary consistently uses the 14^th to enslave us all.  And as we’ve all been told, that’s what the Northern aggressors fought against.   Ironic isn’t it?

Here are our future slave traders demanding the coronation of King Obama:

 WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Democrats say President Barack Obama should consider invoking a little-known constitutional provision that they say gives him the power to raise the debt ceiling without going through Congress, where Republicans are demanding that a debt ceiling vote be linked to spending cuts.

The Democrats said in a letter that they would support the use of any authority, including the 14th Amendment, to prevent the nation from going into default, an event that some economists predict could trigger a global recession.

That post-Civil War amendment contains a section stating that "the validity of the public debt of the United States...shall not be questioned."

As of Wednesday 21 Democrats, led by Rep. Peter Welch of Vermont, had signed the letter.

Source:  http://washingtonexaminer.com/house-dems-say-president-can-raise-debt-ceiling/article/2518036?custom_click=rss