A New England Catechism for the Sesquicentennial
By David Ware
dware4dixie@gmail.com
Q: What is the Sesquicentennial?
A: The period of time between 2011-2016 when the United States will commemorate the war that was necessary to free slaves held in bondage by the states of the South who refused to end the practice.
Q: Were the states of the South warned about abolishing slavery before the war?
A: There were numerous indications that slavery was not working. Nat Turner led a rampage through Southampton County, the people of Haiti threw out the French and set up their own nation, and John Brown, financed by six valiant people of the North sparked an incident which should have led to slave uprisings and the annihilation of the South.
Q: Was purchased emancipation seriously tried?
A: Not really, it was economically unviable. The value of slaves has been estimated in today’s dollars at around 16 trillion dollars. It was cheaper to wage war and destruction. There was an added benefit in that precedents were set to align the United States Constitution into the path of unlimited government power that we have today. Further, the war removed the Southern obstacle to proper land use, which is to take every piece of land out of production and use it for commercial and industrial purposes. This is much more efficient and profitable and creates wealth.
Q: Is there any inconsistency between American concern for the Southern slave and the apparent indifference to the death of 46,000 Iraqi children between January and August 1991 due to U. S. sanctions as reported in the “New England Journal of Medicine?”
A: Not at all, remember “it’s all about slavery R .” Africans were owned by Southerners. In Iraq, the people who regrettably died as a result of necessary U. S. action died for a cause. We had to get rid of weapons of mass destruction, later get rid of Sadam Hussein, later establish Democracy and promote stability. These are all acceptable actions for a nation that has been blessed by Providence to know what is best and never makes mistakes. Remember, no Americans were killed by the sanctions; that is what is important.
Q: Didn't New Englanders sell the slaves to the South?
A: Yes. Northern interests did ply the slave trade. Later when Northern states freed their slaves, Northern states sold their slaves down South to keep from losing money.
Q: Well, today the supplier is always blamed for ills. The "greedy developer" causes unwanted population growth by building houses, the drug dealer causes people to take drugs because he supplies the drugs. Why didn't the North cause slavery in this sense?
A. Slavery is different.
Q: Weren’t Americans killed in the “Civil” War?
A: Yes, but just on the Union side. The others were traitors fighting against the will of the people and to keep Africans enslaved. Because the war freed the slaves, it was all “worth it.” Again, remember: “the ends justify the means.”
Q: President Lincoln did not get one electoral vote in the South and in 1861; the South was paying 80% of the Federal Budget. What about this?
A: This is true, but not a reason to leave the Union or go to war. In a democracy, majority rules so that if 50% of the people plus one decides through the magic of democracy, to plunder the rest of the populace, it is the “will of the people” and must be supported through the might of force.
Q: The Soviet Union split up not too long ago. The countries that wished to go were allowed to depart in peace. Why wasn’t the South allowed to do that?
A. The Soviet Union spit up for economic reasons. Remember again that “it’s all about slaveryR” The simple explanation is that the South didn’t have a good reason to leave.
Q: Virginia seceded from the Union. West Virginia seceded from Virginia. Article IV, Section III states that “no new State 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 Legislature of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.” Why then was Virginia not allowed to secede and West Virginia was?
A. The people of West Virginia stated that they did not want to be part of Virginia anymore. The “will of the people” trumps everything including the Constitution.
Q: Then why wasn’t the will of Virginia and other states granted when they wanted to secede?
A. As noted above "It's all about slaveryR"
Q. I think I am beginning to see. If the cause is good enough, then nothing else, like civility, the Constitution, the law, or anything matters. Correct?
A. Correct.
dware4dixie@gmail.com
Q: What is the Sesquicentennial?
A: The period of time between 2011-2016 when the United States will commemorate the war that was necessary to free slaves held in bondage by the states of the South who refused to end the practice.
Q: Were the states of the South warned about abolishing slavery before the war?
A: There were numerous indications that slavery was not working. Nat Turner led a rampage through Southampton County, the people of Haiti threw out the French and set up their own nation, and John Brown, financed by six valiant people of the North sparked an incident which should have led to slave uprisings and the annihilation of the South.
Q: Was purchased emancipation seriously tried?
A: Not really, it was economically unviable. The value of slaves has been estimated in today’s dollars at around 16 trillion dollars. It was cheaper to wage war and destruction. There was an added benefit in that precedents were set to align the United States Constitution into the path of unlimited government power that we have today. Further, the war removed the Southern obstacle to proper land use, which is to take every piece of land out of production and use it for commercial and industrial purposes. This is much more efficient and profitable and creates wealth.
Q: Is there any inconsistency between American concern for the Southern slave and the apparent indifference to the death of 46,000 Iraqi children between January and August 1991 due to U. S. sanctions as reported in the “New England Journal of Medicine?”
A: Not at all, remember “it’s all about slavery R .” Africans were owned by Southerners. In Iraq, the people who regrettably died as a result of necessary U. S. action died for a cause. We had to get rid of weapons of mass destruction, later get rid of Sadam Hussein, later establish Democracy and promote stability. These are all acceptable actions for a nation that has been blessed by Providence to know what is best and never makes mistakes. Remember, no Americans were killed by the sanctions; that is what is important.
Q: Didn't New Englanders sell the slaves to the South?
A: Yes. Northern interests did ply the slave trade. Later when Northern states freed their slaves, Northern states sold their slaves down South to keep from losing money.
Q: Well, today the supplier is always blamed for ills. The "greedy developer" causes unwanted population growth by building houses, the drug dealer causes people to take drugs because he supplies the drugs. Why didn't the North cause slavery in this sense?
A. Slavery is different.
Q: Weren’t Americans killed in the “Civil” War?
A: Yes, but just on the Union side. The others were traitors fighting against the will of the people and to keep Africans enslaved. Because the war freed the slaves, it was all “worth it.” Again, remember: “the ends justify the means.”
Q: President Lincoln did not get one electoral vote in the South and in 1861; the South was paying 80% of the Federal Budget. What about this?
A: This is true, but not a reason to leave the Union or go to war. In a democracy, majority rules so that if 50% of the people plus one decides through the magic of democracy, to plunder the rest of the populace, it is the “will of the people” and must be supported through the might of force.
Q: The Soviet Union split up not too long ago. The countries that wished to go were allowed to depart in peace. Why wasn’t the South allowed to do that?
A. The Soviet Union spit up for economic reasons. Remember again that “it’s all about slaveryR” The simple explanation is that the South didn’t have a good reason to leave.
Q: Virginia seceded from the Union. West Virginia seceded from Virginia. Article IV, Section III states that “no new State 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 Legislature of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.” Why then was Virginia not allowed to secede and West Virginia was?
A. The people of West Virginia stated that they did not want to be part of Virginia anymore. The “will of the people” trumps everything including the Constitution.
Q: Then why wasn’t the will of Virginia and other states granted when they wanted to secede?
A. As noted above "It's all about slaveryR"
Q. I think I am beginning to see. If the cause is good enough, then nothing else, like civility, the Constitution, the law, or anything matters. Correct?
A. Correct.
posted by Chuck Demastus at
10:34 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home