Search Blog Posts

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

A Hatred of Democracy was the Real Cause of the Republican War on the South

This snippet from Facts & Falsehoods should dispel any myths you may have learned about Lincoln in government school. Furthermore, it brings out into the bright sunshine why the GOP fascists and neocons in the Party idolize the same Lincoln that Obama identifies with! 

The enemies of liberty today we call "corporatists" and "neocons" are merely the extension of the Mercantilist and Monarchist mindset of the Hamilton era. The tyranny installed on the American people in 1860 still reigns today. Clears up any mystery you might have had about Hamilton being on our $10 Federal Reserve Note, eh? Beware!
1st Posted by Charleston Voice on 01.18.2012

CHAPTER XXI, pgs 135-138

Save the Union, Free Slaves the Pretext, Not the Purpose, of'.'. the War on the South. Real Cause, Hatred of Democracy. Mr. A. K. Fisk, a distinguished Republican, throws some light on the relationship of the two parties, Hamilton's and Jefferson's; in other words, the party favoring Monarchy and the party favoring Democracy, the rule of the people.

"Hamilton and Jefferson," says Fisk in the North American Review of April, 1879, Pa£e 410, "represent the two opposing ideas which prevailed at the time our Government was formed, and which, with some variations, have been the basis of our political divisions into parties ever since, and have been involved in all the contests and controversies in our constitutional career. Hamilton embodied the tendency to a centralization of power in the national Government. There is no doubt that he would have preferred a monarchy. Jefferson, on the other hand, represented the demand for a complete diffusion of sovereignty among the people, and its exercise locally and in the States, and the confining of national functions as closely as possible under the most restrictive interpretation of the Constitution."
Mr. Fisk admits that Hamilton, the monarchist, represented the party which opposed the sovereignty of the people. A writer in the St. Louis Globe-Democrat, a staunch advocate of Hamilton's strong government doctrines, in that paper, March 6, 1898, made this significant comment:

"The resemblance between Hamilton and Lincoln is so . close no one can resist it. Hamilton is dwarfed by no man. A just parallel of Hamilton and Lincoln will show them alike in many ways. They were alike almost to the point of identity. Hamilton's work made Lincoln's possible."
Hamilton's monarchic principles certainly made Lincoln's work possible. Lincoln put in practice what Hamilton had advocated. 

Hamilton made no concealment of his monarchic principles; he preferred a monarchy such as England has, but failing that he wanted a President for life and the Governors of States appointed by the President. Until seated in the White House, Lincoln talked Democracy and affected great esteem for Jefferson's Democratic principles.

As soon as he held in his grip the machinery of government, he schemed for absolute power, and as soon as he was commander in chief of nearly 3,000,000 armed men, no imperial despot in pagan time ever wielded more autocratic power than did Abraham Lincoln, and Republican writers of today are so imbued with imperialism they laud and glorify Lincoln for his usurpation of power.
Although well informed Republicans know that the war on the South was waged neither to save the Union nor to free slaves, it does not suit that party to be candid on this subject. Now and then, however, some Republican forgets the party's policy of secrecy and tells the truth. That boldly imperialistic Republican journal, the Globe-Democrat, of St. Louis, in its issue of April 9, 1900, had an article which uncovers facts, even to the foundation stones, on which rested the war of the 6o's. Consider the following:

"Lincoln, Grant and the Union armies gave a victory to Hamiltonism (Monarchy) when it subjugated the Confederates (Democrats) in the South. (This is strictly true; it was a victory over Democracy by Monarchy.) The cardinal doctrines of Democracy are the enlargement of the power of the States. All the prodigious energies of the war could not extinguish these. The lesson of the war was extreme and extraordinary, and yet in a sense ineffective."
Ineffective, because it did not crush out the very life of Democracy. 

Monarchists always appear to be ignorant of the fact that there is a streak of divinity in Democracy which can not be killed. Monarchy a thousand and ten thousand times has fancied it has forever put an end to Democracy, but sooner or later it rises up, fronts and fights for the rights of humanity with all its power.

"The Democrats," continues the Globe-Democrat, "have been since the war more strenuous than before in insisting on the preservation of the power of the States."

The cardinal doctrine of the Democratic party has not been, since the formation of the Union, the enlargement of State power, but has been the preservation of the power reserved to the States by the Constitution. The cardinal power of the Republican party, since the day Mr. Lincoln assumed the Presidency, has been the enlargement of executive power. No well-informed man can deny this.

"If there was no absurd sentiment," says the Globe-Democrat, "about the privileges of the States there would be no campaign on imperialism."

Had there been no absurd "sentiment" about human freedom in 1776 there would have been no campaign against the English King.

"Back of all opposition," continues the Globe-Democrat, "to imperialism, whatever form it takes, is the old doctrine that the rights reserved by the Constitution to the States are being invaded."

This is strictly true. What shadow of right had or has imperialists to encroach on the rights reserved by the Constitution, to the States? Such encroachment is an audacious usurpation of, power and a dishonest violation of the original contract between the States and the Federal Union.

"The old Federals," says the Globe-Democrat,, "fought it (Democracy) valiantly, but it was reserved for the Republican party to conquer it."

Had the Republican party fought in the open, as did -the old Federals, it never would have defeated Democracy. HaoMt fought in the open, exposing its monarchic principles, the people of the Northern States never would have aided it to crush and conquer Democracy. From its birth in 1854, the has fought behind a mask. Its imperial features have never, been uncovered and exposed to the people's gaze. It has ever.posed before the people as the champion of the people's rights..

The following extracts, mostly taken from S. D. Carpenter's Logic of History, show New England's continued hate of the Union. In Massachusetts' State convention, 1851, it was—

"Resolved, That the one issue before the country is dissolution of the Union, in comparison with which all other issues are as dust in the balance; therefore, we have given ourselves to the work of annulling this covenant with death." In 1856 Lloyd Garrison in a speech loudly declared: "I have said, and I say again, that in proportion to the growth of disunion will be the growth of the Republican cause. This Union is a lie!"
James S. Pike, appointed Minister to the Netherlands, said:.

"This Union is not worth supporting in connection with the South."

Frederick Douglas, half negro, half white, a great man,in the Republican party, in a speech said:

"From this time forth I consecrate the labor of my life to the dissolution of the Union, and I care not whether the bolt that rends it shall come from heaven or from hell!" Loud and long applause.

These were the sentiments, so far as I can learn, of .every man in the Republican party....

{snippet from : Facts & Falsehoods concerning the War on the South, 1861-1865, George Edmonds, 1904]

Read: Chapter 16: The Roots of Hate: How the Republican Party Created a Hatred for the South

My print softcover copy I purchased