by Lanny Carruthers:

Part 4 of 6: Reconstruction

Once the War to Prevent Southern Independence was over, two forms of society were forced into a single country again. Radical Republican leader Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania proposed, unsuccessfully, that all former Confederates lose the right to vote for five years. In Arkansas rebel votes were denied the right to vote beginning in 1865 until a ruling by the Arkansas Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. However, radicals adopted a new Arkansas constitution in 1868 which enfranchised blacks and disenfranchised rebels. It lasted until the Brooks-Baxter feud in 1874 between two rival Republican factions resulted in a new state constitution in 1875.

The Military Reconstruction Acts of 1867 were passed; they divided the South into five military districts with military leadership composed of former Union generals. The State of Tennessee was exempt from Reconstruction due to the large number of Union supporters and the fact that Tennessee had agreed to most of the demands from Radical Republicans enforcing Reconstruction (sounds like an Obamacare exemption). This military apparatus was used by Radical Republicans of the North to impose one form of society upon another form of society, in ways that would make most dictators envious.


By evidence of historical facts, buried in libraries, that are not taught in grade school and college classrooms, the country we know today is actually the forced creation of a country never envisioned by our founding fathers and the Constitution. Theoretically, all of the growth of government and a majority of laws since approximately 1861 could be ruled unconstitutional, and the United States could be deemed a dictatorship. After all, even the Russians and Venezuelans have elections. The President ignored a Supreme Court justice’s decision overturning his order suspending the writ of habeas corpus, and over the next few years allowed these new restrictions. He also imposed martial law in some border areas and curbed freedom of speech and the press. The aforementioned president was Abraham Lincoln…not President Trump.

Why were millions of acres of land granted to railroad companies instead of sold to railroad companies to fund Reconstruction and opportunities to freed blacks between 1850 and 1871? Banks believed that it would take years for railroad companies to repay their debts, and were reluctant to loan the railroad companies money. Besides, the war-ravaged railroads across the South needed to be rebuilt, and the region was broke. The only banks were operated by the Northeastern bankers controlled by the Radical Republicans. All ties together huh!?!  Land grants were received by railroads, and part of the land was sold to fund railroad construction. And to think President Trump was criticized for ending government overreach and returning government seized lands back to the State of Utah. Ironically many of these land grants to railroad companies were located in former Confederate states as evidenced by the Library of Congress map below.

(http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandact...

The railroads were built to help ship Northern goods to rebuild the South that was destroyed by Sherman, Sheridan and the Union Army at Southern expense. Just think about all the billions spent by the U.S. to rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq after U.S. attacks.

https://www.thetrumptimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Lanny.jpg 730w" sizes="(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" width="300" height="198" />

Remember that plan about developing the West to be sympathetic to the North? Well it finally manifested itself during Reconstruction. The North expedited the development of the western territories at government expense, more so the people’s expense, with the help of subsidized railroad companies. This allowed the North to indoctrinate the western territories and impose the Northern form of society in what amounts to a territorial conquest. This development was not done by private investment groups or pioneers, but by the government pouring money into development.  (More on government directed and funded development in the next part of this series.)  In this way, the government could keep the southerners in check and force the Northern form of society on the defeated South.  Sounds eerily similar to the Democrats’ plan with illegal immigration today.

Andrew Carnegie has been celebrated as a great industrialist, and he amassed great wealth.  Carnegie and other Northern industrialists, such as shipping and railroad magnate Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller who controlled oil and other derivatives, as well as J. P. Morgan who controlled finance in the North recognized the South’s threat to their Northern interests in the late 1800s.  Does JPMorgan Chase & Co. ring a bell?  They devised the “Pittsburg-plus” system of charging higher rates to Southerners as opposed to Northern interests.  In 1889, when Andrew Carnegie toured the Southern steel industry in Birmingham, Alabama, he declared, “The South is Pennsylvania’s most formidable industrial enemy.”

Ten years later Carnegie’s mills were merged with and became the largest component of Pittsburgh-based U. S. Steel.  Six years later U. S. Steel acquired the largest Southern steel mills.  Carnegie then imposed what was called the “Birmingham Differential” of $3 per ton over the Pittsburgh quote.  To further dampen Alabama steel production, buyers of Birmingham steel were required to pay freight from Birmingham, plus a phantom charge as if the shipments were shipped from Pittsburgh.  President Woodrow Wilson’s administration, through the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), investigated the matter and concluded that Birmingham’s steel production costs were the lowest in the country and 26% below those of Pittsburgh. Yet U. S. Steel continued to require a $3 per ton “Birmingham Differential” on Alabama steel, which was raised to $5 after 1920.

It was not until a serious study was conducted in 1939, that rates for the same service in the South were found to be 39% higher than in the North, while those in the Southwestern region (Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas and part of New Mexico) were determined to be 75% higher. The differentials were so discriminatory that remote Northern manufacturers could ship finished goods into the South at lower cost than Southern makers of the same items could distribute them within their own region. Three years later Carnegie demonstrated that racism was not limited to Southerners when he objected to black suffrage by saying, “Blacks were steeped in ignorance of political responsibilities to a degree impossible for northern people to imagine.” [Ezell, 182].

American Sugar, based in New York, controlled 98% of the refined market and sold under the still-familiar Domino brand.  They and other companies perpetuated the South’s dependence upon imports, or Northern tariff-protected manufacturers, for finished goods. These are just a few of many industrial and economic schemes to promote the Northern form of society against the South.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines civil war as, “a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country.” Typically, civil wars are internal wars of the same country for control of government and society. To call the U.S.Civil War a civil war is a miscarriage of justice and history. While both sides had opposing views, only one side was fighting to control and impose its societal view – the North.  The South wanted nothing to do with the Union, and desired a peaceful secession, as evidenced in Hayne’s letters to President Buchanan before the War.

The South had an opposing view from the North on many issues…not just one. The South decided there was no compromise attainable and no reconciling of differences with the North, evidenced by many failed attempts. Therefore, the Southern states decided they wanted no part of the Union, no part of that form of society and seceded. I will leave it up to you what to call this war, but the War to Prevent Southern Independence sounds fitting. Or as Sen. Mason of Virginia aptly described it, “A war of sentiment and opinion by one form of society against another form of society.”

I went through a long history of the events surrounding Secession and what many consider the Civil War due to the complexity and general educational misconduct in teaching this era of American history. The modern day educational misconduct is called “contextualizing.” Contextualizing shapes history to fit one’s own narrative. As you read, I like to use records and documented quotes from people “back in the day(s)” and let them speak for themselves. You can say I used the ancestor of Twitter. You can’t delete history, unlike Twitter; you can only overlook what you don’t want to see.

Coming up next: Two Roosevelts, the New Deal Program/TVA, and Civil Rights Era.

Views: 21

Comment

You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

LIGHTER SIDE

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester

ALERT ALERT

Newt Says What The Rest Of Us Are Thinking:
It’s Time To Throw Peter Strzok In Jail

Disgraced FBI special agent Peter Strzok, a senior member of the bureau who gained notoriety in recent months over his anti-Trump text messages to a colleague, was grilled for nearly 10 hours during a joint congressional committee hearing on Thursday.

At issue was Strzok’s anti-Trump texts to former FBI lawyer and lover Lisa Page that coincided with his leading of the investigations into both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server scandal and the alleged Trump/Russia 2016 election collusion, as well as his involvement in the subsequent Robert Mueller special counsel probe.

The hearing proved to be a heated battle, as Strzok displayed an arrogant smugness in defiance of pointed questions from Republicans that he largely danced around, while Democrats sought to upend and undermine the entire hearing with a plethora of interruptions, parliamentary maneuvers and outright praise for the man who helped let Clinton off the hook while ferociously targeting Trump.

Former House speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was less than impressed with Strzok’s performance and cooperation in the hearing and suggested during an appearance on Fox Business that the FBI agent should be held in contempt of Congress.

“I think they have to move to hold him in contempt and throw him in jail,” Gingrich said of Congress and Strzok.

“This is a person who is willfully standing up and refusing to appear as a congressional witness and he was a government employee at the time,” he continued.

“He has every obligation to inform the legislative branch, and I don’t think they have any choice except to move a motion of contempt because he is fundamentally — and so is his girlfriend (Page) — they’re both fundamentally in violation of the entire constitutional process,” he added.

Page had been subpoenaed to appear before Congress on Wednesday but refused to appear, saying she’d been unable to review relevant documents prior to the scheduled hearing, a closed-door hearing that has since been rescheduled for Friday.

Gingrich was not the only one who thought Strzok deserved to be held in contempt of Congress, as House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte informed Strzok that he remained at risk of such during the hearing, according to The Daily Caller.

That warning from Goodlatte came after Strzok had refused to answer a straightforward question posed by House Oversight Committee chairman Trey Gowdy, regarding how many people Strzok had personally interviewed between a specific set of dates in relation to the Clinton email investigation.

“Mr. Strzok, please be advised that you can either comply with the committee’s direction to answer the question or refuse to do so,” Goodlatte stated. “The latter of which will place you in risk of a contempt citation and potential criminal liability. Do you understand that? The question is directed to the witness.”

Strzok still refused to answer, citing instructions received from his counsel and the FBI to not answer certain questions on certain topics.

Goodlatte replied, “Mr. Strzok, in a moment we will continue with the hearing, but based on your refusal to answer the question, at the conclusion of the day we will be recessing the hearing and you will be subject to recall to allow the committee to consider proceeding with a contempt citation.”

It is unclear if Goodlatte and the committee ultimately did consider a contempt citation for Strzok following the contentious hearing, nor is it clear if Page will be held in contempt for blowing off her subpoenaed appearance on Wednesday.

Hopefully Congress will follow through on the threats of contempt followed by actual jail time against Strzok and Page in response to their uncooperative behavior and failure to appear when subpoenaed, if only to ensure that future witnesses called before Congress for sensitive or contentious hearings don’t think they can get away with the same sort of behavior.

TEA PARTY TARGET

Cops Sent To Seize Veteran’s Guns Without A Warrant, He Refused To Turn Them Over

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” says Leonard Cottrell, after successfully staving off law enforcement and the courts from confiscating his firearms. Cottrell, an Iraq War veteran, was at work when he received a phone call from his wife. The cops were there, busting in to take his guns away. It all started after a casual conversation his son had at school.

Ammoland reports:

Police said their visit was sparked by a conversation that Leonard Cottrell Jr.’s 13-year-old son had had with another student at the school. Cottrell said he was told his son and the other student were discussing security being lax and what they would have to do to escape a school shooting at Millstone Middle School.

The conversation was overheard by another student, who went home and told his parents, and his mother panicked. The mom then contacted the school, which contacted the State Police, according to Cottrell.

The visit from the troopers came around 10 p.m. on June 14, 2018, Cottrell said, a day after Gov. Phil Murphy signed several gun enforcement bills into law.

After several hours, Cottrell said police agreed not to take the guns but to allow him to move them to another location while the investigation continued.

“They had admitted several times that my son made no threat to himself or other students or the school or anything like that,” he said.

Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was “not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing.”

The troopers searched his son’s room and found nothing, Cottrell said.

“To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” he said. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

“In the Garden State, the usual approach is to confiscate first and ask questions later, and victims of this approach often don’t know their rights. ‎In this case, the victim pushed back and confiscation was avoided — but the circumstances surrounding the incident are outrageous. A student expressing concern over lack of security is not a reason to send police to the student’s home — but it might be a reason to send police to the school to keep students and teachers safe” said Scott L. Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and a member of the NRA board of directors.

NJ.com adds:

Cottrell, a disabled U.S. Army veteran who served three tours during “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” owns a shotgun and a pistol. He has all the correct permits to own the firearms, he said, and predominately uses the shotgun to hunt.

He said his wife allowed the officers to enter the home, and with her permission, they searched his son’s room — but they did not find any weapons, he said. The officers, he said, didn’t have a warrant but still wanted to take his guns. Cottrell wouldn’t let them.

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” he said Thursday.

He said the attempted seizure resulted because of a new law Gov. Phil Murphy signed into law that makes it easier for police to confiscate guns when someone in the state poses a threat to themselves or others. The law is part of a broader statewide effort to make New Jersey’s gun laws even tougher amid the national outcry for more gun control in the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Cottrell said the officers “danced around the issue” when he confronted them about the new law.

A New Jersey State Police spokesman declined to answer questions about whether this incident had anything to do with the new gun laws.

In an email, Sgt. First Class Jeff Flynn said, “Troopers responded to Mr. Cottrell’s residence in reference to the report of a possible school threat. Based on their investigation, it was determined that Mr. Cottrell’s weapons did not need to be seized.”

David Codrea, writing for Ammoland, further added:

To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” New Jersey gun owner and Army veteran Leonard Cottrell Jr. told New Jersey 101.5 after a June 14 visit from State Police,. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

Cottrell was recalling state troopers showing up at his door to confiscate firearms after his 13-year-old son was overheard discussing lax school safety with a friend.

Indoctrinated by a pervasive snitch culture — one that never seems to deter the blatantly obvious demonic nutjobs — the eavesdropping student told his parents, who told school administrators, who in turn called the cops. (Note “If you see something, say something” carries risks of its own – if you report the wrong person, you could end up smeared as a “hater.”)

“Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was ‘not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing,’” the report continued. Despite that, his home is now a “gun free zone” and that has been publicized by the media. He has, in fact, willingly ceded those rights, and by his own words in order to make authorities “happy.”

Before judging him for that, consider the environment that is New Jersey. Then consider the overwhelming force the state can bring to bear, and its predisposition to using it, especially if it’s to enforce citizen disarmament. It’s easy to anonymously declare “Molon Labe” on the internet. In meatspace, resistance is more effective when the aggressor doesn’t get to dictate the time and place, especially if that place is your home and you have family inside.

Appeasing gun-grabbers, generally couched as “compromise,” is impossible. It’s like throwing a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of jackals and expecting them to be sated and leave you alone — instead of sensing opportunity and fear, and moving in closer.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service