The SNC Voice blog
In his monograph on "Secession and the Modern State," Professor Donald W. Livingston wrote,
History shows that the logic of the modern state is such that every attempt to limit its growth by reforming the center leads to an increase in its power.… Reagan and Margaret Thatcher sought to reduce the size of the central government; but when they left, its powers were much greater than before.
This blog is not about any reformation of the central government, rather it is about replacing it from the ground up. It has lost its moral legitimacy by becoming an oppressive empire. Its time in the sun is gone. Smaller republics need to take its place. We are here to speak for the southern eastern States of the North American continent. This is the SNC Voice.
Tuesday, 28 May 2013
by David O Jones
The Empire is now compelled to do everything it can to protect itself from citizens, while refusing to protect citizens from evil.
This is my third post on the attributes of a tyrant as explained by Junius Brutus in his Vindiciae Contra Tyrranos (A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants), written in 1579. While written to the French king, the public was given a good presentation of what to be vigilant for in their civil leadership.
He summarizes the actions of a tyrant versus a just king by writing, Those whom a good king maintains and defends against a foreign enemy, a tyrant (the enemy of nature) compels to turn the points of their swords into their own body.
In their divergent attitudes and actions in national defense:
A tyrant fills his garrisons with strange soldiers; he builds citadels against his subjects; he disarms the people, throws down their forts and makes himself formidable with guards of strangers, or men only fit for pillage and spoil.
In contrast, a just king rests his safety in the love of his subjects than in the strength of his fortresses. He accounts every subject as a man-at-arms to guard him. He builds forts to restrain the invasions of foreign enemies, and not to constrain his subjects to obedience.
Remember that the first president of the United States, George Washington warned against foreign entanglements.
A tyrant makes wars abroad. He always prepares for, or threatens war, or, at least, seems so to do.
A just king never makes war, unless compelled to it, and for the preservation of the public and never enters into any war that exposes the commonwealth to more danger that it affords probable hope of public interest.
Our current War on Terror is a fine example of the above. A specific target has never been selected, thus an end can never be determined. Also, our interference in the middle-east has cost us our security at home. Muslim violence was never a threat to local safety until our Emperors decided to kill Muslim families abroad.
A tyrant employs a multitude of guards around himself to drive off throngs of people from approaching them, yet doubts, jealousies and distrusts continually afflict and terrify his timid conscience.
A just king is free from doubts or fears, and not troubled with anxious distrust. To him, all places are equally secure.
With broad bipartisan support (the House vote was 399-3), the Federal Restricted Building and Grounds Improvement Act was signed into law on 8 March 2012. It basically criminalized public protest against any federal politician – if you get too close and he doesn’t like it. The vote would suggest that all but three of the Empire’s congressmen and women are in favor of tyranny and oppose a full right to free speech.
Brutus finally gives a summary of his comparisons of the tyrant to the true king – The tyrant would pretend to be what the true king is.
Posted on 05/28/2013 4:10 PM by David O Jones
Friday, 24 May 2013
by David O Jones
Tyranny has overtaken us unawares.
The road which tyrants travel is one of subtle degrees of change. Hitler rose to power by the votes of an electorate which yearned for a peaceful and prosperous Germany. Subtle degrees of change is the road which is historically successful.
Because the tyrant displays himself as one thing while being another, then gradually changing his methodology, the public seldom recognizes those slight changes as they occur.
Because a people have the opportunity to elect their leaders, they have a tendency to neglect how a tyrant thinks and acts. The electorate cannot easily accept the fact that they have imposed the tyranny upon themselves.
As I promised in my last post, I will return to Vindiciae Contra Tyrranos (A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants). It was written in 1579 that the French king might understand his responsibility in ruling. The third chapter lists a variety of comparisons of attitudes and actions between tyrants and “just kings.”
Today I provide some examples of the treatment of citizens domestically.
In his action toward assemblies outside his control:
A tyrant prohibits or avoids all public assemblies, fearing parliaments, religious assemblies and meetings of any legislature. In contrast, a just king “converses always as in the presence of men and angels” and honours and respects assemblies with much favour and affection.
On the morning of his last inauguration, Emperor Obama refused to go to a prayer breakfast where the speaker was known for his adherence to Biblical principle. Our previous Emperor Bush II promoted rules which made any public demonstration against him a crime. When he appeared in Nashville’s Opryland Hotel, demonstrators were kept a good half-mile away. The limitations on our freedom of speech and assembly has been by subtle degrees of change.
A tyrant nourishes and feeds factions and dissentions; a just king always endeavors to keep peace among his subjects.
The partisanship and animosity between the parties and ideologies has reached epic proportions. When one changes another with misdeeds, the response is an ad hominem attack on the attacker – not addressing the issue, but simply deriding the attacker.
A tyrant eaves no design unattempted by which he may fleece his subjects of their substance, and turn it to his own benefit that they may have no leisure and no hope to being able to regain their liberty. A just king believes he is possessed of a great treasure, as long as his subjects flow in all abundance.
The last time we heard “no new taxes,” some actually believed the speaker (Emperor Bush I). Every administration including the revered Reagan has increased the tax burden upon the people. The taxation has been not only directly but more effectively through the inflation of a fiat currency. What fourteen cents could buy in 1967, takes one dollar today. This devaluation of our currency has been slow and by subtle degrees of change.
Will you take the time to ponder the changes in your life because of the rise of the Empire?
Posted on 05/24/2013 11:30 AM by David O Jones
Tuesday, 21 May 2013
Q. How can you tell when a politician is lying?
Remember when the above was a joke? Now the actual practice is so common-place that there is no humour in the joke!
The Empire has become a haven of liars, thieves, and deceivers.
In 1579, a French Huguenot, under the pseudonym of Junius Brutus, wrote Vindiciae Contra Tyrranos which is translated as A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants. It was an attempt to instruct the French King on his legitimate authority over his subjects.
Because it could be applied to any tyrant, the treatise maintained a popularity among those seeking an ordered Christian liberty. John Adams considered it to be one of the most influential books in America on the eve of the Revolution.
In the third chapter, the author compares the inclinations, thoughts, and actions of a tyrant to a true king. Here are three of the comparisons of their attitudes. (I’ll give you comparisons of their actions in my next post.)
In his attitude toward other officials:
A tyrant “lops off the ears which grow higher than the rest of the corn, especially where virtue makes them most conspicuously eminent;” oppresses the principal officers by slander and fraudulent practice; and reports intended conspiracies against himself, so that he might have some plausible pretext to cut them off.
Because of the virulent partisan contention in Washington, we would have to go back several administrations before we could get anywhere close to the virtues of a “just king.” Emperor Obama has just taken the attitude toward those who oppose him to a new art form. He embraces liars, thieves, and deceivers.
Second is the compared attitude toward people of influence:
A tyrant promotes common and unworthy persons to applaud and apply themselves to the fulfilling of all his loose and unruly desires, while a just king maintains every man in his rank, honouring and respecting the noblemen as the kingdom’s friends, desiring their good as well as his own.
Third is the attitude toward wisdom and honesty:
A tyrant hates and suspects discreet and wise men, and fears no opposition more than virtue because it makes his own vicious courses more obvious. He believes that his own security consists principally in a general corruption of all men. A just king differs by attracting honest and able men from all places and encouraging them by appropriate pensions and honours.
In the Declaration of Independence, we read, He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. What was true of King George in 1776 is now true today. Emperor Obama has promoted and appointed hundreds of liars, thieves, and deceivers to harass our people.
Are you ready to declare your independence?
by David O Jones, Chairman of the Southern National Congress
Posted on 05/21/2013 2:50 PM by David O Jones
Friday, 17 May 2013
By David O Jones
I am consistently questioned as to why we should want or need a Southern National Congress.
The Empire has become abusive and needs to be challenged. The challenge needs to come from the only part of the continent which still clings to some absolutes. We could do better without the Empire.
The States which formed the old Confederacy were of a different origin and mindset than those of the North. The Southern “A type” personality thinks of the bottom line in terms of: It this good and/or pleasant for me and my neighbors, my community? To the Northerner the bottom line is strictly confined to the pragmatic dollar or the utilitarian benefit.
The late Grady McWhiney in his book Cracker Culture summarized in these words:
The Celts brought with them to the Old South leisurely ways that fostered idleness and gaiety, a society in which people favored the spoken word over the written and enjoyed such sensual pleasures as drinking, smoking, fighting, gambling, fishing, hunting, and loafing. In Celtic Britain and in the antebellum South family ties were much stronger than in England and in the antebellum North…values were more agrarian.
Relaxed, agrarian, and family-oriented…that’s the South. When confronted with political and economic ideas and arguments, Southerners are more prone to reflect on the effect upon their community and their children and grandchildren, rather than what immediate financial or power advantage is available. We would be better off without the Empire.
In addition, the South still clings to the tenets of the Christian faith which include a loyalty to ordered liberty and the God ordained rights of life, liberty and property.
The Southern National Congress will continue to provide thoughtful responses and proposals for the benefit of the Southern people. It would be wonderful if the Empire would listen. If not, we are happy to govern ourselves without them.
Do you have an issue which you feel is important? Contact one of us at the SNC.
Posted on 05/17/2013 12:00 PM by David O Jones
Tuesday, 14 May 2013
by Kirkpatrick Sale
Secession is a core principle of decentralism and self-determination, having to do with the distribution of power, approximate self-government, and the proper scale of human endeavors.
People are starting to talk about secession in these not-very-United States, and for the most part taking the concept seriously. It’s the first time it has been a genuine subject in American public discourse, says Emory University secession scholar Donald Livingston, since the war of Southern Independence ended in 1865.
So it’s no surprise that a lot of people have completely misunderstood it, and that the nerve in their knees often impels them to declare it illegal and unconstitutional. Robert Schlesinger, a columnist for U.S. News, is typical: under a headline “Texas Can’t Secede,” he wrote that “one third of the voters think the state has the legal right to secede from the Union.” Then went on to scold them for being so ignorant.
But the plain truth is that Texas has the right to secede as do the other 49.
In fact, there has never been a real question about the legitimacy of secession.
Of course it is true that the particular secession of 1861-65 did not succeed, but that didn’t make it illegal or even unwise. It made it a failure, that’s all. The victory by a superior military might is not the same thing as the creation of a superior constitutional right. The question was decisively decided in the negative by an autocratic, unconstitutional usurpation of power and the waging of a deadly war that defied all civilized standards of warfare.
Amid all the talk today, it will be necessary for those who know history and the Constitution to refute those who throw up the rhetoric of “illegal” and “unconstitutional” and the like so that we can get on to an examination of its particular merits.
Secession is not necessarily the immediate answer for everyone everywhere. But it is something that should rightly be considered, thoughtfully and thoroughly, by many of the states and regions that see themselves as illegitimately being pushed around and dictated to and mishandled by a central government that has proven itself to be undemocratic, unresponsive, corrupt, inept, and unduly intrusive, at times unlawful and unconstitutional, and essentially unable to govern at the geographic and population scale to which we have grown.Looked at it that way, it’s about the only thing that makes sense.
Posted on 05/14/2013 8:00 AM by Kirkpatrick Sale
Tuesday, 07 May 2013
by Wayne D. Carlson
The Antifederalists feared that in seeking to correct the mistake of giving too much power to the State governments, under the Articles of Confederation, the "Federalists" were now making the same mistake by giving too much power to the Federal government.
Marshall L. DeRosa has noted that "The Antifederalists were convinced that it had been demonstrated, historically and theoretically, that free republican governments could extend over only a relatively small territory with a homogenous population and even among states this rule was evident, for the largest states were the worst governed."
M.E. Bradford in Founding Fathers identified the pro-Constitution (Federalist) forces as comprising four rather distinct groups.
Antifederalists in the Pennsylvania ratification convention objected: "The powers vested in Congress by this constitution, must necessarily annihilate and absorb the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the several states, and produce from their ruins one consolidated government, which from the nature of things will be an iron-handed despotism."
What have we become today?
John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, understood by many to be the foremost political thinker and philosopher in American history, clearly stated the question the Federalists were afraid to broach and that we must continue to ask today. Calhoun said,
Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or a consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting ultimately on the solid basis of sovereignty of the States or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimitedness, in which injustice, and violence, and force must finally prevail.
Participation in and submission to the Constitution was premised on the voluntary consent of the various States that ratified it. The founders promised us a government that would protect and preserve the liberties of the people and the prerogatives of the States.
Do we not have the moral obligation to insist that the federal government abide by the conditions in the original compact?
Posted on 05/07/2013 8:00 AM by Wayne D Carlson
Friday, 03 May 2013
by Wayne D. Carlson
During its ratification, the U.S. Constitution was not a popular document.
In the great debates that occurred in each of the 13 Independent Republics, to consider the momentous question of rejection or ratification of the newly proposed Constitution in 1787, there were no small number of great and learned men that vehemently opposed, and warned against, the adoption of that document. History remembers them as the "Antifederalists".
In Virginia alone, no less than "the trumpet of the Revolution", Patrick Henry stood opposed. George Mason, who is credited with writing the Virginia Bill of Rights which became the model for the Constitution's, joined him in opposition. It was Richard Henry Lee that first presented to Congress, in June of 1776, the resolution that the thirteen "United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States." He too, joined Henry and Mason in principled objection to ratification of the Constitution, as written.
As editor Isaac Kramnick states in the introduction to The Federalist Papers, "In state after state, often only a handful of votes separated the pro-Constitution forces and the defeated opponents of the Constitution. In light of the growing centralization and tyranny of the Federal government today, perhaps it is high time we considered some of the arguments of those like Henry who said, "I smell a rat."
Professor Marshall L. DeRosa, in his 1991 The Confederate Constitution of 1861:An Inquiry into American Constitutionalism, notes that the primary objection of those opposing this new Constitution, lay in its ambiguity concerning the "locus," or place, in which ultimate sovereignty resided. Sovereignty, of course, denotes supreme political authority, which the Antifederalists were anxious to preserve to their States.
Under the first Constitution called "The Articles of Confederation," there was no question where sovereignty lay. Article II expressly declared, "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence." John Adams would write, "No one thought of consolidating this vast continent under one national government." Indeed, each State had separate cultural, institutional, and religious traditions.
Their unity had only been limited to their common connection to Britain and their common struggle to free themselves from her growing threats to their liberties. These "rebel patriots" were united in the belief that liberty could only flourish when government power was restrained. Yet, by 1787, most agreed that the Articles of Confederation needed revising so that the powers of the central government could be enlarged to deal with problems that were not being addressed under the current system.
The transfer of power from the States to the central government under the proposed Constitution failed to clarify the question of whether the States retained the reserved right to reclaim their sovereign powers in the event the people felt it in their best interests to do so. It was this ambiguity that prompted the Antifederalists to insist upon the adoption of a "Bill of Rights."
The 10th Amendment, remember, declares that those powers not expressly delegated to the central government, nor prohibited to the States, were reserved to the States and the people. It seems pretty clear to me that this should have settled the question forever. The centrists and ultra Nationalists, however, chose to ignore this some 70 years later when a new generation of "rebel patriots" arose to throw off the threats to their rights and liberties. In failing, they nonetheless reminded us that a question settled by violence resolves nothing.
Wayne D. Carlson is a physical education instructor, historian, and freelance columnist. He has written for several newspapers and well known internet websites such as the Serra Times. He lives with his lovely wife in Southwestern Virginia.
Posted on 05/03/2013 10:35 AM by Wayne D Carlson
Tuesday, 30 April 2013
by Kearney Smith
The federal government's handling of illegal immigration is indefensible.
For several decades Washington has deliberately failed to enforce border security through existing law, while giving illegal aliens all the economic benefits of citizenship and ultimately granting them actual citizenship through amnesty. Since the government itself bears responsibility for the invasion, we can expect those responsible to deny that illegal immigration is a problem.
This failure of government is not merely from incompetence. The motives of many who excuse illegal entry into our country are to get cheap labor and to gain support from the growing number of potential minority voters. These are self-serving aims for the narrow political benefit of the two major parties, and can’t in good faith be openly used in defense of bad immigration policy.
Let me enumerate some of the straight-forward arguments against unregulated immigration.
The Southern National Congress’ Remonstrance on mass immigration warned among other things that “Federal power is being used to displace us as a People in our own land. It is hard to imagine anything more abusive and faithless on the part of our government and political leaders, whose legitimate function is the protection of society.”
Advocates of uncontrolled immigration are unable to refute these points with reasoned argument. Instead they resort to tactics which have no place in civil discourse. In addition to isolated special-interest groups being hostile to a reasonable discussion of illegal immigration, the Department of Homeland Security asserts that those who oppose unregulated immigration are potential threats to national security.
These observations bring me to also conclude that it is part of a mindset of the Washington Regime and the elites in mainstream media who wish to alter our society and our culture — illegal immigration is a principal device for altering our national habits, traditions, and beliefs.
As long ago as 1998 this attitude was revealed when President Clinton jubilantly proclaimed that "In a little more than fifty years there will be no majority race in the United States," and he said it is "largely because of immigration." For several decades, we have seen an intensifying assault on Christianity, traditional marriage, English as a national language, and other values that Southerners cherish.
When the fundamental law of the land is ignored or derided by those responsible for its enforcement, then we no longer live under a government of laws, we are no longer citizens of a self-governing constitutional republic. We Southerners had better look to our own traditions, our own historic principles, and our own resources for an alternative if we wish to remain a free people.
Kearney Smith is a North Carolina Delegate to the Southern National Congress.
Posted on 04/30/2013 1:10 PM by Kearney Smith
Friday, 26 April 2013
I have a firm belief that a person’s deepest-held values come from their past.
I confess that I was born in the north. And I was raised in the north.
There the teachers don’t realize they are providing propaganda instead of teaching history. I was also exposed to a way of thinking and to a lifestyle which pushes God into a box. God is seen as a very personal and discreet thing, not something you discuss with others, not something that should affect how you live or what your government does. People in the north who openly talk about God (with the exception of clergy) are looked upon as odd, kind of like the homeless — objects of pity. In the north, money is king. Materialism dominates all.
We were simple people with little in savings. My father died; my mother had to go to work. It fell to me at eight years old to raise three brothers and a sister. I asked God for help; I had no male role model to emulate. God responded by providing me one.
My grandmother, born and raised in North Carolina, gave me a book entitled Blue and Gray. It was the first book I read cover to cover, and it introduced me to Robert E. Lee. He became my role model. His character, his values, his leadership style, and his way of thinking became my models and would lead me to do the right thing. My Nanna also introduced me to my ancestor who had lost a leg at Chancellorsville as a member of the 33rd North Carolina Volunteers.
Throughout my childhood God worked, and when my senior year came I applied to the one and only school I wanted to attend. West Point would not take me. As an alternative I choose The Citadel in Charleston, South Carolina.
I did not realize how Southern I had become until I worked as an aide to politicians in New York. I left for Texas when it became obvious to me I was fighting a losing battle in New York. American liberty, as articulated in the U.S. Constitution, was dead. Republicans were no better than Democrats. Government had replaced God as the answer to all life’s questions.
Because Southern women, dialects, and music are so captivating and colorful, many are distracted from the more mundane but more meaningful aspects of being Southern. I hope as we move forward with the Southern National Congress, the knowledge of a 21st Century Southern identity will take shape.
Posted on 04/26/2013 1:18 PM by Mark Vogel
Tuesday, 23 April 2013
by Thomas Moore
Our goal with the Southern National Congress is not just to promote another organisation, but to serve as a forum where all pro-South organisations and individuals can work for the timeless principles of liberty. We hope to show in the coming months that you are not helpless, and that the situation we face, dire as it is, is not hopeless. In addition to the basic truths cited above, we will disseminate and discuss proven operational principles that have worked throughout history when free men and women were courageous and determined enough to throw off the shackles of tyranny. Our situation may be new to us in our generation, but it’s not new from an historical perspective.
These operational principles, embodied in the design of the SNC, include, among others:
Some have asked if the SNC is a secessionist effort. Quite frankly, we don’t need to be; the Empire is collapsing of its own hubris, corruption, and criminal folly. The real question is, what will follow its inevitable collapse? We in the SNC are trying to build an infrastructure that can “stand in the gap,” an instrumentality that can be used in many ways – in any way that becomes necessary -- to defend our freedom, our property, and our very lives against the criminals who run the central state.
We remind you, our fellow Southerners, that political sovereignty resides not in a particular government but in the whole People under a sovereign God. When the People are oppressed and no other redress is possible, God’s law upholds the right and the duty to organize collective means for self-defense under new leaders who will emerge from the community. Such means, like the SNC, derive their legitimacy from the commitment to the welfare of the community.
The SNC invites you to join in our discussion. I also invite you to read the resolutions passed by the First Congress in December 2008 (Actions in Congress). They’re called “Remonstrances and Petitions for the Redress of Grievances,” language drawn straight from our forefathers’ successful struggle for freedom. These resolutions petition the Federal Government to cease its abuses, usurpations, and unlawful acts in several key areas. I think you’ll be excited when you read them, and you’ll be convinced as I am that our struggle for freedom is not in vain but will succeed with this kind of power and passion behind it.
Thomas Moore was the founding Chairman of the Southern National Congress and served through 2011.
Posted on 04/23/2013 8:00 AM by Thomas Moore
Friday, 19 April 2013
by Thomas Moore
WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS...perhaps you recognize the phrase. It was penned by one of the greatest Americans and a Southerner, a fellow from Virginia by the name of Thomas Jefferson. He wrote this in the summer of 1776:
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing power in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Yes, it’s the key text from the Declaration of Independence.
The truths we hold in the SNC are the truths our forefathers fought and died for in the first war of secession and independence (1776-1781), and the second (1861-1865). At the country’s founding, Southern leaders in particular advanced the principles that formed the free Constitutional republic that once, but no longer, described the United States of America. I’m speaking of the legacy of great Southerners like Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, John C. Calhoun, and Jefferson Davis.
The political principles held by these men flowed from the recognition that there exist absolute, eternal, and immutable laws established by a Sovereign God, laws that apply to the whole sphere of human existence, including civil government and economics. On this foundation rested a fierce devotion to individual dignity and liberty. To secure that liberty, a small government under just laws was necessary, subject to checks and balances and limited strictly to its delegated and enumerated powers. That government was never to be the master but the servant and the agent of the people acting through their respective States. These distinctly Southern principles were the bedrock of the Constitution of 1789. These are the basic truths that the SNC seeks to restore, in a time when the Constitution of 1789 is a dead letter, in a time when the Federal Government is engaged in “…a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evincing a design to reduce us under absolute Despotism,” to quote again from the Declaration.
Like our forefathers, we face the tragedy of our own government turning against us, treating us first as subjects rather than citizens, then as enemies, and finally as prey. We Southerners have been among the most loyal and patriotic Americans, but now we must grieve at the folly, corruption, and lawlessness of our government, which has forfeited all moral authority. An authentic Southern voice is suppressed by official acts and a hostile culture. Our elected and appointed leaders no longer represent the people’s interests but the big corporations and money power.
Anyone who loves liberty and justice has no choice but to withdraw his consent from this corrupt Regime. However, withdrawing consent is not enough. We must create our own legitimate institutions to which we can transfer our allegiance. This is the principle behind the SNC, as it was with the First Continental Congress of 1774, our historical model.
Thomas Moore was the founding Chairman of the Southern National Congress and served through 2011.
Posted on 04/19/2013 8:00 AM by Thomas Moore
Monday, 15 April 2013
by Clyde Wilson
From the beginning of the U.S. Government, Southerners saw it as a locus of liberty, honour, and American mutuality. From its beginning, the predominant class in the North regarded the government as a source of profits. To Southerners, the Constitution was the means of the people's control over government power. To Northerners, it was an instrument to be manipulated for their advantage. This difference came to a head in the struggle between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson.
Jefferson and his friends, notable Virginians of the time like John Randolph and John Taylor, called Hamilton, John Adams, and their friends "monarchists." By this was meant not only that they favoured kingship, which they did, but also that they wanted a strong central government built on patronage to the wealthy (at the expense of the ordinary hard-working producers). This patronage was to be financed through national debt, manipulation of the currency, and various types of business subsidy, which they falsely claimed were necessary and beneficial to all Americans.
Jefferson and his friends (which, to be fair, included a valiant minority of Northerners) managed to hold Hamilton's schemes in abeyance for two generations, although the Hamiltonians never ceased to put them forward aggressively. Lincoln's conquest and near-destruction of the South established the Northern program without any effective check. Yet Jeffersonian ideals continued to wield a certain power long afterward, right up to World War II. The regime of the Republican George W. Bush and the Democrat Barack Obama (there is no real difference) have now delivered the final death blow to the system of government and to the ideals of freedom established by our forefathers. The Constitution no longer exists except as a collection of minor procedural rules. The distinction between government spending for public purposes and for private profits has been abolished, as has the distinction between federal spending for national purposes and for merely local purposes. The government is now making sure the economy is frozen so that those who are presently wealthy will remain wealthy and so that your and my children and grandchildren will pay the price in diminished life.
Only among the Southern people is there still enough allegiance to the genuine American founding principles to offer a viable alternative, but these principles can never be made real under the present evil empire.
Clyde Wilson, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of the University of South Carolina, is the South’s leading historian, prolific author, and South Carolina Delegate to the Southern National Congress.
Posted on 04/15/2013 9:30 AM by Clyde Wilson
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
What is liberty without wisdom and without virtue?