Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Elbert Guillory: "Why I Am a Republican"

If he had left out the Tyrant Lincoln BS and the asinine/erroneous D/R comparison, it would have been an excellent speech.  Other than that, he was just about perfect.

Michele Bachman Attacks Edward Snowden Calls Him A Traitor (Unbelievable)

Via NC Renegade

Goodbye, Michele, you saved your traitorous side until you decided to leave.  Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition from now on.

Michelle dear, you surprised me. At least now we know your allegiance is not to the American people nor to the US Constitution. Thanks for the clarification.


Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) let it be known loud and clear which side of the "hero" vs. "traitor" debate she falls on when it comes to NSA leaker Edward Snowden. During her questions to NSA Director Gen. Keith Alexander at Tuesday's House Intelligence Committee hearing, Bachmann called Snowden a "traitor" and urged the agency to figure out how the leaks were allowed to happen. "It seems to me that the problem here," Bachmann said, "is of an individual who worked within the system, who broke laws, and who chose to declassify highly sensitive, classified information." She wanted the NSA director to answer "how there could be a betrayal of trust and how a traitor could do something like this to the American people." She said she wants the focus of the investigation to lie in "how we can prevent something like that from ever happening again."

Bachmann asked Alexander "how damaging" Snowden's leaks were to "the national security of the American people." She also wanted to know if the information he leaked "has helped America's enemies."

Alexander called the damage caused by the leaks "irreversible and significant" and answered affirmatively that they have helped enemies of the United States. He said they will also "hurt us and our allies."

John Adams

Via Bonnie Gadsden

The right of a nation to kill a tyrant in case of necessity can no more be doubted than to hang a robber, or kill a flea. 
~ John Adams

Own The Rifle That NYPD Got Turned Down For!



Serbu Manufacturing was contacted by NYPD S.W.A.T. for a quote on this rifle, but turned them down. It was explained that if it was not legal to sell such a rifle to a New York Citizen (per the so-called "SAFE Act,") he would not consider selling it to the cops.

But YOU can have a chance of owning this superb .50 cal, semi-auto rifle! (Click on pictures to see larger). The JPFO logo is to be engraved onto the side of the action and this unique one-of-one rifle will have the serial number "JPFO 01". A letter of provenance will accompany the gun from the manufacturer, stating that this rifle is 1 of 1, and it indeed is the one that NYPD could not have.

Now, an Arizona charity is running a draw to benefit JPFO, and YOU could be the winner! Only $20 per chance! (Sorry, residents of N.Y., N.J., Wi., Ma., Ct., Ca., and any other state where it is not legal, are ineligible to participate.)

ONLY 1000 tickets will be sold for this rifle. All federal, state, and local laws will be strictly obeyed on this, and the winner must pick up the gun from his local FFL dealer. Go to purchase your chance (or chances) from the JPFO Store, or call 800-869-1884, the JPFO order line. Tell your friends - the draw is open to all and is not restricted to only one chance purchase - buy more than one!.
The drawing is to be held on September 28th 2013 in Houston, at Gun Rights Policy Conference.
NOTE: In case we omitted to notify everyone of our last draw results, which was for the SAIGA Raptor shotgun last December -- the lucky winner was a gentleman, David. H from Boulder City, near Henderson Nevada. Our thanks go to all who joined in so generously.


Serbu's description of the BFG-50A, from Serbu.com:


The BFG-50A is a magazine-fed, gas-operated .50 BMG rifle. It takes standard 10-round M-82 magazines. It has a 3-lug rotating bolt, dual plunger ejectors, sliding plate extractor, hydraulic recoil buffer. The bolt locks into a barrel extension which is threaded to the barrel. The bolt lug and barrel extension locking surfaces are helical. The gas system is similar to that used on a Ljungman AG-42 or MAS 49/56. As with our BFG-50 single-shot rifle, all our barrels are chambered with our own reamer design which allows surplus ammunition to be fired but gives far greater accuracy than can be achieved with barrels using a machine gun chamber. Barrel length: 26.0", overall length: 52.5". Rifle weighs 25 lbs unloaded. The BFG-50A uses a highly efficient 8-port "Shark Brake" muzzle brake. Barrel/barrel extension and handguard are removable to allow different barrel and handguard lengths and configurations.

Buy @ JPFO

NC: Sheriffs' lobbyist more worried about his nearly $290,000 salary than the rights of NC gun owners

It has become clear that the cabal committed to preserving NC’s embarrassing and obsolete Jim Crow-era pistol permit system is being led by NC Sheriffs' Association Executive Director, Eddie Caldwell. Not an elected Sheriff subject to the will of voters, but rather a lobbyist hired by the NCSA, he is clearly more interested in protecting his cushy job and benefits than the rights of North Carolinians.

HB 937 in jeopardy: McCrory needs spine injection
Worse, Governor Pat McCrory seems to be getting week in the knees in the face of sheriffs' demands, and has instructed the House Republican Caucus to vote not to concur and to send the bill to a House-Senate conference committee to remove the measure. What is at stake, however, is not just the purchase permit repeal, but the entire bill, including restaurant and campus carry. Why? Because if the bill goes to conference committee -- which will give the media and UNC more time to agitate, anything could be removed.

Latest round of GRNC radio spots highlight NCSA & McCrory
Caldwell is apparently trying to protect his nearly $290,000 per year compensation package after being blindsided by the purchase permit repeal addition to HB 937 in the Senate.
The whole sordid story is detailed in the GRNC video and radio spots just released HERE

Implications of conference committee
GRNC has had extensive discussions with Senate Republicans, and we are certain they were sincere in the changes to HB 937 they made. There was no deliberate effort to cut out Eddie Caldwell and NCSA from legislative plans.
Currently, there have been no indications that the Governor intends to veto the bill, but he did tell the Republican Caucus that he wants the bill sent to conference committee to change the permit provision to one which "studies" the issue. Representatives for House leadership have indicated willingness to move "a" bill, but have not committed to what will be in it.
GRNC opposes the conference committee for the following reasons: As you may or may not know, once both chambers have passed different versions of a bill, it goes back to the first chamber for concurrence. By legislative rules, a bill cannot be amended on concurrence, so removing the PPP provision could only be done by voting not to concur and then sending the bill to a conference committee comprised of members from each chamber.
There are several problems with that, not the least of which is that once it goes there, we have absolutely no control over what comes out. Added to that, the media will get additional time to beat on Republicans for weakening amendments. 

Judge: Obama sex assault comments 'unlawful command influence'

Via The Feral Irishman


Two defendants in military sexual assault cases cannot be punitively discharged, if found guilty, because of “unlawful command influence” derived from comments made by President Barack Obama, a judge ruled in a Hawaii military court this week.

Navy Judge Cmdr. Marcus Fulton ruled during pretrial hearings in two sexual assault cases — U.S. vs. Johnson and U.S. vs. Fuentes — that comments made by Obama as commander in chief would unduly influence any potential sentencing, according to a court documents obtained by Stars and Stripes.

On Wednesday and Thursday, Fulton approved the pretrial defense motions, which used as evidence comments that Obama made about sexual assault at a May 7 news conference.

“The bottom line is: I have no tolerance for this,” Obama said, according to an NBC News story submitted as evidence by defense attorneys in the sexual assault cases.

‘I expect consequences,” Obama added. “So I don’t just want more speeches or awareness programs or training, but ultimately folks look the other way. If we find out somebody’s engaging in this, they’ve got to be held accountable — prosecuted, stripped of their positions, court martialed, fired, dishonorably discharged. Period.”

The judge’s pretrial ruling means that if either defendant is found guilty, whether by a jury or a military judge, they cannot receive a bad conduct discharge or a dishonorable discharge. Sailors found guilty under the Uniform Code of Military Justice’s Article 120, which covers several sexual crimes including assault and rape, generally receive punitive discharges.


Obama’s comments could have long-term effect on sex assault cases

 President Barack Obama’s call last month for strict punishments for military sexual assault — and a military judge’s ruling that those comments from the commander in chief crossed the line — will likely have immediate impacts on sexual assault prosecutions, military legal experts said.

Navy Judge Cmdr. Marcus Fulton issued the ruling last week in two sexual assault cases just as controversy over the military’s allegedly lax handling of such cases reached a boiling point in Congress, where legislators writing next year’s defense authorization bills sparred over whether commanders should control prosecutions for sexual assaults within their chain of command.

In a pretrial ruling, Fulton ruled out punitive discharges for two defendants if convicted, citing “evidence of unlawful command influence” by Obama when he told reporters in May, “If we find out somebody’s engaging in this, they’ve got to be held accountable — prosecuted, stripped of their positions, court-martialed, fired, dishonorably discharged. Period.”

Starting now, the unlawful command influence argument will begin popping up in cases throughout the armed forces, military defense attorney Greg Rinckey predicted.

“If I’m the defense counsel, I’m going to be raising this case,” he said. “I think a defense attorney is ineffective if he doesn’t at least raise this.”


Re-post: Dillon M134

Via Cousin John


 Almost 200 years after Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo, Belgian archaeologists have unearthed the complete remains of a young soldier.

"You can almost see him dying," Belgian archeologist Dominique Bosquet said of the skeleton, lying on its back with the spherical musket ball that felled the soldier still between his ribs.

"The skeleton is intact," Mr Bosquet told RTL television.

Believed to have died June 18, 1815, the remains were found under 15 inches of soil as if the young soldier's comrades had hurriedly buried him when he fell on the battleground.

His uniform had been eaten away but archaeologists were studying a spoon, a coin, a leather strap and a piece of wood carved with the initials C.B. to see whether they might help to identify the skeleton.


On 18 June 1815 in present day Belgium took place the battle of Waterloo between the French emperor Napoleon I and the Seventh Coalition, consisting of UK, Netherlands, Hannoverian, Nassau, Brunswick, and Prussian forces.

Napoleon had escaped his exile at Elba and returned to France in March 1815. The Coalition was gathering on his northern border to invade, and his only hope was to beat them before they could concentrate. He met them at the Battle of Waterloo, which the British commander, the Duke of Wellington, called "the nearest-run thing you ever saw in your life."

Wellington was waiting on the best ground, but Napoleon fought a tough battle all day long. Late in the day, and in the nick of time, Prussian General Gebhart Leberecht ("Live-right") Bluecher caught the French from the east. It was all over for Napoleon. The Coalition restored the Bourbon claimant to the French throne, Louis XVIII, and exiled Napoleon to remote St. Helena Island with a strong and permanent guard. He died in 1821. Waterloo had been his last chance to hold onto power, & he lost.

Citadel Regimental Band & Pipes Performing "Dixie"


Hagel Plan Allows Women Into Army Rangers and Navy SEALs

 Image: Hagel Plan Allows Women Into Navy SEALs

Another brilliant idea and  they are going to lower the standards.  This ought to work swimmingly well......

Military leaders are ready to begin tearing down the remaining walls that have prevented women from holding thousands of combat and special operations jobs near the front lines.

Under details of the plans obtained by The Associated Press, women could start training as Army Rangers by mid-2015 and as Navy SEALs a year later.

The military services have mapped out a schedule that also will include reviewing and possibly changing the physical and mental standards that men and women will have to meet in order to qualify for certain infantry, armor, commando and other front-line positions across the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. Under the plans to be introduced Tuesday, there would be one common standard for men and women for each job.

More @ Newsmax

Constitutional History Lecture 1: German and British Antecedents


Senate rejects border fence

Via avordvet


Senators on Tuesday rejected building the 700 miles of double-tier border fencing Congress authorized just seven years ago, with a majority of the Senate saying they didn’t want to delay granting illegal immigrants legal status while the fence was being built.

The 54-39 vote to reject the fence shows the core of the immigration deal is holding. The vote broke mostly along party lines, though five Republicans, including Sen. Marco Rubio and the rest of the bill’s authors, voted against the fence, and two Democrats voted for it.

Was Justice Roberts Intimidated Into Voting for ‘ObamaCare’? Senator Mike Lee Presents the Evidence


 I believe he was blackmailed, otherwise there would not have been the sudden switch.


 Via avordvet

Was Justice Roberts Intimidated Into Voting for ‘ObamaCare’? 


After Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts voted to uphold the Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as “ObamaCare,” many wondered if there could be a yet-unknown reason why the Republican-nominated justice made the unexpected decision.

On the Glenn Beck radio program Tuesday, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) explained why he believes Roberts was intimidated into changing his vote late in the process, as laid out in his new book Why John Roberts Was Wrong About Healthcare.

More @ The Blaze

Constitutional Amendment Introduced to Protect Children and Parents


I am very excited to announce that we were just able to send out the following press release announcing the introduction of the Parental Rights Amendment in the 113th Congress:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE // June 18, 2013 // Washington, D.C. – Congressman Mark Meadows (R-NC) today introduced a resolution in the U.S. House to amend the United States Constitution to protect children and parents from governmental overreach. The proposed Parental Rights Amendment already has 40 original cosponsors. ParentalRights.org leads grassroots support for the measure.

“In a time when longstanding truths and traditions are being tested, we must safeguard the right of parents to direct their children’s upbringing and education,” Meadows explained. 

This amendment to our Constitution would ensure that these decisions are made not by faceless bureaucrats but by parents who love their children and know them best.

Constitutional lawyer and ParentalRights.org president Michael Farris agrees. “Traditionally the Supreme Court has held that fit parents make decisions that are in their child’s best interests. But that presumption is being eroded today in our courts and in U.N. conventions. 

More and more, judges are making decisions based on what they think is best for the child, rather than respecting the natural right of loving parents to make that call.

The proposed amendment would establish, in part, that “[t]he liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children is a fundamental right.” Other sections establish a high legal standard to protect these rights and a safeguard against international law overriding the parental role. This is the fourth consecutive Congress in which the measure has been introduced.

Support for the Parental Rights Amendment has increased through a number of high-profile incidents in recent months, including a California case in which Child Protective Services removed a baby from his parents’ custody because they sought a second medical opinion prior to heart surgery. And more recently, a bill that would assign a government worker to oversee every child from birth is being considered in Scotland in response to their obligations under the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child. Parental rights supporters believe the proposed amendment will keep such laws from ever being adopted here.

More information on the proposed Amendment, including the full text and a current list of cosponsors, is available at ParentalRights.org. (End press release.)

Action Items

If your Congressman is not yet on board, call or email his office and urge him to cosponsor this important resolution. To find contact information and to see whether he is already on board, click on your state at ParentalRights.org/States.

You might also want to tweet (on Twitter) or post to your congressman’s Facebook page urging support for the Amendment. In addition to making contact (as in a phone call or email), you will be making it public as well. Others can see that you have broached this subject with him, which often inspires a more timely response.

Also, check out our website again on Wednesday or Thursday for a bill number. Now that the bill has been introduced, a number will be assigned within the next 72 hours. As soon as that happens, we will post that number on our website so that you can use it in your correspondence with your representative.


Michael Ramey
Director of Communications & Research

The Enemy Within

Via Jack



Bob Dill, Publisher
The most frequent question asked by media and politicians since the Boston Marathon massacre is: “Why did they do it?”

The fact that this question is asked at all is an indication of the effectiveness of the politically correct pro-Islamic propaganda prom-ulgated by the Obama Administration.

The answer is clear: “These brothers are Muslims who received the call from a Jihad leader somewhere in the world to carry out a command to “Kill Infidels!”  It was a command from their god. They surely felt honored to be called upon to serve their master. That should not be difficult to figure out, with the facts available. Yet moronic liberals continue to say such things as: “This may be a lone act by young people like happened at Columbine.” How ignorant!

Frank Gafney is probably the most credible current source of factual information regarding terrorism. I met Frank when he was the top advisor on terrorism to the Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He had no peers at that time. The Vietnam War was winding down and President Carter had betrayed the Shah of Iran and assisted in installing a “Holy Man” to run that country.  Gafney was the leading edge expert.

He understands Jihad and the Islamic threat, both external and internal, to the United States. He also is outspoken about the strong influence of Islam inside the current administration.

It has been reported that Russia notified the FBI that the older brother was dangerous and should be monitored. The FBI reportedly interrogated the man at the time. He went overseas for several months and returned. Why was he not monitored?

At least one source within the intelligence community has stated on FOX News the reason there was no follow-up or “red flag” pertaining to the Muslim brothers before and after the bombings in Boston.  It was reported that the Obama Administration has had the intelligence files purged of all derogatory comments pertaining to Muslims. This is an unconfirmed report, but something Republicans in Congress should pursue.

We had no successful terrorist attacks and bombings in the United States after 9-11 during the Bush Administration. Several have occurred during the Obama Administration and all have seemed to slip through the U.S. protective system and been labeled as something other than terrorism by the Administration.

The most atrocious terrorist attack was at Ft. Hood, Texas. It had been designated “workplace violence.”  The victims have been mistreated by their government, and the killer continues to carry the rank of Major, U.S. Army and draw his Army salary plus doctor pay.

Relatives and acquaintances questioned by reporters say: “The brothers were so nice. I can’t believe they would do something like this.”  “They were framed.”

Please allow me to insert a true story of an extremely nice terrorist I knew. For six years I managed the United States Army Commissary (grocery store) system worldwide. We operated a large store in Teheran. The only Americans on cite were a Major and a Sergeant. The store manager and staff were all Iranians. The store manager was one of the most charming, courteous, likeable people I have known. He loved everything American. The Major brought him to the States every time he came back to the Pentagon and Ft. Lee, Virginia, for meetings, etc. He was so popular with the officers, civilians and spouses of the organization, that every time he came we had an elaborate dinner party in his honor. He would do anything for you, including going to Greece or other countries and shopping for special items for some of the wives.

When the revolution came, this charming man who had spent many nights in the Major’s Virginia home with his family, met the Major and Sergeant at the entrance of the store.

“You are now my enemy. This is now my store. Get what you want from your desk and get out as quickly as possible. If I am seen with you I will have to kill you. I will not help you escape. You are on your own!”  The two Americans spent the next two days and nights walking to the airport and catching one of the last planes out.

Mr. nice guy was a cold-blooded killer, indoctrinated from birth, just waiting for the order to kill. How many terrorists are living among us and entering the country illegally daily?

See 'Constitution teacher' get violent

Blasts campaign to have Christianity in schools, slugs cameraman with purse. 

A woman who described herself as a teacher of the U.S. Constitution has gone ballistic over a ministry effort at a gasoline station in Florida to drum up support for its campaign to teach the ethics, morality and responsibility of the Bible in public schools. 

It happened with several folks who work with the You Can Run But You Cannot Hide ministry, which is a nonprofit run by rock star Bradlee Dean to reach out to America’s next generation “through principles of morality, true freedom, and personal responsibility.” 

The organization explains its mission is to “equip our next generation with the Christian values that made America great through a unique avenue of music and educational event forums in colleges, schools, churches, festivals, and arenas.” 

The goal is to present that message in schools. 

Jake MacAulay, a spokesman for the ministry, told WND it happened at a station in Davie, Fla., just a few days ago. 

The woman verbally and physically attacked ministry workers Elizabeth Ilse and Chase Schomberg. 

“Ilse was standing behind one of her ministry’s tables while distributing Christian literature to those visiting the gas station. She simply said, ‘Hello,’ to the woman, but after approaching and reading the sign on the ministry’s table that said, ‘Support Christianity in Public Schools, 

The Constitution, and Honoring Soldiers,’ the woman viciously attacked the cause by screaming ‘shame on you for wanting Christianity in schools,’ calling Miss Ilse a ‘bigot,’ and [she] stated that ‘Christians are the problem.’” 

More @ WND

Boehner will use ‘loophole’ to pass immigration and may lose job

 Via avordvet


On Laura Ingraham’s Tuesday radio show, outgoing Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann predicted that although Speaker of the House John Boehner has vowed to adhere to the Hastert Rule to pass immigration reform, “there’s still a loophole that the speaker might allow himself.”

Following the Hastert Rule would mean Boehner would not hold a vote on a bill that lacks the support of a majority of the Republican caucus. Bachmann said while Boehner will likely follow it with the version of the bill that originates in the House, once it goes to committee to reconcile differences between the House bill and the Senate’s version, all bets are off.


Will Boehner Lose His Speakership Over Immigration Reform? ‘Maybe,’ He Says

John Boehner (R-Ohio) said he might lose his job as House speaker over immigration reform, but he insisted he will not bring a bill to the House floor that does not have majority support of both Republicans and Democrats. Following the Republican conference meeting on Tuesday, Boehner was asked: “Rep. Rohrabacher said that if you bring immigration reform to the floor without the support of the GOP conference you will lose your job (as speaker).  Do you think that’s accurate?” “Maybe,” Boehner said after a long pause, to laughter from reporters.

More @ CNS News

Buchanan for Arbitration, Lincoln for War


James Buchanan...Secession Is Legal, In Effect   

 "The question fairly stated is, Has the Constitution delegated to Congress the power to coerce a State into submission which is attempting to withdraw or has actually withdrawn from the Confederacy? If answered in the affirmative, it must be on the principle that the power has been conferred upon Congress to declare and to make war against a State. After much serious reflection I have arrived at the conclusion that no such power has been delegated to Congress or to any other department of the Federal Government. It is manifest upon an inspection of the Constitution that this is not among the specific and enumerated powers granted to Congress, and it is equally apparent that its exercise is not "necessary and proper for carrying into execution" any one of these powers.

More @ NamSouth  


President Buchanan was keenly aware that he had no constitutional means to stop a State from withdrawing from the Union, and could command no military force to do so.   Lincoln’s use of force was enabled by Republican governors who put armed force at his disposal and with which to wage war. The author below cites Buchanan’s careful analysis of the powers of the three branches of government, legislative, executive, and judicial, that this “could perhaps be called the valedictory of the first seventy years of constitutional government in the United States.”  Buchanan’s real concern with preserving of the Union resided in attempts at arbitration, and fundamental to any understanding of Buchanan’s policy is his clear concept of the rights of a minority group in a republican form of government.
Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"

Buchanan for Arbitration, Lincoln for War

“[There] is good reason to believe that President James Buchanan, as well as many other leaders, expected to avoid open conflict. The mood of the country had sobered at the realization that a sectional party had elected a president. Public opinion, in general, was entirely remote from the thought of war. Forty years of public service, in both houses of Congress, in the cabinet, and in the courts of Europe, suggested arbitration of the crisis to Buchanan.  War he believed, “ought to be the last desperate remedy of a despairing people, after every other constitutional means of conciliation had been exhausted.”

Buchanan remained firm in his conviction that “justice as well as sound policy requires us still to seek a peaceful solution.” If the tall shadow of the president-elect [Lincoln] lay across every discussion, then it will be remembered that Lincoln remained, during this period, a shadow indeed, without a voice of assurance or warning. 

Buchanan’s conciliatory stand has, until recently, been buried under the avalanche of post-war attitudes which show him only as the inept and weak man who stepped down for Lincoln’s administration.  An able scholar. . . Professor James G. Randall, comments succinctly, “If . . . preservation of the Union by peaceable adjustment was possible, then unionists were not faced with a choice of war or disunion, but rather a choice between a Union policy of war and a Union policy in the Virginia sense of adjustment and concession.” 

Especially suggestive to students of the period is Randall’s recent statement that “the wars that have not happened” should be studied.  Judged in the light of “historical relativity” rather than in the concept of the “irrepressible conflict,” Buchanan’s policy, particularly as outlined in his December 3rd [1860] address to the nation, is subject to fresh interpretation. 

[President Buchanan’s] course was, rather, that of a man trained in a political school of compromise, whose viewpoint was shaped by his legalistic interpretation of the executive power as it was limited by the Constitution. Summarizing the President’s careful exposition of this stand, [biographer George Ticknor] Curtis concluded with him that, “To the Executive Department it appropriately belonged to suggest the measures of conciliation. . . But the Executive could not in the smallest degree increase the means which existing laws had placed in his hands.” 

The concept of “historical relativity” was at the core of the defense offered by Buchanan’s most recent biographer, Philip Gerald Auchampaugh, who, in 1926, openly attacked the “staff of arm-chair Generals of History Departments who, for the most part, have taken up their pens for the winning side”. . . . .

His brief for Buchanan’s policy is unqualified and specific:

“His main aim, to give things a peaceful direction, and prevent the opening of a terrible “Brother’s War,” had been accomplished midst terrific difficulties. No stone had been left unturned to promote measures of compromise that would be fair to all concerned. The President had also escaped the pitfalls of the Republicans, by standing firmly on his constitutional prerogatives, both in dealing with Congress and the Southern States.”

Edward Channing pointed out that Buchanan had no power, “either constitutional or material,” to use coercive measures and suggested that, especially in view of the small military force at his disposal, “If he had wished to coerce the South or any individual within its boundaries, it is difficult to see how he could do so.”  

Randall discounts the theory of the “irrepressible conflict,” recognizes the President’s dilemma in its implications for that time, and appraises the long-term validity of compromise and conciliation.  Assessing the terrific losses on both sides of the conflict, from war to reconstruction, he suggests “a fuller measure of democracy would probably have prevented the war or at least have mitigated its abuses.”  Backed by the accumulating mass of evidence, he states with conviction that “There is little doubt that at the moment the majority of the American people wished for conciliation to be tried.”

“Time is a great conservative power. Let us pause at this momentous point and afford the people, both North and South, an opportunity for reflection,” said Buchanan on January 8, 1861. This strategy was also within the framework of a tradition, which had, as in the case of the [New England’s 1814] Hartford Convention, seen active resistance and threat of secession avoided with time as a moderating force.  In modern terms, Buchanan might be said to have viewed secession as sort of a “sit-down strike,” to be solved by arbitration rather than by force. 

Facts and events were, in truth, shaping the destiny of the plantation system and, as Arnold Toynbee has suggested, were tending to outlaw slavery.  Already the slave system in the United States, as a labor supply, was in competition with the ever-growing tide of immigrant labor in the factories of New England.  

Geographic boundaries were being set quite as much by the advance of the free farming frontier. . . . these factors suggest that Buchanan’s strategy of time, perhaps even a delay of ten years, might have avoided the war.  He was not unaware that a precedent for the peaceful solution of the complex problem of emancipation had been set by England in 1833.

With war as an easy alternative, the eventful one hundred and fifty days before [Fort] Sumter offered a fertile field for study of the technique of arbitration, for here the uncertain balance between compromise and conflict was maintained. . . . his conviction that the Union could not be cemented by the blood of its citizens, it is difficult to see how Buchanan could have chosen another course.”  

(James Buchanan and the Crisis of the Union, Frank Wysor Klingberg, Journal of Southern of Southern History, Vol. IX, Number 4, November 1943, pp. 455-457, 459, 466-468, 470-474)