Sunday, February 7, 2016

The Transformation of American Citizenship via the Crucible of War,_1869.jpg/330px-Robert_E_Lee_with_his_Generals,_1869.jpg
General Lee and his Confederate officers in their first meeting since Appomattox, taken at the Greenbrier, White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia, in August 1869, where they met to discuss "the orphaned children of the Lost Cause". This is the only from life photograph of Lee with his Generals in existence, during the war or after. Left to right standing: General James Conner, General Martin Witherspoon Gary, General John B. Magruder, General Robert D. Lilley, General P. G. T. Beauregard, General Alexander Lawton, General Henry A. Wise, General Joseph Lancaster Brent Left to right seated: Blacque Bey (Turkish Minister to the United States), General Robert E. Lee, Philanthropist George Peabody, Philanthropist William Wilson Corcoran, James Lyons (Virginia)

Citizenship in these United States has consistently been in a transformative mode. From early American settlers, through the colonial period to Statehood and nationhood, and through transition from territorial to Statehood status, citizenship was a phenomenon appreciated but not necessarily understood. It was loosely defined, but yet highly valued. This was tolerable within the framework of limited government and widely accepted comity among the States and the U.S. Government. But comity among the States and the U.S. Government and limited government have been displaced by something radically different.

What is citizenship? Properly understood, a citizen is “one of the sovereign people. A constituent member of the sovereignty, synonymous with the people.” However, a funny thing happened in the course of American political development. That funny (or not so funny thing) is that the notion of sovereignty has been swallowed up by the notion of allegiance. As a matter of fact, the use of the word “citizen” is delusive, the word “allegiant” factual.

The word “citizen” implies an exalted position of the individual in relation to his government. The word “allegiant” suggests the individual as a faithful and loyal follower of his government. And the allegiant’s debased position to his government is not necessarily consensual, but may be, if questioned, enforced by the coercive powers of the government.

Like it or not, citizenship in these United States mandates allegiance to one’s government. Principles such as individual sovereignty, the consent of the governed, and even the constitution rule of law become relatively meaningless in practical politics.

This may always have been the case. In discarded federative republic of these United States the ambiguity regarding citizen’s posture towards his government was masked. When the U.S. Government was relatively weak, citizenship was more of a visceral sentiment than an intellectual and/or legal determination.

All this changed after war erupted in 1861. During the war citizenship was placed in the crucible of red hot politics, with legalism serving as both the anvil and hammer. Legalism became the determining factor ipso facto; that is, the victors militarily, politically, and statutorily mandated that all citizens must affirm their allegiance towards the U.S. Government. The antebellum ambiguity was clarified.

Senator Howard’s questioning of Robert E. Lee, on February 17, 1866, provides a glimpse into the evolution of American citizenship during this transitional phase.
Senator Howard: And that the ordinance of secession, so-called, or those acts of the State which recognized a condition of war between the State and the general government, stood as their [the States of the Confederacy] justification for their bearing arms against the government of the United States?
General Lee: Yes, sir. I think they considered the act of the State as legitimate; that they were merely using the reserved right which they had a right to do.
Senator Howard: State, if you please, (and if you are disinclined to answer the questio n you need not do so, ) what your own personal views on that question were ?
General Lee: That was my view; that the act of Virginia, in withdrawing herself from the
United States, carried me along as a citizen of Virginia, and that her laws and her acts were binding on me.
Senator Howard: And that you felt that to be your justification in taking the course you did?
General Lee: Yes, sir 

Pennsylvanian Happy as a Private


The North’s version of the war includes the myth of fighting to free the black man and the attendant stories of equality. More often than not, the Northern troops had little use for the Negro other than menial laborers and guards; officers for the colored troops were normally found only among radical abolitionist officers.
Bernhard Thuersam,

Pennsylvanian Happy as a Private
“On August 16, 1862, in the battle of Deep River Run, Virginia, Company F of the 85th Pennsylvania assaulted and drove the Confederates from their entrenchments, and Ed Leonard, of said company, had fired at the retreating color bearer, who was unknown to him.

When his gun was empty, he ordered the ensign to halt, which he refused to do. He threw his gun at him thinking he would knock him down with it;  but he was just far enough away for the gun to turn once, and the bayonet went through the body of the color bearer, killing him.

Leonard picked up the flagstaff, tore the flag from it, and concealed it about his person, intending to send it home; but it was discovered and he was required to turn it into headquarters. For this act of bravery Leonard was commissioned a captain. When he was assigned to his command, he found it was a Negro company; he returned the commission and went back to his company as a private.”

“Wouldn’t Command Negroes in Service,” W.T. Rogers, Knoxville, Tennessee; Confederate Veteran Magazine, May 1912, page 213)

Yancey’s Prophetic Foresight

Born at Ogeechee Falls, Georgia in 1814, educated at academies in New York and New England, South Carolina and later Alabama editor, William Lowndes Yancey prophetically predicted the rise of the consolidationist Republican party. He foresaw the States becoming “but tributaries to the powers of the General Government,” and their sovereignty enfeebled.
Bernhard Thuersam,   The Great American Political Divide

Yancey’s Prophetic Foresight

“. . . Yancey had been an unconditional Unionist . . . But in 1838 disturbing reports, which led him to pause, study the Constitution, and consider the nature of the Union, began to reach his desk. His indignation and fears seem to have been first aroused by the abolitionist petitions which were agitating Congress and the country, and in one of his editorials declared:

“The Vermont resolutions have afforded those deluded fanatics – the Abolitionists – another opportunity for abusing our citizens, and endeavoring to throw firebrands into the South, to gratify a malevolent spirit. They well know that they have no right to . . . meddle with our rights, secured to us by the Constitution; but to gratify the worst of feelings, while at the same time and in many instances, the endanger our safety, they press upon Congress the consideration of this subject.”

This editorial went on to express a fear that there was “a settled determination, on the part of those fanatics, to form themselves into a small band of partisans,” and thereby to gain the balance of power and determine elections.

Yancey’s fears of despotism under the cloak of the Federal Union were intensified by the election of the friends of the United States Bank. He reported a series of resolutions condemning the bank, supporting the President [Jackson] in his fight on it, and approving “well conducted State Banks.” The second resolution [declared]:

“We deem the struggle now going on between the people, and the United States Bank partisans, to be a struggle for pre-eminence between the State-Rights principles of 1798, and Federalism in its rankest state; and that in the triumph of the Bank, if destined to triumph, we would mournfully witness the destruction of the barriers and safeguards of our Liberties.”

In the spring of 1839 Yancey and his brother bought and consolidated the Wetumpka [Alabama] Commercial Advertiser and the Wetumpka Argus. The next spring when Yancey took personal charge of the newspaper, he announced that it would support a policy of strict construction in national politics and a State policy of reform in banking, internal improvements, and public education within reach of every child.

[With the] opening of the presidential campaign of 1840, [Yancey] believed the issue between State rights and consolidation to have been clearly drawn. Twelve years of Jacksonian democracy had destroyed the bank, provided for the extinction of the protective features of the tariff, and checked internal improvements at federal expense. Therefore, if the friends of the bank, the protective tariff, and internal improvements expected to enjoy the beneficence of a paternalistic government, they must gain control of the administration at Washington, and consolidate its powers. Thus to them the selection of a Whig candidate for the presidency was an important question, and from their point of view Henry Clay seemed to be the logical choice.

[Yancey editorialized] to show that the abolitionists, having defeated [Henry] Clay in the convention, now contemplated using their power to defeat Martin Van Buren in the election, disrupt the Democratic party, and absorb the Whigs.

To Yancey it seemed clear that [a] coalition of Whigs and abolitionists would put the South in a minority position . . . that the minority position of the South demanded “of its citizens a strict adherence to the States Rights Creed.”

He declared:

“Once let the will of the majority become the rule of [Constitutional] construction, and hard-featured self-interest will become the presiding genius in our national councils – the riches of our favored lands offering but the greater incentive to political rapacity.”

Furthermore, he foresaw with inexorable logic that once the general government was permitted to exercise powers, not expressly given to it, for subsidies to industry and for the building of roads and canals, it was as reasonable to claim constitutional authority for subsidies for agriculture and labor.

Yancey foretold with prophetic insight the consequences of the application of the consolidationists creed. He said it would result in a “national system of politics, which makes the members of the confederacy but tributaries to the powers of the General Government – enfeebling the sovereign powers of the States – in fact forming us into a great consolidated nation, receiving all its impulses from the Federal Capitol.”

And in strikingly modern language he warned the people that, if the tendencies toward consolidation continued, the Constitution would “have its plainly marked lines obliterated, and its meaning . . . left to be interpreted by interested majorities – thus assembling every hungry and greedy speculator around the Capitol, making the President a King in all but name – and Washington a “St. Petersburg,” – the center of a vast, consolidated domain.”

(William L. Yancey’s Transition from Unionism to State Rights, Austin L. Venable, Journal of Southern History, Volume X, Number 1, February 1944, pp. 336-342)

Burns Chronicles No 4 – Stand Up; Stand Down

 LaVoy and Ammon

On the morning of January 26, 2016, I traveled to the Harney County Resource Center (HCRC), formerly known as the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, from Burns. I had arranged to get the necessary information for some articles I intended to write.

When lunchtime came, I went to the mess hall. The Sharp Family had just begun with one of their songs, and I saw Ammon Bundy sitting with others at a corner table. I walked up and asked if I could sit at that table, and Ammon, graciously said, “Yes, please sit down.”

I had spoken with Ammon a number of times, in the months prior, though we had never met. As I introduced myself, I realized that he had been looking forward to our meeting, as I had.

We discussed the stories I intended to write, and he was fully supportive of the story lines, especially the one that would be about the people of Burns and their reactions to certain events, both in and out of town.

Before I left, the Sharps began another song. I had heard audio tapes of their singing during the Bundy Affair, but they didn’t compare to the live performance I heard that day.

After lunch, I located Ryan Payne. We had spent over a week together in November finish
ing a PowerPoint Presentation for Committees of Safety (CoS). This presentation had been used to explain the concept of CoS to some of the residents of Harney County. They then formed their own Harney County Committee of Safety.

Islam’s Contribution to the World

Via Cousin John

Islamabad writer Dr. Farrukh Saleem pointed out in 2005 indisputable facts about the Islamic world.

Combined, 57 Islamic countries are the world’s poorest and most illiterate:
  • The GDP of 57 Muslim countries is less than $2 trillion;
  • Muslims comprise roughly 22 percent of the world’s population but only produce less than 5 percent of global GDP;
  • 20 percent of Arabs live on less than $2 per day;
  • The average growth rate of per capita income in the Arab world hovers around .5 percent per year [worse than everywhere else except for sub-Saharan Africa];
  • 60 percent of Muslims worldwide are illiterate;
  • 50 percent of Arab women cannot read.
Dr. Javaid Laghari adds that 40 percent of the Muslim states’ population falls below the poverty line.

More @ Constitution

HOUSE WAS STACKED – Trump Camp Given ONLY 20 TICKETS For Supporters at GOP Debate

Via Billy

 shush jeb
The audience loudly booed Trump, driving the back-and-forth off the rails. Trump said audience members were all members of the Republican establishment.
“That’s all of his donors and special interests out there,” Trump said of the people booing him. “That’s what it is. And by the way, let me just tell you: We needed tickets. You can’t get them. You know who has the tickets? … Donors, special interests, the people that are putting up the money. That’s who it is.”
The booing continued. Trump said he was self-funding his campaign, so Republican donors weren’t a fan of his candidacy.
“The reason they’re not loving me is I don’t want their money.

LaVoy Finicum memorial torn down and rebuilt

Comment by Anonymous on  Two statements from the Finicum family

(Officers) "They can't even go into the bars to have a drink because there's militia and people who hate their guts everywhere," Naw, who woulda' thunk.....................

Soon after somebody tore down a cross erected in honor of a dead protester, somebody used its remnants to put a smaller version of the cross back together.

A memorial held Saturday was a spectacle of patriotism and of admiration for Robert "LaVoy" Finicum, who was killed Jan. 26 during a confrontation with Oregon State Police.

At least a dozen cars pulled up to the spot where Finicum died, following BJ Soper, a leader of the Pacific Patriots Network who had organized the memorial. About 50 men, women and children milled around on the road and the snow, watching the show.

More with video @ Oregon Live

LaVoy Finicum shot dead by the FBI is hailed as a hero during Utah funeral attended by hundreds of people from across the country


The Oregon occupier who died last month during a confrontation with FBI agents and state police officers was hailed as a hero during his funeral at a Mormon church.

The ceremony for Robert LaVoy Finicum, 54, attracted hundreds of supporters from across the country to Kanab, Utah, on Friday.

'My dad was murdered defending the liberties so that we may be free of bondage,' his daughter Brittney Beck said.

Finicum's death has become a symbol for those decrying federal oversight on public lands in the West and elsewhere, and has led to protests of what they call an unnecessary use of force. But authorities say the 54-year-old was reaching for a gun during the confrontation.

More @ Daily Mail