Private, Co. B, 9th Alabama Cavalry, CSA. SCV #1524. “History is a set of lies agreed upon.” HE WHO CONTROLS THE PRESENT, CONTROLS THE PAST. 2 + 2 = 5
Heart of Dixie
Joined August 2018
- Tweets63.1K
- Following2.2K
- Followers15K
- Likes103K
Pinned Tweet
A little background on myself.
My name is Eric Davis, Jasper is my 3rd Great Grandfather, who I honor as my profile. I started my historical journey with no bias on a quest to find out the truth concerning the war. My interest was peaked as I worked on my genealogy. I was a screw up in high school and I couldn’t have cared less about history, or any subject for that matter. The history bug hit me later in life. I chose a blue collar career and I served my community for 28 years. For the last 15 years or so, I have studied the antebellum era and that alone.
The reason most of you oppose the South is because you concentrate on slavery alone. You feel as though nothing else matters besides ending it at any cost. But the cost was heavy, especially when ending slavery was not for the wellbeing of slaves but as a means to destroy the political and economic enemy.
Lincoln’s war affectively perverted the Constitution and changed the character of the government framed by our founders. This is why I support Confederate principles. It has nothing to do with slavery or race, as that isn’t what motivated Lincoln to invade the South. I support the Confederate cause because they supported the Constitution as ratified by the states.
Secession was not a southern idea. Northern states threatened secession at least 5 times during America’s first 60 years:
1. The first time came in George Washington’s presidency when Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton warned that the Northern states would secede unless the Federal Government agreed to assume an obligation to pay off their Revolutionary War debts.
2.In 1803, New Englanders threatened secession over the Louisiana Purchase. They worried that the new territories would ultimately become new states thereby reducing New England’s influence.
3. In 1807, New England again threatened secession after America announced a trade embargo, hoping to avoid the War of 1812, by use of economic sanctions.
4. When the British finally blockaded New England during the last seven months of the thirty-month war, the region held a convention in Hartford to discuss secession or other steps to protect their interests from Federal powers.
5. As late as 1844, leaders in the Northeastern states threatened to secede over the proposed annexation of Texas.
“The Confederate soldier went to war because he loved his people, because his country was invaded, because his heart was throbbing for his hearthstone. Here was the land which gave him birth; here was his childhood home; here were the graves of his dead; here was the church spire where he had learned it was not all of life to live nor all of death to die. No hostile foot should ever tread this consecrated ground except over his dead body…He could face the line of fire, but not the shame of standing back."
~ General Stephen Dill Lee on what motivated the Southerner to fight at a speech at the annual reunion of the UCV, in Louisville, 1905
“Three Months in the Southern States,” documented Colonel Fremantle’s travels through the Southern Confederacy, April - June 1863.
He along with most of his fellow Englishmen, were inclined to favor the North due to the aversion to slavery. Gradually, he comes to the conclusion that the conflict is not over emancipation, but over differing economic systems, one commercial and industrial, the other largely agricultural. The North, seeking domination over all people and all things, the other content to live off the land. However, both are joined by a written constitution. The numerically superior North imposes protective tariffs on the imports of the South. The tariffs are a bounty to the North and a burden to the South. Those tariffs have the effect of levying an unequal and therefore unconstitutional tax on the consumer.
“He bowed the heavens also, and came down with thick darkness under His feet...
He made darkness His hiding place, His canopy around Him, Darkness of waters,
thick clouds of the skies.”
—Psalm 18
Anyone care to guess what “infamous” speech this excerpt is taken? This portion of the speech is always ignored by those who use it for their nefarious purposes.
“Allow me briefly to allude to some of these improvements. The question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. We allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. All, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. Honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged. . . This old thorn of the tariff, which was the cause of irritation in the old body politic, is removed forever from the new.”
This passage is an address presented to Robert E. Lee when he was given George Washington's sword upon being appointed commander of Virginia's forces in April 1861.
"When the Father of his Country made his last will and testament, he gave his swords to his nephews with an injunction that they should never be drawn from their scabbards, except in self-defense, or in defense of the rights and liberties of their country, and that, if drawn for the latter purpose, they should fall with them in their hands, rather than relinquish them. Yesterday, your mother, Virginia, placed her sword in your hand upon the implied condition that we know you will keep to the letter and in spirit, that you will draw it only in her defense, and that you will fall with it in your hand rather than that the object for which it was placed there shall fail."
Jeremiah “Jasper” Thompson retweeted
What's all this let bygones be bygones when the Confederate Memorial has still not been returned to Arlington?
If you've decided to forgive and forget all the outrages of the George Floyd riots you won't be able to complain when they do it all over again.
Concerning Jefferson Davis’s defensive war policy. . .
In his congratulatory address to the army on their victory before Richmond in 1862, President Davis referred to the prospect of carrying the war into the North. . . But it was urged that our army was too feeble to undertake at present an aggressive policy. . .
It is curious to observe how completely the ordinary aspects of war were changed and its horrors diminished, with reference to the North, by the false policy of the South, in keeping the theatre of active hostilities within her own borders. Defeat did not dispirit the North, because it was not brought to her doors.
Indeed, the realization of the war in the North was, in many respects, nothing more than that of an immense money job. The large money expenditure at Washington supplied a vast fund of corruption; it enriched the commercial centres of the North, and by artificial stimulation preserved such cities as New York from decay; it interested vast numbers of politicians, contractors, and dissolute public men in continuing the war and enlarging the scale of its operations; and, indeed, the disposition to make money out of the war accounts for much of that zeal in the North, which was mistaken for political ardor or the temper of patriotic devotion.
—Pollard, A Southern History of the War
THE BATTLE OF SHILOH
April 6–7, 1862
There was one very remarkable circumstance in the battle of Manassas, which alone must give it an interest distinguished from that of any other engagement of the war. It was that, in the army which achieved that victory, there was represented, by troops, every State then in the Southern Confederacy.
At Shiloh, the troops engaged were principally Tennesseans, Mississippians, Alabamians, Louisianians, Floridians, Texans, Arkansians, and Kentuckians. There was also a battery of Georgians in the field. The behavior of these troops had given us additional reason for the pride so justly felt in Southern arms and Southern prowess. Each and all of them fought so bravely that no distinction can be made between corps from different States. Battles are won by each soldier feeling that the day depends upon his own individual efforts, and, on the field of Shiloh, this spirit was displayed, unless in rare instances of cowardice, or the more numerous exceptions of demoralization by the pillage which had unfortunately been permitted of the enemy's camp.
~ Pollard, A Southern History of the War
By a large, the North’s relationship with slavery, though extraordinarily profitable, was a distant one. That distance allowed the North to minimize and even deny its links with the institution that fueled its prosperity. Consider this:
~ New England and the Mid-Atlantic began their economic ascent in the eighteenth century because the regions grew and shipped food to help feed millions of slaves in the West Indies.
~ Northern merchants, shippers, and financial institutions, many based in New York City, were crucial players in every phase of the national and international cotton trade. Meanwhile, the rivers and streams of the North, particularly in New England, were crowded with hundreds of textile mills. Well before the Civil War, the economy of the entire North relied heavily on cotton grown by millions of slaves in the South.
— Higginbotham, “Complicity”
Lincoln, nor the majority of the people in the North cared about the wellbeing of slaves, which motivated them to oppose the westward “expansion of slavery.” Their opposition toward westward expansion was simply to keep blacks out of the new territories. Those territories were reserved for white settlers and Northern business interests. Probably most importantly, whoever controlled this new territory, added more representation in Congress.
Jeremiah “Jasper” Thompson retweeted
@jjfThompson
Do you actually think what we have Right Now is a Republican Form Of Government, That’s Guaranteed To The States Via Article Four Section Four Of The United States Constitution??🤔😂
You Don’t Know What You Are Even Talking About, It’s Complete Nonsense.
THIS UNCONSTITUTIONAL GARBAGE IS WHAT WE HAVE AND IT’S NOT FROM THE CONSTITUTION, IT’S FROM THE STATES.
@PrometheanActn @EagleEdMartin @POTUS @WhiteHouse @EdMartinDOJ @realDonaldTrump @VP @JDVance @AGToddBlanche @AAGDhillon @HarmeetKDhillon @TheJusticeDept @CivilRights @dhsgov @USSupremeCourt @SCOTUSblog @SecWar @PeteHegseth @ODNIgov @DNIPulte @StephenM
We are ruled by unconstitutional direct and indirect popular vote-seated state and federal judicial cartels that rule this nation via tyrannical state and federal judicial edicts.
There is no rule of law or equal protection under the law when state and federal judiciary are seated unconstitutionally via direct and indirect popular vote from the most populous counties and cities in those counties in all 50 states, territories, and possessions.
This is unconstitutional under Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution (the Guarantee Clause), which states:
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.”
There are supposed to be three voices represented in our federal government, hence the three branches:
• The voice of the people, represented in state and federal Houses of Representatives.
• The voice of the state, represented in state and federal Senates.
• The voice of the law, the state and federal judiciary.
The problem is that the voice of the people—which is already represented in state and federal Houses of Representatives via direct popular vote—now also seats the voice of the state and the law from the same voting pool: only the most populous counties and cities in those counties.
That means only that voting pool has any representation in our state and federal government.
This creates an unconstitutional democracy form of government, violating Article IV, Section 4, which requires the United States to guarantee a republican form of government to the states—not a mob-seated democracy.
It is impossible to be a constitutional republic when state and federal judiciary are seated by direct or indirect popular vote only from the most populous counties and cities (i.e., the mob—the voice of the people), which also seats state and federal Houses of Representatives and Senates from that same pool of voters.
There is no equal protection under the law in such an unconstitutional democratic form of state and federal government.
The United States has failed to guarantee a republican form of government to the states since 1849, when Luther v. Borden set in motion the practice of states seating state judiciary via direct popular vote.
What originally made the United States a constitutional republic was the guarantee of a republican form of government to the states, which required an independent state judiciary seated by the state Senate (the voice of the state as a whole) for state district courts and above, including state supreme courts.
The voice of the people represents population centers and cities, which have the density to cancel out rural areas.
When the voice of the state resided in the United States Senate—senators chosen in full and open sessions of state legislatures—and those senators seated an independent federal judiciary, that structure created the constitutional republic.
That does not exist today.
What exists is an anti-republican democratic form of state and federal government masquerading as a constitutional republic—which it is not.
Secession is necessary if peace is desired. The United States has become far too large in order to guarantee the citizens a “republican form of government.” What we have is a centralized corporation that manages the masses. Reducing the size of government would ensure a “republican form of government” for the citizens. Breaking the country down into several confederations based on ideology and culture would put like-minded individuals together to carry out government functions that actually work for the people. A smaller government framework will engage the citizens and hold politicians more accountable, instead of allowing politicians in a huge Congress the ability to hide within the party.
“To tar the sacrifices of the Confederate soldier as simple acts of racism, and reduce the battle flag under which he fought to nothing more than the symbol of a racist heritage, is one of the great blasphemies of our modern age”.
•James Webb-Secretary of Navy And Assistant Secretary of Defense
William Seward on the suspension of habeas corpus in 1861.
"I don't give a damn whether they are guilty or innocent. I saved Maryland by similar arrests, and so I mean to hold Kentucky."
~ William Seward, Secretary of State, 10/1861, (Stahr, Seward, p.288)
“The South was fighting for independence, the North to restore the Union...young southerners rushed to arms to defend home and family while like their revolutionary grandfathers- seeking a new Independence"
•James Robertson, The Untold Civil War Exploring The Human Side of War National Geographic
ROBERT E. LEE WAS AN EVIL SLAVE OWNER!
How often do we hear this?
Lee was the executor of his father-in-law George Washington Parke Custis’s will after Custis’s death on October 10, 1857. The will included approximately 196 slaves at Arlington, White House, and Romancoke plantations, which Lee managed but never owned.
Lee did not personally profit. He used the labor of the Custis slaves to pay off the estate’s debts, as required by the will, which prioritized financial stabilization before manumission.
Lee could not sell the Custis slaves, as the will prohibited their sale. This prevented breaking up families through sales, though some slaves were relocated among the estate’s plantations.
The will stipulated that the slaves be emancipated within five years of Custis’s death (by 1862), provided the estate’s debts were settled. Lee complied, freeing the slaves on December 29, 1862.
There is no direct evidence that Lee treated the slaves harshly. An abolitionist newspaper published an anonymous letter claiming otherwise. The inconsistencies and known errors led historians to reject this evidence. Lee's private letters deny such an incident.
Abraham Lincoln repeatedly stated his war was caused by money, and not by slavery at all:
"My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 % federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861.
"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so," Lincoln said in his first inaugural on March 4 of the same year.
Lincoln declared war to collect taxes in his two presidential war proclamations against the Confederate States, on April 15 and 19th, 1861: "Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out and the laws of the United States for the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed therein."
An intentionally suppressed aspect of Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation is that it offered the South the right to keep slavery if it returned to the Union within the 100 days before the Proclamation went into effect. It also only affected those states “in rebellion.” All the South had to do is quit fighting and rejoin the Union to keep slavery but they didn’t. Weren’t they fighting to keep slavery? Why didn’t they return to the Union and keep their slaves? Obviously they didn’t secede just to protect slavery. Otherwise, why would they have seceded and stayed seceded with the offer to keep slavery on the table?
