Posts Tagged ‘civil war’

Usually every year I put the Declaration of Independence up on the 4th but today I want to put up a piece of a different speech that ironically was arguing for the dissolusion of Ameirca.

Alexander Stephens was a member of the Georgia House of Representatives and Senate. He was elected to Congress in 1843 and served till 1859. When Georgia was contemplating session he was voted to the provisional congress of the Confederacy and was elected Vice President of the Confederate states. After the Civil War he was re-elected to congress in 1873 leaving congress after being elected governor of Georgia serving until his death in 1883.

He was one of the more ardent supporters of session and after session but before the shooting began (March 21st 1861) he gave a speech touting the improvements in the new Constitution of the confederacy, from the single presidential terms, the lack of a national tariff, cabnet members having seats in congress and a prohibition of the national government to make internal improvements in individual states.

He closed his list of improvement with a defense of Slavery not only arguing that it was the cornerstone of the confederacy

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth

Thus unknowingly dispelling the revisionist history that some push today arguing that Slavery was not the primary cause of the war. But more interesting to us is what immediately precedes this paragraph, namely an attack on the founding fathers of the Republic from which he has departed.


The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

All emphasis mine

Take a note of what he says here. He not only states that Jefferson and most of the leading statesmen were opposed to slavery and considered wrong on every count and that said idea was the prevailing idea of the time, but that those founding fathers held that idea based on an assumption of the equality of the races.

It’s important to note here that his was not mere rhetoric. Stephens despite poor beginnings was not only well read in an age were illiteracy was common, but well educated (Top of his college class) a successful lawyer, married to the daughter of a Revolutionary war colonel but at the time of this speech had been an elected representative in the state of Georgia and congress for over a quarter of a century. Few men in the entire nation were in a better position to know the history and the sentiment of the Founders than he.

The irony of Alexander Stephens exposing the woke fools of today for the virtue signaling fools that they are is that Stephens considered the founders opposition to slavery and assumption of racial equality a fault.

So the next time the Kaepernicks of the world try to tell you how backward the founding fathers were on race and demand they be removed, remind them of this speech and the contempt that the speaker had for their opinions on race and equality.

My reviews of Bloody Crimes: The Chase for Jefferson Davis and the Death Pageant for Lincoln’s Corpse by James L. Swanson are now available at Amazon.com here (via Amazon vine) and Lunch.com here

It’s a great taste of the last days of the Civil war and its aftermath.

In 1864 the incorruptible but unqualified general Nathanael P. Banks led his army up the Red river to what would become an inglorious (or glorious depending on what side you were on) flogging by forces under Richard Taylor.

One of the things that complicated his retreat was that the annual rise of the Red River didn’t materialize. Banks was unlucky in that he hadn’t realized that in 1855 and 1846 (every 9 years) the river failed to rise. Now Banks had no idea about said cycle so perhaps he can be excused for this mistake, but whatever his deficiencies as a general his experience as both Governor of Massachusetts and Speaker of the House of Representatives provided him with the sense to listen to Major Joseph Bailey a person with practical experience in dams, but no formal education. Bailey was not only able to save the fleet by his exertions but provide a dry-shod crossing at a second point in the retreat saving the army.

What does this have to do with the economy? Just this: An economy like the Red River had a regular cycle and during those cycles you can usually tinker a bit without a lot of issue, but the best solution is to wait things out and let the business cycle take it course.

Once in a while however the cycle is extreme, just like the 9 year cycle of the Red. During those times it is very hard to convince people to wait it out. Particularly if previous tinkering have made things worse. When this happens you need people with actual practical, rather than theoretical experience to make a difference.

Right now we are in an extreme business cycle. Like any cycle the best move is to hunker down, not panic, and wait for the cycle to finish.

The problem if you are a political animal is that there is no credit to be had for the business cycle, and when times are bad the people demand action. The trick it to attempt to tweak the cycle so that you are able to take credit when the cycle is in your favor and divert blame to your foes when the cycle is against them.

Now president Obama is not a man with practical business experience. He is surrounded by and has emerged himself with people who’s experience is not in the business cycle, the creation of jobs or the stimulation of an economy and frankly his goals and priorities are in the direction of government control not the free market.

If president Obama had a Joseph Bailey to advise him, he could make tweaks to actually stimulate businesses to hire. He would decrease regulation, drop taxes and make transactions for small business and manufacturers more fluid.

But president Obama decided instead that his statist agenda was the way to go and convinced democrats that his tinkering with the business cycle and allocation of stimulus money would mean a better economy come election day, just in time to keep them in office, and they believed it, the more fool them.

Will the president change course after the election? I don’t think think so, he doesn’t have a Joe Bailey and he wouldn’t listen to one if he had. The republican party will have to do it for him, if they are willing that is.

Over at Ace’s place the Purple Avenger is comparing the situation in November to Trafalgar:

The Democrats are much like the French and Spanish, their tactics are predictable as the tides, and old as Methuselah. Their responses to attacks are scripted and rote, its the same responses you would have heard 30 years ago.

This is actually a pet peeve of mine, Whenever I hear about the brilliance of Nelson at Trafalgar I’m reminded of what American hero Steven Decatur said about the British at Trafalgar:

The French should have never lost at Trafalgar if their gunnery was what it should have been.

The British tried such tactics against Thomas MacDonough at Plattsburg on Sept 11th 1814 and it remains one of the most significant American victories that for some reason is never remembered.

More correct an analogy is Sayler’s Creek. The Democrats have been under siege (ala Petersburg) defending unpopular policies that republicans have been nailing them on, first slowly then finally breaking through their flanks on both left and right. They are fleeing this president in the same way as the Confederates were fleeing Grant. This Mosque is one issue that the President has decided to stop and fight on as did the Confederates at Sayler’s Creek. Sheridan had the right answer saying: “Go Right through them, they are demoralized as hell.”

The majority of the people who have been arguing restraint the loudest are those who wish republican gains to be the smallest.

This is what is needed to win the battle, later today I’ll talk about winning the war.