“Follow The Money,” The Second Most Important Cause of the “Civil War”

“If I do that, what would become of my revenue? I might as well shut up housekeeping at once!”

President Abraham Lincoln

In response to the suggestion by the Virginian Commissioners to abandon the custom house of Fort Sumter. Housekeeping is a euphemism for federal spending, in other words, taxing consumers to subsidize special interests, or what we would call today, corporate welfare.

““But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on… [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?”

President Abraham Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin

Baldwin was deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861

Following the fact that North and South were each serving a different God what was the most significant underlying cause of what is called “The Civil War?” Hint — It wasn’t slavery.

The simple fact of the matter is that the North was using the South as a milch cow to sustain its ever burgeoning Henry Clay “American system” of government Centralization and government spending on internal improvements that primarily profited the North.

There were many important people in the North upon hearing of the South’s departure were initially glad to see them go and encouraged the willing release of the South. Horace Greely, Editor of the influential “New York Tribune” wrote, “The South has as good a right to secede from the Union as the colonies had to secede from Great Britain.” The Newspaper, “The Albany Atlas and Argus” encouraged, “We must separate from them peacefully,” and then admonished the Republicans for being responsible for South Carolina’s departure. The pro-Lincoln newspaper outlet, “The Indianapolis Daily Journal,” editorialized “We are well rid of South Carolina,” and went on several sentences expressing how fortunate the Union was for her leaving ending with “If all the South follows her, let it.” The “New York Journal of Commerce” opined along the line that it was time to stop assigning blame and to face facts: “The Union is already dissolved,” and went on to admonish Washington that it was time to adopt a policy of limiting the secession, and to not go about raising and arming men to butcher their friends in the South. “The Detroit Free Press” in a matter of fact fashion offered; “The people of these States, driven to desperation by the incessant warfare of abolitionism upon their most cherished rights, have withdrawn themselves from among us…” This pro-Douglas newspaper went on to say that Washington should recognize the Confederacy or go to war and finally opined that if there was war the blame would be with the Republican party. Finally, even the pro-Republican, pro-Lincoln, “Northwest Daily Tribune” wrote that if the South opted to form an independent nation “they [would] have a clear moral right to do so.”

We see in many quarters of the North the attitude was to allow the South to leave. The North, having no fondness for the Black man would not go to war to stop the South with its slavery from leaving.

However, in other quarters in the North there was a building understanding such as recognized by Lincoln in the opening quotes that if the South was to leave the Nation to form its own Nation that the results would be the impoverishment and so diminishing of the North. Newspapers like “The Manchester Daily Mirror” connected the dots by offering: “The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping [worth] without it? Literally nothing. The transportation of cotton and its fabrics employs more ships than all other trade. It is very clear the South gains by this process [secession], and we lose. NO — we must not ‘let the South go.'” The pro-Lincoln “New York Evening Post” added that if the Lincoln government could not collect revenues from the seceded states, “the nation will become bankrupt.”

Here is the point that we realize what the Civil War was about, after it was about the reality that each section was serving different gods, was a matter of money. Lincoln understood this as well, as the opening quotes above by Lincoln demonstrate. The Civil war being about slavery or black men in chains was way down on the list of reasons why white men on this continent began to fight and kill one another. The Civil war, being theological in its beginnings was thus eventually economic. It was simply a matter of following the money.

The North came to the realization that it was either kill Southerners in bloody fratricidal war or it was a matter of slowing dying themselves from a severe constriction in wealth. It was true that the North had the industrial base of the nation. However, it was also true that the North needed the material goods (especially Cotton) from the South in order for the industrial base to keep whirring and humming. The North understood that other nations would be using the Southern ports of Savannah, Charleston, and New Orleans to bring their goods in where they would only have to pay 10% rate of tariff as opposed to the 47% tariff rate that the Northern ports of Boston, New York, and Philadelphia would be charging. In brief, the Yankee industrial movers and shakers began to realize that they would be left impoverished if the South was allowed to depart.

There was one more twist to the almost certain financial demise of the North if the South was allowed to leave and that was the reality that the Central government in DC would also be severely financially hamstrung. By 1860, 80-90% of federal revenue came from the Southern export trade, which was largely built on slavery. If the North was to lose the South the funds that operated the Federal Government would dry up. This fact also explains why Northern politicians sought to keep their distance from movement abolitionists. The North understood that they not only had to keep the South but they also could not touch slavery as an institution since the Southern export trade (and so their revenues) was built on the Southern slavery economy. This explain why Lincoln painstakingly went out of his way to promise the South that he had no intent on ending slavery per his first inaugural address,

“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.”

Financially speaking, if the South was going to continue to be the North’s milch cow then the North needed to make sure Southern slavery did not go in to abeyance. What the North wanted was the South to be restricted to its geographic area to continue to be the source of revenue for the North so that the North could expand Westward as developed by Clay’s (and now Lincoln’s) American System. The South would be the North’s money base as its influence would be forever diminished in DC due to the influx of new States beholden to the North’s American System.

The war was not about slavery. If anything the Northern Titans of industry desired for slavery to continue in the South. The North hated the black man as seen by many of its state codes touching the presence of the black man in their states.

Again, I say… the war was not about slavery. Slavery was only eventually used as an excuse for the War in order to add a moral window dressing to Lincoln’s raping, murdering, and pillaging of the South. It is easy to justify a war that has the grand moral purpose of “freeing the black man.” It makes a far less inspiring motto to say “We are going to war to steal their stuff.”

Ordo Ab Chao & Withdrawal as Proposed Solutions for our Social Order Blues

We have a problem.

Actually, we are deluged with problems. The problem I’m speaking of here is the instinct to “return to chaos,” based on the belief that out of chaos order comes. This belief is the creed of the Revolutionary. It is the watchword of those who want to make the world anew and make it anew overnight. It was a motto of the Scottish Rite Masons preferring to use the Latin, “Ordo Ab Chao.”

Order out of chaos is the belief that the only way that disorder can be rectified is to return to chaos believing that out of chaos a order will arise Phoenix like from the ashes of what has been burnt to the ground. Order out of chaos was the guiding motif of the French Revolution with its guillotine , the War of Northern Aggression with its total war on civilians, and the Bolshevik Revolution with its gulag system. It is the guiding motif of Mardi Gras with its night of debauchery preceding Ash Wednesday and Lent. It was present in the ancient world with its Bacchanalian festivals. It was the theme behind Darwin’s Origin of the Species. Order out of chaos presupposes the absence of God and if there is no God and all there is, is matter in motion then the distaste for the present order requires throwing the dice of chance again in order to roll a reality that is more to one’s liking. Return to chaos in hopes of birthing a better order.

We well can see that such a conviction is present with our current Revolutionaries trolling the streets of our major cities. Oh, they may not be able to articulate it has we have done in the first two paragraphs above but it is this conviction that animates them even if they themselves don’t understand it. One sees it in the irrational pulling down of statuary, the burning and looting, the gang assault on random vehicles. In all this is the attempt to return to chaos.

However, the suggested problem we began with is that now we are beginning to see, in some quarters, this desire to “return to chaos” in what were formerly conservative, or, at least more conservative quarters. There is a mind set developing that looks at the present social order, and rightly disgusted with our governmental structures and our current bent towards anarcho-tyranny desires to join hands with the Revolutionaries among us in their avowed techniques and agree to just burn it all down. Understand they do not agree with the Black Lives Matter club on the new order they hope chaos to produce but they do agree with the Black Lives Matter narrative that it all has to burn in order for something better to arise in its stead. Black Lives Matter envisions a new order with the Black Marxist as top rail. The self-identified anarchist-capitalists, minarchists, and neo-Libertarians instead envision a night watchmen state at best in order to afford maximum liberty. However, for both of them the way to gain their envisioned narratives is to return to chaos.

The ironic thing about all this neo-Anarchism (by whatever name) ends up being merely Communism for the individual. So the Black Lives desires to have a traditional communism while the neo-anarchists desire to have private individual communism. But communism by any other name remains communism. Historically, Marx’s most severe venom (and Marx could be venomous) was saved for Max Stirner who might be labeled the father of philosophical anarchism. Stirner convincingly, in ” The Ego and Its Own,” unraveled Marx’s communism proving that he and it were inconsistent with Marx’s own principles. Stirner demonstrated that Marx’s communism only made sense when embraced on a private individual basis. If Stirner was right then, the neo-anarchists who want to see it all burn so order can come out of chaos and the Black Lives Matter who want to see it all burn so order can come out of chaos are all drinking from the same philosophical well. Maybe it makes sense that they both desire to pull the house down around their own heads?

The Christian does not believe that order arises out of chaos believing that change comes with line upon line and precept upon precept. As such, the Christian may well oppose the Government when it is going all anarcho-tyranny but it does so hoping to retain the best of the system that already exists. The Christian, not being pagan, does not desire to see it all just burn without discriminating about what should and should not be given to the flames. It is the difference between a Cromwell and a Robespierre.

The solution to our present quandary is not to burn it all down in hopes that order will arise out of chaos. The solution is,

1.) A return to self-governing consistent with God’s Law-Word

Unless we are granted a Reformation characterized by the preaching of Christ crucified with the consequent life of grateful obedience to His Word all we can expect is the growth of the conviction that the solution is return to chaos.

Keep in mind that unless men are self-regulated and self-governed by some objective law then the only answer to regulating and governing men is a top down solution which will inevitably become tyrannical.

Muscular Christianity must return. A Christianity that preaches the law to the unbeliever as a preparation for grace and then preaches a grace to the believer that speaks up walking in terms of the law as gratitude for grace.

2.) Should God be pleased to grant Reformation to a large enough percentage of the population then that percentage of population as to fight to overthrow the wickedness that would otherwise pull down Christ and His faithful Church.

There are those among the putative Christian community who are calling for Christians to withdraw from the public square in order to concentrate on those things that matter most. Listen to one of the leaders of the Liberal Gospel Coalition, Rev. Kevin DeYoung,

Maybe there are more important ways to promote Christian virtue and preserve Christian orthodoxy in our world (than winning political victories)….

To marshal our energies as if political victories were more important than strengthening the family is a decidedly un-conservative position. I’m not calling for abandoning politics, but I am asking the question, “What does it profit a man if he gets textualists on the Supreme Court but loses his own children? …”

Here’s a culture war strategy conservative Christians should get behind: have more children and disciple them like crazy.

Rev. DeYoung in this is in no way advocating a order from chaos philosophy for cultural renewal. However he is advocating a cultural renewal philosophy that is not far-sighted in the least. Why does Rev. DeYoung believe that Christian parents will be allowed to pass on the Christian faith to their seed? If Christian parents will not be allowed to forbid their children from the State forcing vaccines upon their children why does Rev. DeYoung believe that in a social order where Christianity has not triumphed in the Culture wars will be allowed to disciple their own children like crazy? Voices like DeYoung don’t seem to realize that should Christians lose the public square they are not going to allowed to concentrate on the things that matter most and so keep their children.

I have lived through the homeschooling regimen. Let me just say that looking over the wreckage that was the intent to disciple children like crazy hasn’t gone well and the reason for that, in part, is because we have not fought effectively the culture wars from which DeYoung wants to retire in some measure.

In brief, I see little evidence that we are keeping our own children despite countless people thinking they were discipling their own children like crazy.

3.) To start guarding our pulpits more zealously.

Right now the pulpit in American is manned by those embracing worldviews foreign to our Fathers and more importantly foreign to the Bible. We have everything from the heresis of R2K to Dispensationalism to New Perspective on Paul to Federal Vision to Cultural Marxism in our pulpits all across the country. Seeking to find a plain old fashioned historic Calvinist minister is like searching for a left-handed smoke-bender. We cannot expect Reformation as long as the pulpit in America is innovative. A mist in the pulpit always results in a fog in the pew.

Neither the Revolutionary Ordo Ab Chao nor withdrawing from the public square is going to solve our social order problems.

A Matter Of Honor — Congressmen Brooks and Keitt

Sen. Stephen Douglas had been excoriated by Sen. Charles Sumner of Massachusetts. Sen. Douglas let it slide confiding to a confidant,

“This damn fool is going get himself shot by some other damn fool.”

Not long after that comment Sen. Sumner lit out after Sen. Andrew Butler of South Carolina over issues touching on slavery. Sumner also excoriated Butler as he had Douglas previously but this time Sumner dropped innuendos about Butler’s taking delight in black slave female flesh in the boudoir.

The damn fool Sumner, contra Douglas’ prediction, wasn’t shot, but he did discover the Southern concept of “honor.”

Sen. Butler, being a gentleman, would not descend to defend his own honor against Sen. Sumner, however, unfortunately for Sumner, Sen. Butler had kin in political Washington D.C. Sen. Butler’s cousin, Preston Brooks was a US Congressman representing a district in South Carolina.

Brooks, hearing of how his cousin had been slandered on the floor of the US Senate, originally desired to challenge Sen. Sumner to a duel but was talked out of that decision by fellow South Carolina Congressman Laurence Keit upon the basis that dueling was only for gentlemen and Sumner was no gentlemen and as such it would denigrate Brooks’ honor by challenging such human refuse as Sumner to a duel.

So, on May 22 Brooks, having his back covered by Rep. Keitt who was wielding a brace of pistols to ward off the other Senators who tried to come to Sumner’s defense, gave Sumner the beating he was worthy of. With the caning Brooks was communicating that Sumner was nothing more than a cur dog that has to be shown its place when it snarls at the wrong person.

Immediately after the beating Congressman Brooks resigned his seat as a matter of honor and then stood in the special election to fill his resigned seat. Preston Brooks was overwhelmingly re-elected by the people of his district in August and then again elected when his seat came up again in the natural election cycle for that seat three months later.

The South had communicated, by its electoral stamp of approval on Brooks, that the South was done with the slander and libel of the abolitionist types like Sumner. The South, by voting for Brooks, metaphorically communicated that they only wished that they could have been there with Brooks beating the shite out of Sumner.

Two years later Preston Brooks died unexpectedly from the croup. His funeral fell on a day that was remarked upon for how foul the weather was. Thousands attended both the memorial service and funeral despite the weather.

And Congressman Brooks pistelero accomplice, Congressman Keitt?

Congressman Laurence Keitt also resigned his seat in Congress after being censured by the Congress for his covering Brooks back with pistols while Brooks was beating Sumner silly. Keitt, likewise stood for re-election of the seat he resigned and was resoundingly re-elected by the South Carolinians of his district. Keitt served in Congress until South Carolina seceded. Two years subsequent to his role with Brooks in caning Sumner, Keitt unsuccessfully tried to choke a Yankee Congressman from Pennsylvania for insulting him in the Well of the US Congress.

Keitt, upon leaving the US Congress served for two years in the Provisional Confederate Congress, whereupon he joined the Confederate military force and rose to the rank of Colonel commanding the 20th South Carolina infantry regiment and later the well known “Kershaw’s Brigade,” after Kershaw as promoted to the next level. Keitt was wounded at Cold Harbor on 01 June 1864 and three days later in the Southern Capital succumbed to his battle wounds.

McAtee where he belongs … Being Interviewed In the Cesspool

Interview begins @ 14:40 mark


Statuary & New Social Orders

U. S. Grant … Robert E. Lee … George Washington … Columbus … Albert Pike.

All recently having their statuary pulled down across the county.

Having read quite a bit on the Reformation there is a parallel here between now and then. In the time frame of the Reformation the Reformers were known as being iconoclasts. This meant that they were smashing Catholic statuary and idols everywhere. They hated the Roman Catholic statues primarily because those statues had violated the 2nd commandment. Still, in my estimation many went overboard in their zeal in destroying statues, paintings, and Christian art in general. Luther even had to rebuke Andreas Karlstadt for Karlstadt’s zeal in burning and destroying art.

The destruction of art, statues, and painting was especially prevalent in the area of the Radical Reformation where the Ana-baptists held sway. However both Zwingli and Calvin were iconoclasts and desired to get the art out of the Churches. A story is told about William Farrell (Calvin’s predecessor in Geneva) that Farrell came across some Priests carrying a piece of Roman Catholic statuary that people would bow down to as it passed. When Farrell came upon them providence had arranged that all were crossing a bridge. Farrell went into a frenzy, so the record goes, and tossed both the statue and the Priests carrying the statue over the bridge into the water below.

Because of such zealousness on the part of the Reformed Leaders the Reformed rank -n- file attacked statues and images. However, in most cases, civil authorities removed images in an orderly manner in the newly Reformed Protestant cities and territories of Europe.

Now, we have to keep in mind that during the Reformation era the statuary and art was being used to keep the people in bondage to the false God of Rome. As noted above, statues would be carried in processions so that people could bow down while the statue passed. Alongside this the Scripture clearly forbids, via the 2nd commandment, the kind of superstition that was being exercised by the Priests over the people. Weeping Madonnas, blood coming from crucifixes, phony miracles connected in some way with relics and art had contributed to the Medieval Roman Catholic destruction of the Christian faith. As such destruction of statuary, paintings and idolatrous art was understandable in the Reformation. Much of it was certainly being used in an idolatrous fashion.

One thing is clearly communicated though in the iconoclasts attack on the Medieval statuary and that was that there was a new God in town and the old art, representing the then considered wicked past was not going to be allowed to stand in the new social order that God was pleased to give in the bringing forth of the Reformation.

The linkage to what is happening now is clear. Though nobody is using statuary to reinforce homage to the old order such as was done in 1518, the Marxist Revolutionaries still understand the power of statuary, paintings, and art in sustaining an order they wish to rip up and destroy. As such the old order has to go and one way to initiate the departure of an order that the anarchists despise is to rip down its icons.

Such has been the action of every Revolution or Counter-Revolution of the past. Come with me to Paris of 1789 and watch the art fall. Come with me to Moscow of 1918 and see the Churches being pulled down and the sacred art destroyed. Come with me to the velvet Revolution in 1989 Czechoslovakia and watch the art come down. The same happened all across the former Soviet Bloc when Communism putatively fell. When Iraq fell before invading American Troops one of the first images that was broadcast over Western Television was the pulling down of Saddam Hussein’s statue. Indeed, so routine is the removal of statuary and art that when one sees it happening on a broad scale one can be sure they are living through Revolution or Counter-Revolution.

And of course what it all communicates is the Revolutionary or Counter-Revolutionary attempt to cut off a people from their past. Marx once presciently wrote, “Hitherto, philosophers have sought to understand the world; the point, however, is to change it.” One way that the world is changed, Marxists have always understood and routinely taught is to cut people of from their historical roots. If people have no past then they will have little ground to understand themselves and little guidance on how their future should look. Ripping down the statuary is one means by which Marxist sever people from their past. Because of this Marxist principle, I fully expect at some point in our current disheveling the anarchist / communist criminal class will start coming after the Churches.

So, for the epistemologically self-conscious among our current Goths, Mongols and Zulus criminal class, the purpose is clear. They are destroying Western Civilization by destroying its history. If they are successful then whatever history that will exist will be the history of the last 5 minutes as controlled by the Tyrant State. Communique will go out from the new American Soviet Supreme and history will be changed with every new communique. Some new art and statuary will slowly arise but even that will only mean whatever the State says it means at any given time. History and truth thus become transitory and mere tools for the State to keep people in line with the Revolutionary thinking. So, you’ll still get a Lenin as art here and there. You’ll get the kitschy Revolutionary “Internationale” or the corny Revolutionary art that finds the youth of the world in the painting bowing and throwing flowers at the feet of the great leader. Any other statues or art will be verboten.

Finally, keep in mind that in the desire to destroy the old order by destroying the art, what will eventually come is some formation of a “Committee on Public Safety,” to protect the new order from those who honored, respected, and cherished the old art. These people who can never be redeemed from their commitment to the old order ways must be destroyed every bit as much as all that old statuary. As such they will be guillotined, or gulag-ed, or just conveniently disappear. They will not rest with statuary destroyed. They will not be placated by your sincere apologies, kneeling, or reparations. They will not be fooled by you suddenly joining in the Revolution. Their desire is to steal, kill, and destroy. They will soon enough be coming for you.