The Truth About
The Confederacy
Parents - Teach Your Kids The Truth

By Charley Reese

"I Love the Union and the Constitution, he said..." There was a time when the states knew how, and when to delegate.
Jefferson Davis, the last American president to preside over a constitutional republic (the Confederate States of America) had this to say about the Constitution and the Union.
"I love the Union and the Constitution," he said, "but I would rather leave the Union with the Constitution than remain in the Union without it."
I would guess many Americans have no idea what Davis meant, because they have no idea what the original intent of the Constitution was. Many today, I suspect, think that the Constitution is what allows people to burn flags and dance naked in bars.
In fact, the Founding Fathers had a rather more serious purpose in mind. The first step in understanding the original intent is to recall that Colonial America existed for about 169 years before the American Revolution; these colonies existed separately and independent of each other.
When they seceded from the British Empire, they did so separately and independently.
The Declaration of Independence is clear on this point. It states, "We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America,...solemnly publish and declare, that these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States" (note the plural) "...and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all the other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do..."
They called themselves the United States because of the Articles of Confederation. Article II of that document states,
"Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."
Many people today seem to think that the federal government created the states when it was the reverse. The states created the federal government as a stronger form of confederation by delegating certain of their powers to it. Thus, the purpose of the Constitution of 1787, like the Articles of Confederation, was to create a voluntary union to accomplish specific purposes, mainly to ensure a domestic free market, to provide for the common defense of the states and to deal with foreign countries with one voice.
In the original Constitution, people were not American citizens per se but were instead citizens of their respective states. The Constitution stipulated that each state would grant to the citizens of other states the rights and privileges it granted to its own. It's difficult to understand the War Between the States without understanding the loyalty Americans - North and South felt for their respective states.
But what is relevant for us today is that the people in the American Republic (1787-1860) understand that the powers of the federal government were strictly limited to those spelled out in the Constitution and that the Constitution would be interpreted literally and narrowly. And, most important, that the states themselves would be the final judge of the federal government's actions.
In the North, however, there arose new feelings of nationalism and a belief that a strong central government should provide economic benefits - protective tariffs and infrastructure, for example. Southerners disagreed; hence the split.
Because the North prevailed and amended the Constitution to expand the powers of the federal government, that's what we live under today.
But Davis also said that questions that are settled by force and violence remain forever unsettled and will arise again. And so, today, we are seeing more and more people object to an unlimited central government. It seems sometimes that human "progress" travels in a circle rather than a straight line.
"No one is above the law. No law is above the U.S. Constitution. If a law violates the Constitution and Bill of Rights, it is unconstitutional. Therefore is not binding on any respective State or it's citizens." -- James D. Jones, Tennessee
Suggested reading: The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo. You can also hear the March 31, 2003, interview with him in our Archives. - JR
Steve Mungie
A native American Indian
When, if ever, can we convince our brethern of color, the truth about what the Confederacy was reallyabout? It was not about color ... it was not about racism ... is was not about slavery. In fact, if you can find older existing history books, you will discover that slavery was being phased out of existance years before the Civil War ever began! And worse, slavery in the North existed long after the Civil War ended.
The whole fight was simply and totally over States' rights, as is clearly laid out in the 9th and the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
Sadly, the average American student does not know the truth, and his partents and grand-parents before him did not learn either!
And guess what? Slavery exists today. Right here, in the "land of the free and home of the brave."
Simply ... it's time to wake up and understand ... the white man, the black man and the man of any color are not enemies .. the system is the enemy.
It's time to "clean the house", and get rid of the filth, slithering through the Halls of Congress. It's no longer a matter of Republican, or Democrat. Its a matter of reality .... they have all lied to us.
From Richard Arnold
This page is based more on opinions that facts. The founding fathers of the Constitutional Convention were convened because Congress recognized that the framework of the Articles of Confederation was so seriously flawed, that the very survival of each of the former colonies, as well as the confederation itself was at stiake.
The majority of those at the Constitutional Convention wanted a far stronger central goverenment than they thought they could sell the American people, and deliberately left vagueness in the Constituion so that future Americans could keep it a "Living Document". Even those members
of the Convention who refused to sign the proposal (because they thought it went too far) recognized the existing Confederation was doomed.
Member states were not paying their share of taxes, foreign policy was virtually impossible, and European governments were presumed to be courting individual states for treaties
that would be detrimental to other neighboring states.
Edmund Randolf of Virginia, probably the most ardent "states rights" man at the convention, eventually became a supporter and the principal promoter of its ratification in Virginia. I am appalled by constant "states rights" dreamers who think the original Confederation was the great answer, or that the Constitution was originally conceived to limit the Federal power to a subserviant level. It ignores far too much well documented history.
Richard Arnold




This Site Served by TheHostPros