by Al Benson Jr. 05.04.01

In light of many historical events, I feel this is a legitimate question.
Apparently I am not alone.

Recently, Professor Thomas J. DiLorenzo of Loyola College had an excellent
article on the 14th Amendment published in The Free Market.

He noted several things which the "history" books (and I use that term
loosely) will never tell us. He observed that, when an honest vote was
taken in 1865, the amendment was rejected by the Southern and border
states. That caused it to fail to gain the necessary three-fourths of the
states needed to pass it. In retaliation, the beneficent Republican Party,
which basically held the country in a vice-grip, passed the Reconstruction
Act of 1867, putting the entire South under what amounted to military
dictatorship. And they had the gall to call it "reconstruction."

The Kennedy Brothers, in their excellent book The South Was Right made some
very revelatory comments in regard to this situation. They noted that: "To
secure enactment of the amendment, the Northern Congress had to accomplish
the following: 1. Declare the Southern states outside of the erstwhile
indivisible Union; 2. Deny majority rule in the Southern states by the
disenfranchisement of large numbers of the white population; 3. Require the
Southern states to ratify the amendment as the price of getting back into
the Union from which heretofore they had been denied the right to secede."

According to the Kennedy Brothers, the North removed the Southern states
from the Union. This was the same North that would not allow them to secede
in 1861. Lincoln, many will remember, had always claimed the seceded states
had not really seceded but were still part of the Union and were just "in
rebellion." Now this same government declared the Southern states to be
non-states. So, in order to get back into a Union the North claimed you had
never been out of, you had to ratify the 14th Amendment. At this point one
must wonder that, if you were out of the Union, how you could, as states
do, ratify much of anything. So, to put it rather bluntly, to get back into
a Union you had never been out of you must now ratify an amendment which
only states that are in the Union can ratify. I suppose, to the Yankee
mindset it makes kind of a quirky sense. I don't confess to be able to
grasp the Yankee mindset, unless it's kind of a "have your cake and eat it
too" mentality.

On top of all that, New Jersey and Ohio, becoming disgusted with the mental
gymnastics and blatant hypocrisy emanating from Washington (what else is
new?) withdrew their support for the amendment. That little fact, however,
proved no obstacle for the radical Republicans. They just ignored the
withdrawal of support by these two states and declared the amendment
ratified. Rather like the general who tells his forces to retreat in the
face of the enemy and then declare victory! Seems we did something like
that in Vietnam.

That Northern apostle of hate, Thaddeus Stevens, gave several speeches
after the conclusion of the War of Northern Aggression. He prattled about
protecting the "constitutional guarantees" of all, and then, almost in the
same breath, he advocated, in a distinctly Marxist manner, that the land of
all the "chief rebels" be seized and used to help pay the national debt.
Although his comments may seem purely political in nature, Stevens was
doing nothing more that advocating the redistribution of someone else's
wealth, while mouthing pious platitudes about "constitutional protection."

In a rare moment of unconscious revelation, Stevens actually reflected his
theological worldview when he said: "In reconstruction...reformation must
be effected;...the foundations of their institutions, both political,
municipal, and social (Christian) must be broken up and relaid, or all of
our blood and treasure have been in vain. This can only be done by treating
and holding them as a conquered people."

Unwittingly, Stevens has revealed the theological foundations of his
beliefs. You see, every person has a theology, a worldview, whether he
chooses to attend a church or not. Even the atheist has a religion, it just
seems to be a godless one. The true theology (worldview) of Thaddeus
Stevens and the radical Republican/Abolitionist/reconstruction crowd can
easily be described as "subjugation and seizure"--in direct violation of
both the 8th and 10th Commandments.

Stevens stated further: "They (the South) ought never to be recognized as
capable of acting in the Union, or being counted as valid states, until the
Constitution shall have been so amended as to make it what its framers
intended: and so as to secure perpetual ascendancy to the party of the
Union (the Republicans)." At this point Stevens seems to have appointed
himself as chief interpreter of what the true intent of the Framers was. Do
his comments about amendment show that Stevens viewed the 14th Amendment as
part of the true intent of the Framers? Upon closer scrutiny, what Stevens
was really advocating was a one-party state with his party in perpetual
control. Par for the course for the Yankee mentality! We have been informed
to some degree, that such a mindset was bad for Communist countries. If it
was bad for them, why, pray tell, was it any better in the 1860s when the
Republicans practised it?

I have long contended that the real revolution in this country did not
occur in 1776, at which time we fought a War for Independence when we
seceded from Great Britain. The true revolution, of the specific New World
Order variety, happened in the United States from 1861-65. After that War,
the country has never been the same, and no one alive today has ever lived
under the original system the Founders bequeathed to us. We need to reflect
upon that in our day and let that fact sink in. It may determine how we
fight in the future.

John C. Calhoun: "I hold concession or compromise to be fatal. If we
concede an inch, concession would follow compromise, until our ranks would
be so broken that effectual resistance would be impossible."

[email protected]