War we're fighting today isn't essentially diff. fm one fought 150 yrs ago--war of northern aggression....

Book Review: "Is Davis A Traitor?" By Albert T. Bledsoe
(Apollonian, 20 Mar 16)

One of the very greatest of all masterpieces of exposition is and was Albert Taylor Bledoe's "Is Davis a Traitor? or Was Secession a Constitutional Right Previous to the War of 1861?"; Hermitage Press, Inc.; Richmond, Virginia; 1907, 263 pages text, viii; no index, first published in 1866. In this great and most lucidly written book, Bledsoe covers the exposition of secession and circumstances thereof, the Constitution being a compact made by the states acting as agents of the people of the states, etc.

Of course, this sort of Constitutional exposition, specifically covering the topic of state secession fm the Union, had already been covered by several authors, esp. Abel P. Upshur, the great lawyer and statesman fm Virginia, in his "The Federal Government: Its True Nature and Character" (1840). Upshur's magnificent, cogent, and brief work of around about 160 pages specifically addressed the arguments advanced by US Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story's work ("Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States"), which denied the Constitution was a compact made by the states and asserting the US was not a union but rather a national state of its own, having been made and ratified as such by the "whole people," and NOT by the states (in convention) acting as agents of the people of the states. And therefore, according to Story and Webster, the states were NOT sovereign, parties to the Constituional contract, capable of secession and nullification.

Daniel Webster then, the prominent US Senator fm state of Massachusetts, took-up Story's basic arguments (Story a collaborator of Webster, also fm Massachusetts) when, for example, he debated in the US Senate against the S. Carolina Senator, Robert Hayne, in 1830, regarding sovereignty of the states under the Constitutional compact, Webster denying such "compact" and states' "sovereignty."

So the pt. then is Upshur had brilliantly and quite sufficiently upheld the true nature of the Union according to Const. compact of the states and the history thereof in a positive manner, but didn't too thoroughly examine or attack the PREMISES of Story's and Webster's arguments, merely the conclusions and assertions. Bledsoe addresses these premises of Story and Webster and actually shows them up for their gross ignorance and outright LIES. Bledsoe thus EXPOSES the amazing lies told by Story and Webster, Webster nowadays and for over a hundred + yrs lionized by northern propagandists as some sort of God of rhetoric, exposition, and speechifying--when he was actually quite moronically mis-conceived and plainly ignorant, and actually a LIAR for the false arguments he presented and asserted--Bledsoe making this all most clear, Webster actually crass sophist, bluffing blow-hard, con-artist, and LIAR.

For example, both Story and Webster in their works assert the Const. convention of 1787 worked for and achieved a "national" gov., this demonstrated by a supposed resolution passed by six (6) of the states which had assembled before the full convention arrived, but Story and Webster don't tell the full truth to effect this word, "national," was later explicitly objected to and expunged for the confederation of states expressed by the substituted phrase, "gov. of the United States," as Bledsoe pt.s out for us, Upshur having been too charitable, evidently, to call-out Webster and Story as LIARS.

Webster, in his speech of 1833 denies US Const. was/is "compact"; Bledsoe pt.s out how the Const. was called exactly that, "compact," by noneother than Gouverneur Morris, Alex. Hamilton, and Elbridge Gerry during the convention debates, and by Madison himself in his own notes to the convention. Thus Bledsoe exposes another BALD-FACED LIE by Webster, the supposed "silver-tongued orator."

Webster also objected to use of the word, "accession" and "acceding" to the Constitution as he wanted to preclude use of the word's opposite term, "secession." But Bledsoe pt.s-out how the word, "accession," was widely used by James Wilson, G. Morris, Edmund Randolf, Patrick Henry, John Marshall, George Washington, and again, Madison.

So this is the great, additional service rendered by Bledsoe for his deeper research showing-up the crass charlatanry, willful deception, and plain ignorance of Story and Webster, upholding the theory of Southern patriots against the hubris and lies of the northern murderers and conspirators. Thus the "factional" party, as Bledsoe so well describes, of the northern Republicans in 1860 took complete control of US government, including the Presidency even when Lincoln rec'd less than 40% of the popular vote.

In looking-back, one must wonder how the people of the north were so easily led by their corrupt politicians to illegal war and mass-murder against THEIR VERY OWN COUNTRY-MEN (up to two million people killed or dying, including up to a million blacks), the people of the south. But the northern people were too easily persuaded they were under attack, and the leaders were shrewd and sure of the break-away industrial development and general economic prosperity, continuing to expand to the west, as the south was relegated to a mere back-water now destroyed, decimated, and turned into an internal colony for "carpetbagger" exploiters, criminal profiteers, and social-engineers.

It was thus absolutely essential for the Southern military effort, as recommended by Stonewall Jackson, to strike actively by means of a pre-emptive attack strategy, a vigorous and active defense which would have persuaded the north to agitate their leaders to making peace. But Jefferson Davis unfortunately and tragically opted for a stand-pat strategy as the North freely invaded the south while at same time applying an evermore effective strangulating blockade of the coasts. Thus the victimized South was steadily crushed even as the crazed and murderous northerners took fearful casualties as they did so.

But never doubt THE WAR IS NOT OVER, and the VERY SAME fight for states-rights based upon individual freedom and the ascending model of political power, working and beginning fm the individual people up to the more centralized levels, local to state to federal, goes on to this very day (read the 10th Amendment, all 28 words), now even the people of the north and all sections evermore grasping and understanding necessity for resisting and removing this horrific centralized dictatorship, thus urgency of application of states rights and nullification as means thereto.

And it's notable and instructive how consideration of such states-rights is ALWAYS countered by satanic spokesmen of world gov. and centralization by means of the slavery issue and "racism," so totally irrelevant but ALWAYS so effective for diversion of discussion, moralism seeking to over-shadow facts. Hence the only aid for libertarians is, so ironically, the continuing economic collapse and increasing misery of the people, north and south in face of present absolute state and satanic "big-brother" working for genocide and further mass-murder--"de-population" according to United Nations agenda-21 and now "agenda-30."