More on the effort to destroy the Union

Mr. Woods, and others, have remarked that the American Civil War never happened. There was no civil war; it was, in the words of some, a War of Northern Aggression.

Georgia, one of the southern states to succeed, stated in January 1861, that a “condition of virtual civil war” exists between the two sections of the “confederate States.”

Kind of hard to follow these modern day reconstructions proposed by some and distributed by the FairTax Book, that no American Civil War ever happened. Specifically, that whatever conflict happened was between two equal countries.

Using the Avalon Project at Yale Law School, available for public download at http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/geosec.htm, the Georgia document dated January 29, 1861 makes it very clear. Slave owners in Georgia believed themselves under attack. They believed $3 billion dollars in “personal property rights” had already been destroyed by the “Union.” Their document and their words recount “the actual invasion of the one of the slave-holding States.” These ‘invaders’ escaped “public justice by flight [and] found fraternal protection among our Northern confederates.”

All the modern talk of property rights, by advocates for local control or States rights, can clearly be seen as a question of slavery rights, the more honest name. Georgians in 1861 clearly stated that the Republican Party was an anti-slavery party with “anti-slavery … its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state.”

Here is my thesis. Two political factions were at war and using the full powers of war: insurrection, rebellion, intelligence, counter-intelligence, and psychological operations prior to any act of succession. These two factions were legally bound by a Constitution and were internal political rivals within the United States of America. The political issue was “the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race.”

In January 1861, the state of Georgia called it “our Constitution,” not the Constitution of a foreign government. Georgia blamed the “non-slave-holding States,” not the federal government, for violating Southern property rights “of every kind (including slaves [sic])."

The South continues to fight the American Civil War, the war that stopped slavery. The FairTax Book helps promote the fight against the “Union” by including Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Ph.D. as a quoted expert.

That is not a technicality. It’s a goal, to destroy the “Union.”

A Response to Ms. Weeks

Ms. Weeks: “That was asked by Michael Parker in his May 6 rant to The Times. I understand why they are a mess! (By the way, they do not want to get rid of the federal government, they just want it back the way it was intended: more local control.)”

Ms. Weeks was so angry she forgot to clarify which “they” is which they. My comments must have burned a nerve. As to how the Constitution was intended, she needs to read Federalist 6 and 7. Hamilton argues in Federalist 6 and 7 that a weak federal government would be a very bad thing. That states would battle each other for trivial reasons including fights over women.

Ms. Weeks: “This was just a footnote. Anyone who listens to Boortz knows he likes to point out technicalities and, in Mr. Parker's case, get people riled up. This was one page out of 182. It is not what the book is about.”

The footnote negates the Civil War. How is that a technicality? Well, if you want to reconstruct slavery as a social and economic condition… it would be a technicality. I guess.

Ms. Weeks: “Now for those of you interested in real change, the Fair Tax is the way to go. It eliminates federal income tax, Social Security tax, Medicare tax, capital gains tax and you will never hear the word "audit" again.”

Again, Ms. Weeks is very wrong. She should read the legislation, Sections 505 and 508. Audits will conducted and penalties assessed. The New and Improved IRS, of which there will be at least 51, will have the power to issue summons and imprison people.

Ms. Weeks: “And best of all: You keep your entire paycheck! Think of all the money you will have and you won't have to save any more receipts or spend hours filing returns.”

It’s far more honest to say you will have visitation rights with your paycheck. The FairTax, if passed and held to be constitutional, will function like a tariff on foreign goods. That Honda or Toyota will cost at least 23 percent more than it does now. Plus, now that paycheck is taxed only for what you make, not on what you borrow. How many people are paying cash for houses or cars? The average American will pay double their current amount in federal taxes while businesses pay nothing.

The greatest problem with Ms. Weeks overly idealistic point of view? Even if Americans spend 100 percent of what they earn, 23 percent tax won’t be equal to the current expenses of the U.S. government.

The Other Side Speaks Again

Part of my blog gets coverage in a local newspaper. Here is a sample of the responses:

"Do we understand why these two men (Neal Boortz and John Linder ) from Georgia want to do away with the federal government and the IRS?"

That was asked by Michael Parker in his May 6 rant to The Times. I understand why they are a mess! (By the way, they do not want to get rid of the federal government, they just want it back the way it was intended: more local control.)

What I don't understand, Mr. Parker, is your letter. It starts out by mentioning the Fair Tax rally, which I attended, then leads right into your biased view of "The Fair Tax Book" and the only page you actually read, page 11.

In chapter one, The History of our Income Tax, there is an overview of how income tax came about and its beginnings dating back to the Civil War. On page 11, which Mr. Parker sarcastically comments as the second full page of text in the chapter, there is a footnote that seems to have angered him. (Note: page 11 is only the third page in the chapter.)

That quote is from Thomas E. Woods, Ph. D. Since Mr. Parker conveniently left out the second half of the quote, here it is in full:

"Strictly speaking, there was never an American Civil War. A civil war is a conflict in which two or more factions fight for control of a nation's government. That was not the case in the U.S. between 1861 and 1865. The seceding Southern states were not trying to take over the U.S. government; they wanted to declare themselves independent."

This was just a footnote. Anyone who listens to Boortz knows he likes to point out technicalities and, in Mr. Parker's case, get people riled up. This was one page out of 182. It is not what the book is about.

Now for those of you interested in real change, the Fair Tax is the way to go. It eliminates federal income tax, Social Security tax, Medicare tax, capital gains tax and you will never hear the word "audit" again.

But don't worry, you will not lose any of your benefits; they will be funded by a national sales tax. The experts' estimate the tax will be 23 percent to fund the government at its current rate. If we can get our elected officials to actually cut spending, it could go down.

I know 23 percent sounds like a lot but keep in mind everything you buy has about 25 percent in taxes already in the price because it is taxed every step of the way. Those taxes will be gone, so with the Fair Tax in, prices should remain the same.

And best of all: You keep your entire paycheck! Think of all the money you will have and you won't have to save any more receipts or spend hours filing returns.

To get more information go to www.fairtax.org. Be informed so people like Michael Parker won't mislead you.

Kellie Weeks

Gainesville Times

Well, Ms. Weeks, thanks for making my point. The South still hates the union and is planning a victory party. As soon as the unconstitutional FairTax destroys the Union.

Why are these people still fighting this war? Aren't they tired of being whipped?

I actually read page 10 and 12, too. But, as my blog makes clear, the book is nothing but a sales pitch and an effort to take revenge on the Union.

All these folks are nuts.

Page 12 More Fraud

More Fraud

Starting on page 12, the FairTax posse rants and rages about how politicians misname legislation. Seems these boys from Georgia think honesty is a family value, but not in their dysfunctional family.

The Georgia Boys cite an income tax legislation title as “’An act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the government, and for other purposes.” Using that title is a mouthful of fraud. This act has been called the Revenue Act of 1894 and the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1984 and even the Wilson Tariff. Many ‘revenue acts’ have been passed and the name “Revenue Act” may have little meaning. But, no one in 1894 sponsored or co-sponsored any legislation in the United States Congress with the title: “An act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the government, and for other purposes.”

Why would anyone mislead others on the title of a piece of legislation?

The Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894, or the Wilson Tariff Act, is the right name. Under this name, tariffs were reduced and an income tax reintroduced to the top one half of one percent of Americans (.005%). Opponents of the Act schemed to have it invalidated before any taxes could be collected.

An income tax had been collected from 1861 to 1872 and modified by various revenue acts. In 1881, in Springer vs. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881), the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court had declared income taxation to be constitutional.

It would be too much to expect a posse, which is the right name to call the FairTax mob with its anti-Union rage, to respect the truth.

The first challenge to the Wilson Tariff’s income tax provisions were from a John G. Moore in December 1894 who sought an injunction to stop the collection.

It would be William D. Guthrie who would persuade the Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company directors along with the Continental Trust Company directors to join in a backroom scheme. The scheme was simple. The two companies would make resolutions that the tax was unconstitutional while setting aside funds to pay the tax. Then, two stockholders were recruited to seek an injunction against each company for breach of trust. Born from this scheme were Pollock vs. Farmers ’Loan and Trust Company and Hyde vs. Continental Trust Company.

Guthrie hired James C. Carter to represent the companies and defend the income tax. Lawrence Maxwell, the solicitor general of the United States made arraignments with Guthrie for direct appeal to the Supreme Court.

These maneuverings are documented by Ratner (1942), Swaine (1946), and the Grover Cleveland Papers held in the Manuscript Division, Library of Congress.