And its 1,2,3, What were we fighting for???

The Northern supporters of the occupation, love to point out that the “South” as they state it was fighting to preserve slavery.

First, their ignorance of what a State actually is, destroys there argument from the very reference to the “South” in reference to our Southern Confederacy: So indoctrinated into the concept that the States were consolidated into a single State under a wholly national system, that they are unable to understand that the United States was a Confederacy of States, not a consolidation of them.
A proper reference would be that the Southern States Confederacy went to war to preserve slavery, yet that would be an incorrect assertion as well.
The Southern States each seceded from the United States as individual States, they then formed their own union/confederacy, and went to war as a necessity to defend their sovereignty as individual States from the U.S.
Fort Sumter was simply the catalyst that sealed the fate of war. The U.S. had no use of a fort within South Carolina’s Charleston harbor, and the Confederate government offered to purchase the fort.

Fort Sumter was a useless fort to the U.S. as in order to supply it, the U.S. Government would need to establish a treaty to traverse South Carolina waters to do such, as all the waters and soil underneath surrounding the fort belonged to South Carolina.
So why did the U.S. government wish to maintain Fort Sumter?
Was the Fort strategic in ending Slavery in the U.S. ?
Logic would dictate that with the secession of the Southern States, the U.S. would be free of Slavery, and the 13th amendment would have been immediately ratified, thus ending slavery in the U.S.
NO NEED FOR A WAR TO END SLAVERY IN THE U.S, when the secessions of the Southern States accomplished that need. It would appear that the U.S. would be jumping with joy, rather than attempting to maintain a fort that was of no use to the U.S.
Was the U.S. fighting to preserve the union?
A war is no way to preserve a union of States, anymore than beating ones wife into submission in order to preserve a marriage.
The war destroyed the union of States, rather than preserving it by destroying State sovereignty and the federal system, consolidating the States into a single national system of government.
Sovereignty, by definition means “complete independence and self government.”
The States united offering limited and enumerated powers to a unified body called the U.S. government, they did not consolidate themselves into a single national sovereign, but rather retained, as Alexander Hamilton stated in the 1787 U.S. CONstitutional debates #32…..
“An entire consolidation of the States into one complete national sovereignty would imply an entire subordination of the parts; and whatever powers might remain in them, would be altogether dependent on the general will. But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which exclusively delegated to the United States.”
So the U.S. could not have been fighting to end Slavery in the U.S. because the secessions of the Southern States made that an easy accomplishment: Besides, logic would also require the question of why did the U.S. not treat the Native American Indian in such a moral manner?
The U.S. could not be fighting a war to preserve the union between States, as that very act was a destruction of the union of States, and a consolidation of them into a single State.
Why did the Southern States that united in a Confederacy go to war?
Surely not slavery, as slavery was protected in the Southern Confederacy, no need for those States to go to war against one another over slavery, yet there was a reason to go to war against the U.S. and that reason was sovereignty, and the protection of their individual States jurisdiction….
The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense.
Certainly slavery was one of the reasons for the secessions of the Southern States, but slavery was NOT the reason, or necessity to go to war.
All of the huff and puff, from the supporters of the occupation of our Southern Confederate States, concerning slavery is a red herring, and an attempt to hold moral superiority. Secession was a legal and lawful act accomplished by each Southern State, Slavery had nothing to do with the legality of secession.

James Everett Sui Juris……

All rights reserved without prejudice

14 Responses to “And its 1,2,3, What were we fighting for???”

  1. Adrian G. says:

    This is a great Article. Well written.

  2. Lee Craig says:

    This is well written and I have been finding my self coming to the defense when it come to those who wish to believes what the public school system has been teaching for the last 150 years I once my self believed the lies but like my self there is hope for those who question what they were taught in school the thing I am hearing the most is that the Confederate Government was surrendered and well that got me thinking if the Confederate Government was surrendered there would be proof documentation of said document so the way I see it I had to dig for the proof of the surrendering of the government or as the case is the non-extant documentation and still those that think they know the history of the civil war and the reason it was fought it is just a shame as to what is being taught

    • jake says:

      Well Lee, I happen to be sitting in school as i type this. I have American History 1 right now and we are right in the middle of the Civil War. I live in North Carolina and am personally very proud to be from a Confederate State. I thought I’d give you a little sneak peak at what these idiots are teaching us in school, especially in Civics, Economics, and History. First off, the people teaching us are mostly straight out of college liberal hippies who think white people from the South especially should feel bad because of slavery, they want us to feel guilty because slavery was present in the South roughly 150 years ago. I am much less ignorant then most of my fellow classmates. My dad has taught me very well everything i need to know about politics, history, religion, etc… But my main point is, is that yes you are right about the teaching about slavery in school is so terribly wrong and twisted. The South isn’t and evil section of the country. In reality, the South is really the only true America left. I just hope that things change quick, fast and in a hurry, because one thing that isn’t a joke is the education of our future generations. If we don’t no the truth, in 75 years, no one will….. God Bless America.

  3. james says:

    Mr. Craig,
    Our CSA government was never surrendered, Lee Surrendered the army under his command, Johnson surrendered the army under his command, and so on: Generals have no authority to surrender governments. President Davis dismissed his cabinet, yet that is all the power he had, in that area, as he could not dismiss the State governments appointed (representatives)=Senators, or the peoples elected house member representatives, therefore President Davis could not assume the power to dismiss the government, any more than Barrack Obama, or George W Bush could have ever assumed the power to dismiss the occupying U.S. government. No surrender of the CSA government nor its Constitution was ever made, nor a peace treaty concluded between the U.S. government, and the CSA government. Our Southern Confederate States were invaded and our Southern State governments were replaced under coercion and duress under martial law and occupation. Our State government officials were given the choice of signing an oath of loyalty to the occupying U.S. government or be arrested: when they refused, they were arrested and replaced.

  4. Lee Craig says:

    i have been saying that to just about every brain washed person that swear up and down that the government was surrendered in fact searching for proof that says different then what we have come to know the truth and well here is a direct quote from president Davis ” I can not surrender the government of the Confederacy for one day her citizens will rise up again and finish what was started, to preserve their freedoms both constitutional and God given rights for when all rights are lost the reason we were fighting for is at a lose for all generations.” that and the fact that the reconstruction acts of 1867 is unlawful. and Mr. James if you fully read what i said you’d read this as well ” if the Confederate Government was surrendered there would be proof documentation of said document so the way I see it I had to dig for the proof of the surrendering of the government or as the case is the non-extant documentation and still those that think they know the history of the civil war and the reason it was fought it is just a shame as to what is being taught” that was at the last you must have skimmed over what i said and came to the incorrect conclusion that i was saying something i wasn’t saying at all

    • Adrian G. says:

      Hi Mr Lee Craig,
      That’s an awesome quote from President Davis, could you please give me the source? Thank you very much. Blessed Be!

  5. Robert Suthrenr says:

    Does something still count as a government if there’s no leaders, army, or citizens remaining?

    • james says:

      I believe you may find the answers to your questions by simply referring to the first continental congress, which existed under English rule, had no army, or real power to govern the citizenry, especially those who remained as loyal subjects of King George. The first continental congress had to first gain consent of the people and then begin to establish all else that derived from that consent, our restoration images that very beginning, which began with those who gave that first beginning of consent with volunteers to build that government, and yes, it was and is recognized as the first government of the union.
      You are indoctrinated into a consolidated national government mindset.
      Refer to our Declaration of Independence wherein it is stated as a self evident truth that…
      “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”\
      Also in a confederacy of States, unlike the consolidated national government of America, citizenship is by State, not citizenship via your 13th amendment to your 1787/1789 CONstitution, (as in a corporate citizen).
      In a confederacy of States one is a citizen of the State wherein he resides, hence via the confederation he is recognized as an American citizen as opposed to a U.S. corporate citizen.
      Each State has its own citizenry, as well as the body politic that we are establishing via registered CSA State citizens in order to establish a Confederate body politic outside of your consolidated national government political venue.
      These elections will re-seat our CSA government for the purpose of following our legal amendment method to return us to the Articles of Confederation for our Southern Confederate States.
      The army to which you refer is called the militia which consists of every able bodied individual.

      • DBPatrick says:

        Howdy Mr. Everette,

        Why do we want to return to the Articles of Confederation? What is wrong with the Confederate Constitution? Sure, knock a couple things about slavery out without harming an individual’s right to consensual contract, allow for the addition of territory, decide how interstate highways will be done, limit the President’s role to that of a more ceremonial leader, besides the control of the armies. But wasn’t there a reason that the Confederacy based her Constitution on the Union one and not the older Articles? Historians already say that the Confederacy died of state sovereignty, which I respond that I wouldn’t blame the Confederacy for anything that was caused by the stress put on them by the war the North waged upon them in their infancy, but the Articles are way in the direction of no centralization, not only that, they don’t have the benefit of hindsight that the CS Constitution had, such as the limitations on the size of legislation the federal government can pass, the removal of the general welfare clause(because horrible things can be done in the name of general welfare), and the prohibition of fostering industries(because that is really picking winners and losers). It was an intelligently crafted document and if you destroy it with amendments, then you will destroy the Confederacy.

        I had taken an interest in what you are doing for a while, but if you’re just gonna destroy the Confederacy if I let you have her, then I won’t help you have her, because my dream is to one day live in the Confederate States of America, not in the CSA but not really. And don’t say that I don’t understand state sovereignty, I fully understand, that whatever state I choose to become a citizen of will be where my political attention is focused. But I don’t see why the federal government can’t be strong in the few areas we want it to be; what’s the point if it’s weak across the board? That’s called Europe, and they’re crap. We don’t want to be like them. I want strong military protection of the Confederacy, and all her holdings around the world when she acquires them. I want decent national transportation network, a highway system, or autobahn as they say in Germany(our current constitutional equivalent is the regulation of the interstate waterways). I want a pact of open borders between the states as well as free trade, so long as no state is forced to accept a good or service it has banned. I want a quick response system in the event of a state undergoing a natural disaster. The transportation, open borders, and free trade will also keep the large Confederacy well connected, and therefore, in the words of Davis, “homogenous,” which he said is the only way to preserve the Confederacy peacefully, and considering what we all know the War of Northern Aggression was about, the truth of his words is staring us all in the face. All these things are completely reasonable expectations for a federal government, and the Confederate Constitution with only MINOR tweaking, will serve these purposes and will probably last much longer than the old Union, but it sounds like you want an overhaul. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

        A Concerned Confederate,


        P.S. Sorry, if my tone is coming off as angry. I really love the Confederacy, because she is the best government the world has ever and probably will ever see, which is the cause of much of my lament for the future. I want to know that if we bring her back, we do it right, because the future of mankind is really at stake here. Think of the entire history of mankind up until the War of the States. There was land everywhere. If your government was oppressive, then you go start a new one and promise people they can keep their possessions and exchange ideas openly, then your country is the new superpower, and then the next generation of leaders begin talking about progressive ideas (which has been happening since Shumer in Mesopotamia) and start “robbin’ the rich to feed the poor,” and then they have to stop the criticisms that arise with violence. Think of all the cities we’ve found abandoned, with no signs of battle, or disaster. You know what I think happened? They had an equivalent to Progressives that drove the businessmen out, who then followed the businessmen to their new prosperous city, leaving the old one abandoned. Why were we in America? To much tyranny in Europe, some of us wanted free thought, others wanted free trade, we all wanted to get away from the tyrants who despised such things. That was back when we had land to flee to. Now there is no land, but the Confederacy stood at this pivotal moment in mankind’s history and said they weren’t leaving this time, they said get the fuck off of our land, and they were overwhelmed. That is the big picture, part of the Confederacy is self-determination, but another part of the Confederacy is that she was our last and best hope to prosper into the future and since the surrender of Gnrl. Stand Watie, we have been living on borrowed time, waiting for an end with no certainty of when it will come. We have sanctioned the misdeeds of the Union, so they now practice them so openly and so wantonly that it can only lead to destruction, whereas a Confederate victory would have lead to much calmer foreign relationship, probably less wars, much freer states around the Caribbean, possibly even faster technological progress due to the desirability of a free country over an oppressive one, in which to try to profit from an invention. That is what we lost, I want the plan that gains that back.

        • DBPatrick says:

          I would like to add, that I also have my own idea of an ideal system of government, take the states of the Confederacy, and split them into Germany sized Federations, for further decentralization, however I would never push such a radical change on the Confederacy as a whole, although I may advocate switching to such a system in my own state.

          What I love about the Confederacy, is that that even for the few issues can nitpick over in her current document, her Constitution is really ready for action, and it would be easy to quickly pass an amendment to stop the reemergence of involuntary slavery. My problem with your plan is that if you did get everyone to agree to resurrect her and then to agree to an overhaul of her document, you would likely lose control of the process and the document we ended up with would not be what you or anyone intended (we would become the Northern Mexico), because somebody would jump up and take advantage of the process to gain power, just like you complained about with the Federalist Rats. They just played everybody to gain power right? All I’m saying is that you have a document, and you should enshrine it and worship it, keep the immediate changes small, important, and easy to keep track of, and then make it almost impossible to ever amend again(even make some sections unamendable), otherwise they’ll burn it and destroy the Confederacy just like the United States.

          I was skeptical of your movement at first, but I kept reading, and I can see from your words and your consistent activity that you are legitimately after this Cause. I really want the Confederacy back, and I know there are college kids out there like me, who are looking at getting a career and making something of their lives and thinking, “Wow, I’m gonna do all that work just so poor people can vote to take my money away and buy HDTVs, then they’ll complain about not having food, so they’ll vote to take more many from me and buy an Xbox One.”

          There is no way out, because not only are there too many poor people like that voting, they’ve also locked us in a fake two party system by means that escape me. I think you are holding the only way out, but your plan has the flaw that revolution (by revolving the entire government into the Article of Confederation, a situation you intend to create) attracts corruption, which is why most countries in the Americas are crap. I’d like to know how you’re going to account for that.

          • Adrian G. says:

            Hi DBPatrick,
            You said you were interested in this movement, but did you affirm your Confederate State Citizenship yet? You can do so on THIS website.
            As for adopting a new Constitution, the 1861 CSA Constitution is very clear on how to do that. Article V and Article VII

            If you don’t like what kind of Constitution the CSA will have, has it occurred to you that your State could still withdraw from the Confederacy – something we CANNOT do under illegal US occupation – that is why working towards the restoration and liberation of this Confederacy is of utmost importance, as we must end the illegal US occupation of these Confederate States once and for all – otherwise, the States of our residency would be denied their sovereignty and kept as mere provinces of the USA State of America.
            That is why we must focus our efforts towards Confederate Liberation.
            We CAN and WILL succeed – and after that, secession will once again be recognized as a legal act (which it already is a legal remedy and act, as we have gone nearly a century and a half of illegal US occupation which must come to an end)
            The TRUTH WILL be known.

  6. Adrian G. says:

    Very well said Mr James.

  7. james says:

    Mr. Patrick,
    Before I address your questions and concerns, I would like to express my gratitude for your interest, concerns, and critique. I appreciate thoughtful dialog, and would like to see much more, not simply addressed to me, but to the cause itself, and between you and others, wherein a constant drum of ideas, and debate is being held. The Tennessee plan under the restoration asks for just what you have offered here: Thoughtful critique and dialog.

    Mr. Patrick,
    You ask……

    “Why do we want to return to the Articles of Confederation? What is wrong with the Confederate Constitution?”

    My response is this….
    Our 1861 Constitution for The Confederate States of America, contains the same fatal flaw in preserving a Confederacy of States in favor of a consolidation of the States, and that fatal flaw is the establishment of a national system to operate with the completely opposing system of federalism.

    I will attempt to explain what I refer to herein….

    If we look at the Articles of Confederation we see that they established a Confederacy of States, with a wholly federal system as the central body. These Articles were completely amendable to give the central body more power and authority that may have been needed. To prove this, we only need look at the transformation from the Articles to the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, this in itself proves that they were amendable, even to the point that they were, as they say, “abandoned”.
    But was abandonment necessary?

    I say NO !

    With the addition of a national component that was established by the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution and maintained in our Constitution for the Confederate States of America, we can see that this national aspect is contrary to a Confederacy of States, the culprit in the destruction of a Confederacy of States and the establishment of a consolidation into a wholly national system: A single State with the former component States being reduced to provinces of a single sovereign, wherein the very name United States becomes a fiction.

    James Madison explains in the CONstitutional debates #39 and 62 that the proposed 1787 CONstitution would establish a partially federal system and a partially national system.

    His words were as follows……

    “But it was not sufficient,” say the adversaries of the proposed Constitution, “for the convention to adhere to the republican form. They ought, with equal care, to have preserved the federal form, which regards the Union as a Confederacy of sovereign states; instead of which, they have framed a national government, which regards the Union as a consolidation of the States.”
    “The House of Representatives will derive its powers from the people of America; and the people will be represented in the same proportion, and on the same principle, as they are in the legislature of a particular State. So far the government is national, not federal. The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress. So far the government is federal, not national.”

    What we see here is that the House of representatives is the national aspect that was added to the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, and maintained in our 1861 Constitution for the Confederate States of America. This national aspect is contrary to a confederacy of States. The House of representative members are elected directly by the people and represent the people of the whole of the union without respect to State affiliation. In such a system existing in a confederacy of States wherein member representatives are elected directly by the people with no respect to their State government but rather to that of a political party which funds their campaign to be elected, we see that those representatives become pawns controlled by political party’s, which are in turn controlled and funded by corporations, not representing even the people of the whole of the national component.
    The Senate as originally established wherein two Senators were appointed by each States legislature to represent their State government in the central body was the federal aspect brought over from the Articles of Confederation. In this wholly federal system, the State legislatures could recall their Senator, (Their representative) if he was not voting in the best interest of their State.
    This federal portion no longer exists as a result of the 17th amendment to the occupying governments CONstitution, hence what exists today is NOT the federal government to which people refer, but rather a wholly national government system and no union of States, let alone a confederacy of States. The United States has become a fiction that has been accepted as reality.

    James Madison goes on to state in the last paragraph that…..
    “The proposed Constitution, therefore, [even when tested by the rules laid down by its antagonists,][1] is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both.”

    In #62 James Madison states of the Senate that…..

    “It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.”

    “Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States.”

    As a result of the extermination of the federal system we see that the States are no longer participants in a confederacy of States, hence their can be no Confederacy/union of States, NO UNION, hence no “United States”.

    My point is that our 1861 Constitution for the Confederate States of America contains that same fatal flaw that will one day if allowed to remain destroy our Confederacy of States, just as has occurred with the former United States. In a math problem, if one equation is incorrect, then the answer will also be incorrect, and one must return to the incorrect equation and correct it, else the answer will never be correct, and the answer is individual Liberty under common law, wherein one is free to do as one chooses so long as in exercising this individual liberty one does not violate the life, liberty, or property of another. In my opinion we must return to the Articles, and correct the incorrect equation, which was the addition of a national component under the 1787/1789 U.S. CONstitution, which is also contained within our 1861 Constitution for the Confederate States of America.
    Such cannot become reality in a wholly national government system, as James Madison stated it in #39…..
    “The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizen, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things”

    Once returned to the Articles, we may amend them with the best parts of our 1861 CSA Constitution leaving out the national component.

    What those nationalists who advocated the proposed 1787 CONstitution wanted was a powerful government of grandeur and splendor to rival the other such governments such as the French, English and Spain Monarchy’s, yet the people would not accept a Monarchy or a wholly consolidated national government system, hence the compromise of retaining the federal portion in the form of the original Senate, knowing that the national component would one day be used to destroy federalism.

    Patrick Henry warned that….

    Those nations who have gone in search of grandeur, power and splendor have all fallen a sacrifice, and been he victims of their own folly: While they acquired those visionary blessings, they lost their freedom”.

    The occupying National government has acquired those visionary blessings of the nationalists who advocated the 1787 U.S. CONstitution, and its citizens have lost their freedom.


    Your obedient servant…
    James Everett, Sui Juris

  8. Jacob Hammond says:

    First I want to say I could never say this as great as you did. For a long while I thought I was the only one who wanted to preserve the history, to prove it wasn’t about slavery, and to bring back the Confederacy. I’ve fell for the Confederate States back in the fourth grade. Ironically I liked it cause of the flag, but soon when I learned it I wanted to know more of what it stood for. Soon I found in a book, what it was truly about and I wanted to spread the word, but blacks and liberals are to stubern to read or educate themselves. I have studied the Civil War and the Confederacy ever since. I appreciate all you’re doing.

Leave a Reply