Coyote Blog

23 Comments

1. Noah:

   My God!! What kind of sicko would desecrate a national monument like Mount Rushmore.

   What? What? Oh, oh.

   November 5, 2011, 6:27 pm

2. BlogDog:

   It's been defaced!

   November 6, 2011, 8:34 am

3. me:

   Pretty ;)

   Good showing on Stossel, Warren, btw (9 minutes in on Minimum wage: http://www.hulu.com/watch/297259/stossel-promises-gone-wrong). I reiterate my request that you please consider running for any political office, you'd raise the political climate by leaps and bounds.

   November 6, 2011, 10:27 am

4. Benjamin Cole:

   Mt. Rushmore is nice, but consider Stone Mountain, GA, the world largest relief stone carving.

   "The carving depicts three figures of the Confederate States of America: Stonewall Jackson, Robert E. Lee, and Jefferson Davis."

   In other words, a monument to seditionists who fought on behalf of slavery, fired on U.S. troops and caused untold misery for millions.

   Sometimes, nature really is better.

   November 6, 2011, 3:44 pm

5. Shane:

   'Sedition' is a bullshit term invented by the state to stop criticism of it. And it was the union that caused 'untold misery for millions' by launching an aggressive war. Your understanding of history is twisted, Benjamin.

   November 7, 2011, 1:14 pm

6. Tod:

   Stone Mountain is a monument to the opposition of federal tyranny. Depicting those who were attacked by an oppressive regime called the Union. A war of northern aggression which caused untold misery for millions conducted by the warmonger Lincoln. Mt. Rushmore was defaced by sickos, and still is. https://mises.org/daily/5248

   November 7, 2011, 1:25 pm

7. Cory Brickner:

   To Mr. Cole:

   In response to your statement, "In other words, a monument to seditionists who fought on behalf of slavery, fired on U.S. troops and caused untold misery for millions." This is an extremely ignorant statement. PLEASE do some research on the history of the civil war that would be considered "revisionist" in nature. As is what happens in all war, the victor gets to rewrite events to its benefit.

   The end of slavery was the by-product of the war. Lincoln was about preserving the union at all costs. His stance on Negros was just as racist as everyone else at the time. The Emancipation Proclamation was a war document that exempted slavery in the Union and banished it from the Confederates. How come almost every other country with slaves had manumission incentives and reimbursements except our country? Yes, Negros lost their "chains" for political purposes, and in the process of the civil war, the whole country lost its Lockean origins.

   Essentially, Lincoln created slaves of the whole country in order to force the south to submit to a strong centralized government that was never wanted, nor intended by the founding fathers, nor the states that ratified The Constitution. It is counter to the principals of the American Revolution fought not just 75 years previous. Does it make sense that we fought for the right of voluntary association in which the states created the Union, then to have the Union rescind the right of voluntary association?

   With respect to your allusion to Ft. Sumter, again knowing the actual events that occurred is extremely important to the circumstances. Lincoln was trying to antagonize the South into firing first because the general population of the North was at that time in favor allowing the South to secede. Lincoln was elected without a single southern state voting for him in the electoral college and the Confederates seceded from the Union. He immediately started enacting tariffs aimed as crippling the southern economy and benefiting the northern industrial complex and railroads. He was originally a railroad lawyer and was openly beholden to their interests.

   Lincoln notified the Governor of South Carolina, Francis W. Pickens, that he was sending supply ships, which resulted in an ultimatum from the Confederate government: evacuate Fort Sumter immediately. Lincoln ignored the ultimatum and instigated hostilities by attempting to send a resupply ship through the blockade of the fort. There was no loss of life on either side as a direct result of this engagement.

   Saying the war between the states was about the North freeing the slaves from the south is blatantly nonfactual, simplistic, and typical of a public school education on an extremely complicated scenario of events that essentially was a counter revolution in which statism prevailed over individualism.

   November 7, 2011, 1:39 pm

8. leonard:

   Shane, Tod, Cory,

   Exactly, well said.

   November 7, 2011, 1:54 pm

9. John Giles:

   Benjamin, preserved from Lincoln's administration is the fact that he sought to "colonize" the former slaves upon the conclusion of the war; e.g., forcibly remove them from the U.S. His generals told him to his dismay that the shipbuilding program would bankrupt the Treasury and the idea was mostly abandoned.

   Note also that General Grant owned slaves and refused to free them until forced to do so by Constitutional amendment whereas General Lee did so years before the war out of a sense that slavery was wrong. The quote, "Good help is hard to find" came from Grant when he was asked to comment about the loss of his slaves.

   Facts are nasty things sometimes.

   November 7, 2011, 1:57 pm

10. Cho:

    What terrific posts! You guys know your history and understand economics. A breath of fresh air from the usual collectivist/statist mythology!

    November 7, 2011, 2:23 pm

11. Pat Mason:

    Benjamin Cole wrote: "In other words, a monument to seditionists who fought on behalf of slavery, fired on U.S. troops and caused untold misery for millions." Another clueless statement from a run-of-the-mill, clueless, uneducated regime apologist. The Confederacy was closer to the original Founding nation than the Lincoln Tryanny could ever be. Lincoln and his Federalist goons defied and ignored the Constitution, Civil Liberties, and the Rule of Law at every turn, and we are living the nightmare he created. The Confederacy fought off an INVADING ARMY which raped and burned its way across a prostrate South. Only a 'Regimist' Neocon would say otherwise. So, congratulations, nit-wit. You're a good little 'Bundist.'

    November 7, 2011, 2:34 pm

12. Neo:

    "There was no loss of life on either side as a direct result of this engagement."

    Actually, a horse was killed, but no Human life was lost.

    November 7, 2011, 6:02 pm

13. Jon:

    Well said Mr. Brickner! That was the most accurate, articulate and professional internet comment I've read in a long time.

    November 7, 2011, 8:16 pm

14. Bill:

    Folks, If you would read America's Caesar, by Greg Durand, it will all come into focus.

    http://www.americascaesar.com/

    http://www.carolannwilson.net/Livingston.pdf

    November 8, 2011, 9:20 am

15. Tom:

    Bill, Great Site!!!

    WORDS OF WISDOM

    The contest is not over; the strife is not ended. It has only entered upon a new and enlarged arena, and the principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form. - Jefferson Davis

    Now is the time!!! Reconstruction did not kill all the seed!

    The truth is this: The march of Providence is so slow and our desires so impatient; the work of progress so immense and our means of aiding it so feeble ; the life of humanity is so long, that of the individual so brief , that we often see only the ebb of the advancing wave and are thus discouraged. It is history that teaches us to hope. - General Robert E. Lee

    What is life without honour ? Degradation is worse than death. We must think of the living and of those who are to come after us, and see that by God's blessing we transmit to them the freedom we have ourselves inherited. - General Thomas J. Jackson

    I am not one of those who, clinging to the old superstition that the will of heaven is revealed in the immediate results of "trial by combat," fancy that right must always be on the side of might, and speak of Appomattox as a judgment of God. I do not forget that a Suvaroff triumphed and a Kosciusko fell; that a Nero wielded the scepter of empire and a Paul was beheaded; that a Herod was crowned and Christ was crucified. And, instead of accepting the defeat of the South as a divine verdict against her, I regard it as but another instance of "truth on the scaffold and wrong on the throne." - Robert Catlett Cave

    November 8, 2011, 9:26 am

16. Paul Mollon:

    Wow, the things you learn, even well into geezerhood! Growing up in Canadian schools I recall only the vaguest sort of references to the American civil (uncivil, really) war. Lincoln sent his merry men south to free the slaves from the clutches of the evil plantation owners and the emancipation proclamation was delivered, the slaves' chains were removed and there you have it, that's a wrap. Were it not for Lincoln, dark-skinned Americans would still, to this day, be bought and sold like cattle.

    Well...then I started reading some actual history from Tom DiLorenzo and others, including the brilliant post from Cory Brickner above. In particular a lot of the direct quotes from Lincoln himself were revealing to say the least. Turns out ol' Abe was not all that enthusiastic about "freeing the slaves" as my grade school texts would have had me believe. Nor was there any mention of him being a mouthpiece for the dominant railroad owners of the day or those teensy details about him jailing dissenters and attempting to ship those uppity African-Americans back to Africa. And of course there was not a word about his generals' more endearing scorched earth tactics.

    Two things you can be sure of, first, nothing is ever as simple as it seems. Second, after a war the victors write the history books.

    November 8, 2011, 9:27 am

17. el coronado:

    Funny thing about Lincoln: everybody's taught in government schools to revere him as The Man Who Freed the Slaves, The Man who Saved The Union, all that. but if you really look at the guy's pre-politics career - and thus allow us to skip the inflammatory 'Lincoln crapped on the Constitution by instituting a draft' thing, or the 'He created the modern Federal Leviathan by eviscerating the states rights' stuff - what you see is a different story than you/we were sold back in grade school.

    The guy was a lavishly-paid railroad lobbyist & lawyer. In Illinois. Illinois, then as now, was dominated by the cesspool that is Chicago. Which means Lincoln was....drum roll, please....a corporate stooge plugged in to that ever-corrupt state's ever-corrupt power structure. He was just exactly as racist and crooked as every other member of the 1% elite he ran with. He lied through his teeth to get the job. Once in the job, and the war had started, when he ran into resistance from troublesome newspapermen and the like, he suspended the 800+ year rights of habeus corpus and threw them in jail without charges. He was the first President to bring the concept of 'Total War' to American soil, and use it on American noncombatant citizens, and evidently it didn't cost him a minute's sleep. The Federal 'Union Pacific' railroad scheme, ("free land for the well-connected!"),which morphed into the famous Credit Mobilier financial scam, came into existence on his watch and over his signature. Imagine that! Our best-loved, most saintly president creating a federally-funded vehicle to funnel cash into the pockets of his former cronies! What are the ODDS?!? The sources are remarkably vague as to whether he still held his RR stock, or - even better - stock options. You know how it is: Like birth certificates and educational transcripts, paperwork like that is so easy to misplace. I'm sure there was nothing illegal or sinister going on! No payoffs or quid pro quos, none of that sort of thing.

    IOW, the guy was....excepting the fact he took many fewer golf outings... the 19th century version of Obama. Naturally, this being America, they printed the legend, and put his face on that damn mountain. Paid for by.....the federal government.

    As the famous guy said, if you're going to tell a lie, make it a big one.

    November 8, 2011, 9:44 am

18. Paul:

    So long as people worship Caesars and Napoleans, Caesars and Napoleans will appear and make them miserable.

    November 8, 2011, 9:50 am

19. Benjamin Cole:

    The filthy, repulsive economic system of the American South before the Civil War, and its leadership, was a perverted abomination. Only the most feeble, knock-kneed, inbred of jackanapes would find anything good to stay about a system that depended upon slavery, and worshipped slaveholders. The vile excretum that ruled the South left a feces-streak on the United States escutcheon visible yet today.

    Lincoln, a titan, first fought to keep the union together, and then took his chance to wipe out slavery. And he succeeded. Ultimately, the Civil War was about slavery, as the statements of so many Southern "leaders''---foul-hearted treasonists---made clear.

    Happy was the day they drove Old Dixie down. Too bad Lincoln was such a large-hearted man. Mass executions of Robert E. Lee and the other low monkeys who led the South were more than warranted.

    November 8, 2011, 11:00 pm

20. el coronado:

    You're just as full of crap as you can be, Ben old boy, but you sure do write up an old-timey storm! If that slobbering fulmination and hysterical diatribe were a speech instead of mere writin', I'd be mightily impressed. So impressed, in fact, I'd be unable to keep from quoting the famous line found in another classic motherlode of old-timey writin': Blazing Saddles. "Gol Darn it, Mr. Cole, you use your tongue purtier than a $20 whore!"

    PS - before you write any more love letters to Lincoln, like you were indoctrinated to do back in school, you might want to read some - you know - some actual *history*, first. Lastly, if'n Bobby Lee and the boys were such incompetent low monkeys, hardly fit to carry the baggage of the Irish mercenaries/cannon fodder Lincoln drafted to fight them, why'd it take the north - the guys with the *overwhelming* advantages in manpower; firepower; infrastructure; manufacturing; perfumed, gutless, cowardly, incompetent generals; and all the rest - why'd it take so long to beat 'em? And how'd those foul-hearted treasonists manage to come within a whisker of winning the thing?

    November 8, 2011, 11:27 pm

21. Garvdawg:

    @ el coronario . . .

    Ol' Ben Cole's a shameless statist, agreed, but lay off the Irish already!

    November 9, 2011, 9:08 am

22. Benjamin Cole:

    Lincoln waited too long to put Grant in. That is why the bunch of fey retards in the South lasted as long as they did.

    November 10, 2011, 11:31 am

23. Ryan:

    Mr. Cole:

    Seeing how you have a problem with the South and Southerners in general I have two suggestions for you on what to do about it. You can write your representatives and demand the states that made up the Confederacy be expelled from the Union. If you don't like this option because you don't with to lose the manpower for the US Armed Forces and the tax revenues from this region then here is what you do-- simply stay the hell out of Dixie.

    November 21, 2011, 1:58 am