WILL WAR ON TERRORISM BE CONVERTED TO WAR AGAINST VALID INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENTS?
(War Against Independence?)

Federation of States, December 31, 2001 - Was not the creation of the United States of America a result of an independence movement against the then world order of the British Empire? Yea verily it was.

Did not the success of George Washington and the valiant few (3-5% of the Colonial population) who stood with him pledging their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor for the cause of American independence inspire other people to rebel and seek independence from the world’s colonial powers? Yea verily it did.

Did not these our forefathers Declare Independence on July 4, 1776 and then form a Confederacy of Colonies (States) under the Articles of Confederation of 1779 as an interim government? Yea verily they did.

Furthermore, was it not the desire and intent of these brave revolutionary American leaders to establish a more perfect union amongst their several states by preparing and signing a Constitution of 1789 which guaranteed a union of State Republics maintaining State’s rights and local government rather than allowing a new monarchy of a federal union to rule under a provisional king called President? Yea verily history clearly shows that was their intent.

Our founding fathers made provisions for a short term President to be elected by the states and planned for a fractured government to be installed under an executive branch, a legislative branch and a judicial branch to safeguard against the usurpation of power under the federal aspects of the union bureaucracy in favor of State’s rights and local control of most of the government. Yea, this they did.

Was this a perfect government and were our founding fathers without error? No, of course not. But, they formed the most magnificent new government against world monarchies that recent history had seen.

Benjamin Franklin reportedly answered when asked what kind of government had they formed as follows: On Sept 18, 1787 in response to a Mrs. Powell's question. "Well doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy?" B. Franklin replied, "A republic, if you can keep it." Did we keep it? No, I am afraid history firmly shows we did not keep it.

Soon, powerful and rich forces began vying for more power and economic control over each other among the former colonies. They began to bend the Constitution and the intent of the founders thereof and in some cases, even justifying violating some parts of that Constitution to further their private aims of wielding unfair economic advantage over others and in seeking more federal power. By the 1830's the situation had become a serious conflict between various states, not all in the south either.

The final blow was the election of a known unscrupulous immoral man who championed the northern mercantile and industrial powers by desiring to consolidate, even more, federal power over the states and to build an even more powerful federal bureaucracy. Especially in the southern agricultural states, but even including states in the East and large segments of populations in certain northern states, the election of Abraham Lincoln (a slave owner and believer in Negro inferiority) was seen as a final blow against the Republic referred to by Benjamin Franklin. Welcome to seldom mentioned facts about Abraham Lincoln who was championed as a hero by world communists and the Yankee Republican administration in Washington.

The result was the rapid secession of seven states and the formation of a new and independent nation called the Confederate States of America, carefully designed around the original intent of and the U. S. Constitution of 1789 itself. President Jefferson Davis (who owned no slaves) was elected as President of the CSA and Robert E. Lee (who owned no slaves) was made General of the Northern Virginia Army. The Capital of this new nation copied after that Confederacy founded by our founding fathers was Richmond, Virginia.

The President of the United States was still James Buchanan, pending the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln. President Buchanan recognized the right of those seven states to secede and to form their own nation. He ordered the peaceful turn over of the forts, ports and naval yards in the south to troops of the new Confederacy. It appeared to most that the new CSA and the USA would be able to make this adjustment peacefully and continue as friends, neighbors and relatives as well as trading partners.

That all changed immediately upon the inauguration of the new Republican President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, who had corresponded with communist Karl Marx who was in exile in London. Lincoln ordered a cessation of the peaceful turnover of forts in the south to the CSA and then ordered a military attack upon the new country in a terrible war of Northern aggression reminiscent of the two British wars against American independence.

The Northern Yankee armies greatly outnumbered the Southern Confederate armies and the CSA did not have the resource reserves that the USA had and thus, by 1865, several of the Confederate armies had collapsed which is when General Robert E. Lee surrendered his Northern Virginia Army. Four other Confederate generals continued the war, mainly in Texas, Oklahoma and the Arizona Territory for 18 months longer.

Although, President Jefferson Davis was captured and imprisoned by Lincoln, he refused to surrender the Confederate States of America government. He was later released due to pressure by the U.S. Supreme Court. Finally, all of the Confederate soldiers just ran out of ammunition and food and simply went home. The north sent in their armies, under orders from Lincoln, and replaced all of the State governments with governors and legislatures favorable to Washington without the will of the southern people being allowed. This was the beginning of the severe repression of the South called “Reconstruction”, which to some extent is still being practiced today both politically and economically against the South.

Men and women in the South have lately been attempting to educate their people with the idea of the Restoration of the legal government of the Confederate States of America. The main focus of this restoration of the CSA, however, is to accomplish this politically at the State levels and to avoid any type of military or terrorist action. The world has just seen a phenomenal breakup of the U.S.S.R. into independent nations. The independence from Russia has mostly been accomplished with little or no bloodshed. Scotland has finally been able to re-establish a major degree of independence from Great Britain by electing their own legislature. The timing seems right for southerners interested in their Confederate heritage to begin anew in pushing for the restoration of the independent government of the Confederate States of America.

Yet, since the World Trade Center’s destruction of September 11, 2001, and the resulting war against terrorism, three things have happened. There has been a resurgence of patriotism for the United States after this attack which to some extent drained away some Confederate Patriotism, there has been a strong increase in police activity against possible terrorist groups in the United States and worldwide, and there has been the failure to differentiate between terrorist groups and separatist or independence groups.

President Bush’s Coalition appears to be working towards stopping all independence movements by stamping out such citizen’s movements in favor of maintaining established governments. The Bush Coalition does not seem to differentiate between terrorist groups and legitimate independence or separatist groups.

To be sure, first there were communist led and financed revolutions, which used terrorism and guerrilla military force to gain control of certain countries.

And then, since the apparent collapse of communism, we have seen the rise of Islamic militants and terrorists such as those financed mostly out of Saudi Arabia known as al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Yemen and Sudan who seem to focus on trying to establish a world-wide Islamic State and spread Islamism amongst the Moslem world.

But, we also see separatist groups who are Islamic in Kashmir and in the Philippine Islands and Indonesia.

Then we see the Middle East mess with Israel fighting against what they call Palestinian terrorism and the Palestinians claiming to be fighting for their independence and statehood.

The Bush administration must define “Terrorist and Terrorism” in order to be able to impartially differentiate between these various groups as to which are Terrorist and which are genuine independence movements.

Are India and Pakistan Terrorist States in their wars and other terrorist activities over Kashmir? The question cannot be answered impartially by Washington until they learn how to differentiate between terrorism and resistance or independence movements.

From a Confederate point of view, then, we would offer the following constructive suggestions:

Terrorism is where any individual, group or nation uses deadly force to attack another individual, group or nation. (State Criminal laws exist in the United States in connection with one individual attacking another with assaultive or deadly force and this is usually not termed a terrorist act, but a criminal act.)

But, where one group attacks another group, such as gang or mob warfare, and uses assaultive or deadly force, the term terrorism seems to apply, even though we may have criminal laws on the books to handle the problem.

Where a group organized in one nation attacks a group within another nation or the other nation itself, that is clearly international terrorism. Where one State attacks another State with assaultive and/or deadly force, this is clear terrorism otherwise called acts of war.

Finally, where a group within an occupied nation attacks the occupying forces within their own occupied territory, this takes on the clear appearance of resistance or an independence movement even if deadly force is used. Such groups should not be labeled “Terrorist” unless they cross into an occupying nation to launch their attack, but then it may have been in response to a new invasion or atrocities committed by the occupying nation that justified such a seemingly terrorist action. (A hypothetical question to highlight this example would be as follows: Suppose that England had been a physical neighbor with a common land border with the colonies during the English war against the American Independence movement. Would it have been terrorism for General Washington to invade, with deadly force, London in retaliation?)

Another example of a violent war of resistance is the war for Irish Catholic independence being fought by the IRA in Northern Ireland.

However, an example of interest to Confederate Americans is the drive for independence by the people of Quebec which has been peaceful and patient and which appears likely to win their independence during this decade.

The war against the Taliban regime of Afghanistan ended officially on December 22, 2001 when the new provisional government of Afghanistan took office. There will be mop up operations hunting down Oaeda and Taliban leaders, but the Bush administration will now seek terrorism in other countries including the United States. We call for President Bush to better define and differentiate terrorism from resistance or acts of liberation so that the war on terrorism can have more definite limits and true secessionist or freedom movements not be hindered by the United States or its Coalition.