The 'Little House' of Laura Ingalls Wilder in Mansfield Missouri Nestled in the heart of the Ozark Mountains Some of her 'Little House' books were penned here.
Laura Elizabeth Ingalls Wilder (February 7, 1867 – February 10, 1957)
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Many of my readers, including my international audience, may be familiar with the Laura Ingalls Wilder books. They have been printed in many languages around the world. For those of you not familiar, Laura Ingalls Wilder was a pioneer child during the later half of the 19th century in the Midwestern to Upper Central United States. She was born in 1867 Wisconsin, just two years after the conclusion of the great Civil War that ravaged the American South. She was the second of five children born to Charles and Caroline Ingalls. The family originally moved to Kansas on the government promise of free land (The Homestead Act). They later moved to Minnesota, spent a brief time in Iowa, and finally back to Minnesota again, where Charles and Caroline lived the remainder of their lives. Laura eventually married Almanzo Wilder and moved to Mansfield Missouri down south of the Mason-Dixon line. It was here she eventually wrote her memoirs as a series of children's books commonly known as the 'Little House on the Prairie' collection.
The 'Rock House' English Cottage Built by Rose Wilder for her Parents Some 'little house' books were penned here.
During the time of Laura's childhood, tens of thousands of Americans migrated westward from the war-torn nation, motivated by the promise that if they could just settle a portion of land west of a certain government-drawn line, they would be granted full ownership of that land free of charge. It was the way in which America rebuilt herself after the Civil War and gave new hope to poor families who had nothing financially to lose. Thousands of American families travelled west on horse-drawn covered wagons with all their possessions inside (which usually didn't amount to much). Upon finding a suitable plot of land, the wagon was unloaded, and a small cabin was immediately built, usually using lumber harvested from nearby trees. Within a year, a small farm was usually planted, and the family would hope and pray for a successful crop. If the Lord blessed them, they would usually gain enough money to survive another year. If not, they suffered all the hardships of poverty, starvation and disease. Many of these settlers died on their homesteads. Many more returned back east for medical attention, hoping to get back to their homestead before it was torn down and re-settled by somebody else. Encounters (sometimes unfriendly) were common with Native American tribes. Some settlers were highly successful, but most were modestly successful. The Ingalls family numbered among the modestly successful, with some setbacks and tragedies here and there. Their only son (Charles Fredrick) died in infancy. Their oldest daughter (Mary Amelia) went permanently blind after a bout with scarlet fever. Laura's husband Almanzo suffered from paralysis after they both contracted diphtheria while Laura was pregnant with her first child Rose Wilder. While all three survived the illness, Almanzo required a cane for the rest of his life and was unable to tolerate hard labour. This caused Laura and Almanzo's downward spiral into poverty and debt in Minnesota, eventually leading to their move to Southwest Missouri, a warmer area well-settled and civilised since long before the Civil War. Since this area was still considered "out west" the land was cheaper than east of the Mississippi, and the Civil War had been less devastating to Missouri than other regions down South. It made a much more tolerable climate for the couple to raise their small child, Rose, and was still close enough for the Ingalls and Wilder families to visit from time to time.
A young Rose Wilder with her mule Spookendyke. Laura and Almanzo gave her the mule to ride to school, but Rose reported that it was so stubborn she ended up walking it to school most of the time.
Rose Wilder grew up as a Missourian, in the cradle of the Ozark Mountains, and then went on to become a world famous author and columnist. She returned to the Ozarks after many world travels with enough money to build her parents a luxury English cottage on their farm. It was here that Laura, at the prompting of Rose, began her 'Little House' childhood memoirs. Laura was herself a school teacher and a columnist. Now she was an author, and her books were designed to teach children about the life of rural Americans during the pioneer period after the Civil War. They have been published in multiple languages and are famous world wide. They are a wholesome and entertaining account of the latter 19th century. If you have not already introduced your children to her stories, I strongly recommend them.
I recently visited the Mansfield 'Little House' with some friends and captured some of the photographs featured here. While I was not permitted to take pictures of any of the interiors (houses and museum), I was free to take all the pictures I wanted outside. The interior of the houses were remarkable, as I was privileged to stand in the home and touch some of the items of this world-famous American icon. In the 1980s, film producer Michael Landon, created a movie and television series based on the memoirs of Laura Ingalls Wilder. While much of the film episodes are fiction, they are set to the historical reality of her life and times. Laura was portrayed by actress Melissa Gilbert and the episodes were narrated by her in the way Laura wrote her books. These are interesting fictional stories based on factual people and lives.
Today's local children playing in Mansfield Missouri
The Ozark Mountains in Southern Missouri are filled with history and culture. Moving to this area was one the most rewarding decisions I've ever made. For my Catholic readers, you will be pleased to learn that Catholicism is growing in this area at a nearly exponential rate. The small rural town of Mansfield Missouri already has a thriving Catholic Church. Missouri also has some of the most generous home-schooling laws in the world, making the state extremely hospitable to traditional family life. If you are a traditionally-minded Catholic family anywhere in the United States, a move to the Ozark Mountains of Southwest Missouri or Northwest Arkansas might be a desirable placed to raise your children. It certainly worked out well for me and of course Laura Ingalls Wilder.
(Vatican Insider) -- He didn’t wear a kilt but a religious habit. Part warrior, part monk, he was above all armed with a “fervent Catholic faith”: this was the real William Wallace, the Scottish national hero, made famous by the Oscar-winning film “Braveheart” that came out in 1995, starring Mel Gibson. This is according to traditionalist website Pontiflex.roma.it, which covers studies and research carried out in Scotland by the Society for Tradition, Family and Property, a body that was established to promote the thinking of the Catholic intellectual, Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira.
According to the Catholic website, Gibson’s film is important in that it taught the whole world the story of the Scottish leader who led his fellow nationals in the rebellion against English occupation. However, it missed out one fundamental fact about the figure of Braveheart: his Catholic faith.
Since his birth in 1270, the young nobleman, Wallace, received a Catholic education. His career was allegedly church oriented: he was educated by the Augustinians and the Benedictines and apart from his mother tongue, Gaelic, he also spoke English, French, German and Latin.
Then, a series of violent episodes made him abandon religious life. An English patrol killed his father and eldest brother in cold blood, after they were found guilty of refusing to swear an oath of allegiance to Edward I of England and of supporting the Scottish sovereign, John Balliol’s cause instead. William consequently killed some English soldiers and went into hiding: this was the moment when the man who was to lead the revolt against the invader, with the help of the Bishop of Glasgow, was born...
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: It seems so common that people forget that if you called yourself a Christian anywhere in the Western World prior to the 16th century that meant you will likely a member of the Roman Catholic Church. After five centuries we have so easily forgotten that Christianity was essentially unified in the West prior to the Reformation and the words 'Catholic' and 'Christian' were completely synonymous. William Wallace was one such Christian, a devout Catholic and defender of his people.
Those of us who claim our cultural heritage from Scotland, particularly those of us in the American Southeast -- Dixieland -- would do well to remember that. Catholicism is just as much our cultural heritage as anything else.
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: The year is 1521 AD. The capital city of the Aztec empire falls to Spanish imperial forces, who have just conquered the Mesoamerican culture of the New World. This marks the end of the most advanced civilization ever produced by the Native American peoples. From this time forward, all Native Americans would fall under submission to European power. Conquered and humiliated, the Aztec people become second-class citizens in Spanish America. European settlers have no problem perpetuating this status quo. Millions of Aztec people are now living as strangers on their own continental soil. They've lost their sovereignty, power, homeland and in some cases even their freedom. Pride is all they have left, and daily this is subjected to the status quo of second-class citizenship. The Aztec people have every reason to hate the Spaniards, and everything they brought with them to the Americas -- especially their religion. But less than 20 years later, virtually all of them simultaneously accept Jesus Christ and convert to Catholic Christianity by their own free will. The Spanish are left speechless, astonished by what just happened.
WHY?
Why would an entire civilization of people, who had been Pagans for thousands of years, and had every right to hate everything the Spanish settlers represented, suddenly and unexplainably embrace the Spaniards' religion as their own?
The answer is in a supernatural and miraculous visitation from heaven. In 1531 a "Lady from Heaven" appeared to a poor Christian Aztec named Juan Diego at Tepeyac, a hill northwest of Mexico City; she identified herself as the "Mother of the True God," instructed him to have the local bishop build a temple on the site, and as a sign she left an image of herself imprinted miraculously on his cloak (or 'tilma'). The tilma is a poor quality cactus-cloth, which should have deteriorated in 20 years but shows no sign of decay 470 years later and still defies all scientific explanations of its origin.
The image appeared instantly and miraculously in front of many witnesses, some of them local dignitaries. The Lady instructed Juan to gather some roses from the site where she made her appearance to him. Since roses were out of season (it was December), this was to be a sign to the local bishop that the 'Lady from Heaven' had truly appeared to Juan Diego, and his story was true. He gathered the roses into his tilma and carried them to the local bishop who was meeting with some Spanish dignitaries at the time. As he dropped his garment to release the roses, the image of the Lady from Heaven miraculously and spontaneously appeared on the tilma. The bishop and his guests immediately fell to their knees in astonishment.
The Lady's only request was that a temple be erected on the hill where the apparition took place. The reason she gave for this was as follows: "I am the ever virgin Holy Mary, Mother of the True God for whom we live, of the Creator of all things, Lord of heaven and the earth. I wish that a temple be erected here quickly, so I may therein exhibit and give all my love, compassion, help, and protection, because I am your merciful mother, to you, and to all the inhabitants on this land and all the rest who love me, invoke and confide in me; listen there to their lamentations, and remedy all their miseries, afflictions and sorrows." As the bishop agreed to grant the request, he sent Juan home to his uncle who had been sick with a terminal disease. During the course of the Marian apparitions to Juan, she had promised him that his uncle would be healed, but he had not seen him for a long time. So when he returned to his village, the bishop sent escorts to go with him and record everything they saw. When they got there, they found Juan's uncle well and joyously celebrating his healing. It was then Juan learned that on the very day the Lady promised Juan that his uncle would be healed, his uncle saw a vision of the Lady exactly as Juan had described to the bishop some time earlier. The two (Juan and his uncle) had not communicated during this whole time. Yet, their description of the Lady was exactly identical. The Lady told Juan's uncle that when he would go to see the bishop, to reveal to him what he had seen and to explain the miraculous manner in which he was healed, that she would properly be named the blessed Image, the ever-virgin Holy Mary of Guadalupe.
Now why should the Virgin Mary, appearing to an Indian in 16th century Mexico, and speaking to him in his native language of Nahuatl, call herself “Guadalupe”, a Spanish name?
It is believed that the Lady used the Aztec Nahuatl word of coatlaxopeuh which is pronounced "Gwad-a-lup-eh." Coa meaning serpent, tla being the noun ending which can be interpreted as "the", while xopeuh means to crush or stamp out. So the Lady may have called herself "the one who crushes the serpent." We must remember that the Aztecs worshippedthe serpent-god Quetzalcoatl, and annually offered at least 20,000 men, women and children in human sacrifice to their Pagan gods. In 1487, in a 4-day long ceremony for the dedication of a new temple in Tenochtitlan, some 80,000 captives were killed in human sacrifice. Certainly in this case, the Lady 'crushed' the serpent, beacuse within a few years after her apparition to Juan Diego, nine million of these natives were converted to Christianity.
Modern infra-red studies of the image reveal unexplainable phenomena: The image was not painted, and the color did not penetrate the fibers as would paint. Weaving with such irregular fibers also produced a rough surface which would have distorted any simple surface painting, yet the image one sees is clear and undistorted.
Most remarkable about this image is the recent scientific research done on the Lady’s eyes. Magnified studies reveal the startling image of reflections, as if they were frozen onto the image the moment it appeared to the bishop and his guests nearly five-hundred years ago. One of the first doctors to study the eyes was Dr. Javier Torroella Bueno, MDS, a prestigious ophthalmologist. In what is the first report on the eyes of the image issued by a physician, he certifies the presence of the triple reflection (Samson-Purkinje effect) characteristic of all live human eyes and states that the resulting images are located exactly where they are supposed to be according to such effect, and also that the distortion of the images agree with the curvature of the cornea. In both eyes, the largest and most obvious reflection is of a "bearded man," probably the bishop's translator who interpreted the exchange between the Spanish speaking bishop and the native speaking Juan Diego.
A new and fascinating kind of analysis of the eyes started in 1979, when Dr. Jose Aste Tonsmann, Ph D, graduated from Cornell University, while working in IBM scanned at very high resolutions a very good photograph, taken from the original, of the face on the tilma. After filtering and processing the digitized images of the eyes to eliminate "noise" and enhance them, he made some astonishing discoveries: According to Dr. Tonsmann, from left to right we can see the Indian, Bishop Zumarraga, the translator, and Juan Diego showing the tilma.
The image of the Lady of Guadalupe has great symbolism. The Lady's image is surrounded by luminous light, standing on the moon, and the stars on her mantle reflect the description found in the Book of Revelation: "A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars" (Revelation 12:1).
These are also symbols of divine victory over the pagan religion of the time. Sun rays were symbolic of the Aztec god Huitzilopochtle. Therefore, the Lady, standing before the rays, shows that she proclaims the true God who is greater than Huitzilopochtle and who eclipses his power.
She stands also on the moon. The moon represented night and darkness, and was associated with the god Tezcatlipoca. Here again, the Lady’s standing on the moon indicates divine triumph over evil. Moreover, in Christian iconography, the crescent moon under the Lady’s feet also symbolizes perpetual virginity and is connected with the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception and the Blessed Assumption.
The stars on her mantle indicate that she comes from Heaven, her dress is also modeled after that of an Aztec queen. Interestingly, some research attests that the stars on the mantle appear exactly as they would have in the sky before dawn on the Morning of December 12, 1531, when the vision appeared.
The face of the Lady, with its complexion, dark hair, and dark eyes, reflects the physiognomy of a Native American. Her eyes are also cast downward, showing humility and compassion. In Aztec iconography, a god looked straight ahead with wide open eyes; the picture here then shows that the Lady does not claim to be God, but only His messenger and loving mother. The Lady is supported by an angel, another symbol of royalty among Native American cultures.
Her clothing also has special significance. The rose color of the Lady's dress has two interpretations, either as a symbol of the dawn of a new era, or as sign of martyrdom for the faith. A red dress is also interpreted as a symbol of virginity in eastern Christian iconography. The gold brooch under her neck represents sanctity. Finally the bow around her waist is another sign of virginity. However this bow has several other meanings in Native American culture: this bow was the nahui ollin, the flower of the sun, which was a symbol of plenitude, fecundity and new life. The high placement of the bow and the apparent swelling of the abdomen of the Lady have led many to conclude that she is pregnant in this image.
This image became a symbol of unity between European and Native American cultures in Central America. Both peoples could easily identify with it. As a result, virtually the entire Aztec empire (some nine million people in total), all of them Pagan, accepted Christ and converted to Catholic Christianity within a space of just a few years.
Today she remains the patron not only of Mexico, but of all the Americas, including Canada and the United States. She is the symbol of racial unity between the children of European settlers and American natives. She speaks to us only of the Lordship of her divine Son -- Jesus Christ -- and of his victory over the powers of hell. Through this image, the message is clear. The old ways of Pagan devotion to the false gods, must give way to true worship of the one true God. In this truth, all the American peoples (regardless of race and culture) will find unity and peace.
In today's modern world, she is also honored by Catholics on both American continents as the patron of our hemisphere and the protector of all children -- especially the unborn. In particular, this image of our Blessed Mother has been closely associated with the Pro-Life movement, because of the modern similarity of surgical and chemical abortion to the human sacrifice of ancient Aztec society. The Aztecs sacrificed human beings to their gods, particularly the serpent god Quetzalcoatl, in the hope of gaining favor and prosperity. While modern Americans no longer worship Aztec idols, many do still sacrifice their unborn children to the "gods" of prosperity and convenience. Instead of counting children as a blessing from the Lord, regardless of the circumstances in which they were conceived, modern American culture views them as a burden and an obstacle to material happiness. This attitude can only be spawned by Satan -- the Biblical serpent depicted in Genesis 3 and Revelation 12. The pregnant image of Our Lady reminds us of the blessings of the unborn and identifies the sin of abortion for what it really is -- human sacrifice. The image of Our Lady is the Mother of all the Americas, and she is calling us to remember her unborn Son -- Jesus Christ -- as we work to defend the unborn here in the New World.
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Long before the Knights of Columbus added the venerable phrase "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance, there was another curious element to the Pledge's recitation that has been conveniently (and quite intentionally) scrubbed from the history books.
Francis Bellamy (1855–1931), a socialist, was hired by a flag company in 1892 to write a 'pledge' to the American flag, which was to be used as part of a marketing campaign to sell more flags to America's public schools. The Pledge of Allegiance, as it came to be called, was accompanied by a peculiar salute, called the Bellamy salute, in which children were encouraged to raise their hands in a military salute style and then extend them outward at the phrase "to the flag" in a straight line toward the flag as the photos below demonstrate. Remember, these are AMERICAN school children saluting the AMERICAN flag. This practice was widespread and virtually universal in America's public school systems for fifty years...
Before the Nazis, and before the Italian fascists, American school children were performing this salute every weekday morning in classrooms all across America. In fact, it was imitated by many countries shortly thereafter, including our neighbour to the south -- Mexico -- which they still use today. European fascists also imitated Americans in the Bellamy salute, desiring to add to the pomp and pageantry of their nationalistic displays. It wasn't until 1942, after America's entry into World War II, that Congress retired the Bellamy salute by officially amending the US flag code to include the hand-over-heart gesture during the full recitation of the pledge. Keep in mind, this gesture demanded by the flag code was designed to get rid of something -- the Bellamy Salute -- which had become an embarrassment to the United States after its entry into World War II. The Bellamy Salute was then buried in history, omitted from official reference, and practically banned from the history books. The fact remains however, Americans invented the very gesture that later came to be strictly associated with 20th century European fascism. Of course when Americans did it, it did not carry the same meaning as with European fascists, but it was nevertheless a method used to indoctrinate American school children in the common practice of saluting a flag in a very militaristic way, which of course was designed to unify American school children after the horrors of the Civil War and Reconstruction. When it comes to Nazi-style gestures, we Americans have a distinct bragging right -- we did it first! Now you know THE REST of the story.
Now that I've shocked you a bit, I would like to change gears and talk about the Pledge of Allegiance itself. I'm not against pledges per se', as a pledge is nothing more than a promise based on honour. They are not the same as oaths as nothing is sworn. I took pledges when I joined the Knights of Columbus, and in every case it was just a promise based on my honour as a practical Catholic gentleman and nothing more. So the whole concept of a pledge doesn't bother me at all and that's not what I'm objecting to.
What I object to is not the pledge, but rather WHAT is being pledged, and TO WHAT OR WHOM it is being pledged. When we recite the Pledge of Allegiance, we are pledging just that -- our allegiance. We are pledging it to a flag, a system of government (the federal republic) and to the indivisibility of a political union. In a sense, we are promising to serve our flag and our government, in all things, to preserve its absolute unity without question. Am I the only one who sees a problem with this?
The problem that I see here is that the Pledge of Allegiance is at its very core un-American. Think about it for a moment. What was the United States of America founded on? Rather than summarize, I'll let the founders speak for themselves. Let's take a look at what America's founders said America was founded on...
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. - Declaration of Independence, Adopted in Congress, July 4, 1776
As you can see, America's founders made it very clear. The United States of America was founded on secession, the God-given right of any group of people to declare themselves independent and free when they have demonstrated they are capable of governing themselves and their larger imperial government no longer governs them fairly. It's a radical idea! but it is nevertheless the foundation of America, for if the founders were wrong, and established state governments do not have the right to declare themselves free, than we should fold this 'great experiment' and return our land to the Queen of England.
You see there is nothing more 'American' than asserting one's freedom as a people. For example, when the Southern states seceded from the United States federal government in 1860-1861, they were exercising their freedom as AMERICANS, because this was the very right the United States was founded on to begin with. The actions of the Federal government in response to this were reprehensible, and in every way a tyranny far worse than King George in 1776. The United States federal government had effectively become the very thing it hated -- the very thing the founders originally seceded from the British Empire over. It was probably the most tragic time in American history, but the miracle is that some 150 years later, many Americans still believe in the idea outline above in the Declaration of Independence.
So let me clarify this on a personal level. As an American I believe in the Declaration of Independence, and because I believe in the Declaration of Independence, I also believe established well-governed states have the God-given RIGHT to secede from larger imperial/federal governments. Therefore, I believe my home state of Missouri certainly has the right to secede from the United States of America, if indeed that is what the people want, and they demonstrate their ability to govern themselves reasonably. Since the State of Missouri has indeed demonstrated this for over 100 years now, I believe it most certainly can leave the United States at any time, depending entirely on the will of the people of Missouri. Yes, I believe that Missouri has the right to become its own country! That is probably the most 'American' thing I could ever say, and as an 'American' I stand by it, and assert it as nothing less than pure American patriotism!
Now that I've explained myself, let's revisit the Pledge of Allegiance. The text as it currently exists is as follows...
I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation under God, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.
I have underlined the parts I find objectionable. The United States federal government is indeed a republic, but it doesn't have to be, and Americans can be just as "free," with their civil rights protected, under some other form of Union governance. A republic is not synonymous with freedom and civil rights. Just ask our good friends over in the United KINGDOM, who still live under a queen in a parliamentary monarchy. Contrary to popular opinion, the queen is not just a figurehead. She actually does have some power, but like a good monarch, she exercises it very discretely, allowing the people to essentially govern themselves through a parliamentary system. There are also smaller forms of government that operate just as well as a republic if not better. There is of course the direct democracy system of town halls and caucuses. Who is to say that someday a new and better form of government might be created. I have a real problem pledging my allegiance to a particular system of government, which has not only proved to be unstable, but even tyrannical at times, when in fact there is nothing about being an 'American' that requires me to do so. As a Catholic Christian, the only system of government that I pledge my allegiance to is the absolute monarchy of Christ the King. Because of that, I submit to the federal republic, by obeying its laws, but only because my King tells me too. Indeed, if my King ever said otherwise, I would rebel, and become just as much an enemy of the republic as there ever was. Thankfully for all of us, the King of kings tells us to submit to the ruling authorities, and so I do. Does this make me un-American? I don't think so.
It is also erroneous to refer to the United States as 'one nation.' We are not. Let's go through some definitions here. A state is a local government. It can be a country when independent, or a province when under the authority of a higher government. In the case of America, there are 50 states. Each one has the potential to be an independent country, if indeed that is what the people therein want. (I couldn't be more 'American' in saying this.) Then you have the word 'nation' which is actually a much more abstract term. It refers to a large group of people (millions) who are united by language and culture. In the United States, there are in fact about nine to ten such groups of nations. In my home state of Missouri, I happen to live where two such nations intersect, the Heartland of the American Midwest, and Dixieland of the American Southeast. Both peoples are defined by language accent and culture, and they have many similarities, but they are not the same. I also used to live in the American Southwest, where I can attest to a very different nation of people, who are united by a different language (Spanglish) and culture (Mex-American). Now that in itself is not enough to separate our political ties, and we all remain under one political authority, but we are certainly NOT one nation. We are multiple nations of peoples, united under the one political authority of the United States federal government. This leads me to the final definition. What is this political authority that unites us called? It is called a UNION. That is what the United States is. It is a political and economic UNION, similar to the European Union, but much older and more defined. Every year the President of the United States delivers a 'State of the Union' address, not a 'State of the Nation' address, as the bungling nitwits in the mainstream media have frequently called it. If the words of the Pledge were changed to say "one union under God," instead of "one nation under God," I would have no objection to that line. This is because it would be factually correct and simultaneously respect our national divisions based on language and culture. Believe me, if it's un-American for me to say this, than the America I once knew, and grew up in, no longer exists.
The last word I have a problem with in the Pledge is of course 'indivisible' because this is nothing short of political propaganda designed to crush the will of any child who would dare dream of political independence. If the United States is truly 'indivisible' than indeed the Declaration of Independence is dead. The portion I cited above is worthless, and America has simply joined the league of other world empires that keeps its people prisoner by force. If this is the case, than I don't care if you call me 'un-American' because the word 'American' really doesn't mean anything any more.
Perhaps if the Pledge of Allegiance were re-written as follows, I might be able to recite it again...
I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
one Union under God,
With Liberty and Justice for all.
I have no technical or moral issues with this version of the Pledge, but until it is rewritten as so, I am compelled to keep my lips still and my voice silent. I will stand for the American flag, and I will place my hand over my heart to show my affection and respect, but I can no longer say the words of the Pledge. Indeed I haven't said them in a very long time. My conscience forbids me from doing so, and I think it is reprehensible that our public schools still compel our children to recite this Pledge at all, especially in its current form.
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: I started reading books about Abraham Lincoln back in 2003, and it wasn't long before I realised that something didn't seem right. So I dug deeper, and in time I came to the conclusion that Lincoln not only ran the Union side of the Civil War very poorly, but that he was actually the CAUSE of the Civil War, and that our over sized federal government today, for all its big spending and heavy taxation, is the direct product of Lincoln's actions and the things that happened following his death. I came to the conclusion that Abraham Lincoln represented the direct antithesis of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, and that Lincoln's War was everything the Founding Fathers of America opposed in 1776. In other words, I discovered that Lincoln was every bit the tyrant as old King George III, if not worse! I came to despise Lincoln and everything he represented. It amazes me that Americans continue to put his image on our money, and that his enormous statue occupies one of the largest monuments in Washington DC. He was a monster of a president. It is nice to hear my opinions validated by two very astute historians. One of them, Dr. Thomas E. Woods, is a devout Catholic.
I cannot stress this enough. Are children are being lied to. You were lied to! They lied to me too. Of course, I don't blame my elementary school teachers, they were lied to as well. Who is responsible for this? I'm sure the Department of Education plays some role, but I've seen Hollywood and party establishment people on both sides (Democrat/Republican) push the Lincoln myth.
The truth is our whole modern republic is built on what Lincoln established in 1861 - 1865. We live in a political system where we are told that it is 'okay' for the government to suspend the rights of certain people for various reasons. We are told that it is 'okay' for the federal government to make war on its own people if those people should ever dare talk about repeating the actions called for in America's Declaration of Independence (1776). We are told that it is 'okay' for the government to suspend the civil rights of all Americans when it suspects that drugs, guns, terrorism or abnormal religious practices might be involved. We are told it is 'okay' for our government to send our military to the ends of the earth, picking fights with whomever we choose, to 'make the world safe for democracy.' This is Lincoln's America -- and what a glorious empire it is! Ancient Rome pales in comparison.
I must also point out here that the Lincoln myth is deeply connected to anti-Catholicism and Know-Nothingism here in the United States. Shortly after Lincoln's assassination in 1865, the remnants of the old Know-Nothing Party immediately went to work blaming the pope (and Catholics in general) for the assassination. Their conspiracy theories amounted to little, as there were about a dozen conspiracy theories circulating at the time, implicating everyone from Vice President Andrew Johnson, to Confederate President Jefferson Davis, to Union bankers. The anti-Catholic theories were not given much credence until 1884 when a disaffected Canadian Catholic priest named Charles Chiniquy became a Presbyterian minister and started circulating all sorts of bizarre stories about the Catholic Church, including an alleged plot by the Jesuits to assassinate Lincoln. Chiniquy offered no tangible proof for his grand conspiracy, as disaffected anti-Catholics rarely do, but his writings lit a firestorm in America's Protestant churches, particularly in the Northern states.
This mythology continues today among extreme Fundamentalist groups and hard-core Leftist groups, both virulently anti-Catholic and eager to connect the papacy to the Lincoln assassination. This is where Americanism enters, for those who initially pushed the Lincoln assassination myth, along with the Lincoln legacy myth, were hard-core Americanists, who believed the United States stood above religion and that religion itself was subject to American government and ideals. The heirs of this anti-Catholic Americanism are still with us today, and continue to push the Lincoln legacy and assassination myths on the Internet.
For the aristocrat of Old Dixie, with all his faults and inconsistencies, did understand what the gentle man of Old Europe generally did not. He did understand the Republican ideal, the notion of the Citizen as it was understood among the noblest of the pagans. That combination of ideal democracy with real chivalry was a particular blend for which the world was immeasurably the better; and for the loss of which it is immeasurably the worse. It may never be recovered; but it will certainly be missed.
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: I know many among my international audience will have difficulty understanding this. My readers in the Northern and Western United States may have difficulty with it too. Please try to indulge me for a bit, for it is a story that must be told, and I feel it my responsibility to tell it, just as it is for any Southern man in my position on the blogosphere. Don't worry, in the not too distant future, just days from now, the Vatican will awake from it's long summer vacation, striking up news of interest to all my readers. Until then however, you'll just have to put up with my hillbilly musings.
The Confederate States of America (Dixie) did exist as a free and independent nation. It was privately recognized as so by Pope Pius IX in written correspondence with President Jefferson Davis. It was the first nation to fall to the industrial-military complex of the American Empire. Dixie fought for the same cause as the United States in the American Revolutionary war. It was the EXACT SAME cause, fought by the direct descendants of the men who fought the British just a generation prior. The Confederate Seal bore the image of General George Washington (a Southern Virginian) riding on horseback. The South saw no distinction whatsoever between the war of 1776 and the war of 1861. It was about taxation, representation and the way the Antebellum economy worked. Yes, slavery was part of that economy, and so it factored into virtually every political debate, but it was not THE debate -- not yet anyway. Today's anti-Confederate propaganda would have us believe slavery was the only issue in the Civil War. They would have us believe that Southerners fought for one thing, and one thing only, and that was to protect and promote slavery. Such pro-federal propaganda flies in the face of the historical facts, and the testimony of those men who became central figures in the war between the states. For example: if the war was all about slavery, why were approximately 80% of the soldiers who fought for the South non-slave owners? If it was all about slavery, what were these 80% non-slave owners fighting for? Why would the South's supreme military commander, General Robert E. Lee, be an outspoken abolitionist? Why would the South's President Jefferson Davis propose legislation to free all slaves, and their families, who joined the Confederate army? After the war, why did the Southern states immediately and overwhelmingly, ratify the 13th Amendment, which made slavery illegal, before the Northern states even brought it up for debate? Why did Northern President Abraham Lincoln repeatedly tell his supporters that the war was not about slavery and that up until 1863 anyway, he had no intention of freeing the slaves? Why did the North's supreme military commander, General Ulysses S. Grant, who was a slave owner, say if he thought the war was about freeing the slaves, he would turn in his sword and fight for the other side!?! When we go back to the original source documentation of the time period, what we find is a completely different story from the people who lived through it, than what is typically taught to us today through the popular mainstream corporate media and our nation's government schools.
Shortly after Dixie fell to the industrial-military complex of the American Empire, the Native American tribes followed them into oblivion. Then Spain fell to the American Empire, losing her colonies to Uncle Sam. World War I would have been a stalemate had not America intervened, and through America's intervention, the monarchies of Europe were crushed and replaced with democratic republics, paving the way for European fascism and ultimately World War II. The historical list of the American Empire's abuses goes on and on, but I will stop here.
My only concern is for my homeland, Dixie, an occupied nation for 145 years now! It was from here my mother's family came, and it was from here they toiled in poverty a century after the war, thanks to the "reconstruction" given to them by the Northern American Empire. Let it be known that my sixth-great grandfather, on my mother's side, was an Englishman who came to America and dealt in slave actioning, not in the South, but in NEW YORK CITY! (The building he once owned still stands today.) Discouraged and heartbroken by the inhumanity of the business, he left it all behind, to move down South, where he spent his fortune buying slaves, educating them and setting them free! There he stayed as a successful farmer in the hills of Tennessee, and his sons became successful farmers as well, none of his sons or their sons owned slaves. They remained a successful, and modestly wealthy, farming family until the war (1861 - 1865) which robbed them of all their land, homes and possessions, as well as some of their lives. My mother's side of the family remained in abject poverty for a century after the war. My mother herself was raised in a drafty dirt floor home, where she and her brother were babysat by an elderly black woman, while her parents both worked picking cotton as sharecroppers. Sharecropping is how my mother's family survived for decades after the war. Things were so bad at times that there was no opportunity for school among the children. Thus my once affluent Southern family fell into illiteracy. Not so for my mother and her brother. Both my grandparents worked in the cotton fields to assure their kids an education, and for this they were fortunate. This remained the status quo in my mother's family until they finally left the South (Arkansas region) for California back in the 1960s. There my grandfather worked in a machine shop, until he eventually became foreman, while my grandmother sold Avon products door-to-door, and gradually they made enough money to retire and move back to the South (the hills of Tennessee), where they bought a farm and remain there to this day, no longer in poverty. Not bad for a man who can't read!!! and a woman who can barely read. I am very proud of my grandparents and I should be.
There is so much people don't know. There is so much that has been blotted out of the pages of history. There is so much our government wants to hide. The people of other nations often wonder how our federal government could be so cruel to other nations at times. To which I must respond by saying our federal government has had a lot of practice by doing the same to its own people. Make fun of us all you like. Poke fun at our accents. Laugh at us if you will. It's nothing that hasn't already been done for a century and a half. It doesn't change who we are, and it doesn't change the fact that you can't keep us down forever.
I've been following a certain man's journeys for almost a decade now. He is one I hold as a hero, for one reason and one reason only. He speaks the truth without fear and without hesitation. For this he is an honorable man, and I will accept no criticism of him. It was with men such as these that my grandparents toiled in the cotton fields for years. You see, we just have a different way of looking at things in the South. It is what it is. You can view his interview with the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SVC) HERE. I encourage all my readers to watch this video. Please, if you're not from the Dixie, you really need to learn what this man has to say, or at least, listen to the sentiment in which he says it.
I leave you now with another quote from G.K. Chesterton followed by a video clip on black Confederate soldiers....
But the American Civil War was a real war between two civilizations. It will affect the whole history of the world. There were great and good men, on both sides, who knew it would affect the whole history of the world. Yet the great majority of Englishmen know nothing about it, or only know the things that are not true. They have a general idea that it was 'all about n*gg*rs'; and they are taught by their newspapers to admire Abraham Lincoln as ignorantly and idiotically as they once used to abuse him. All this seems to me very strange; not only considering the importance of America, but considering how everybody is now making America so very important. America is allowed to have, if anything, far too much influence on the affairs of the rest of the world; yet those who submit to that influence, or praise that influence, or warmly welcome that influence, seem to take no interest in American affairs........ Lincoln may have been right in thinking that he was bound to preserve the Union. But it was not the Union that was preserved. A union implies that two different things are united; and it should have been the Northern and Southern cultures that were united. As a fact, it was the Southern culture that was destroyed. And it was the Northern that ultimately imposed not a unity but merely a uniformity. But that was not Lincoln's fault. He died before it happened; and it happened because he died.
The Battle of Wilson's Creek Historical Reenactment
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: At the recommendation of a local friend I decided to attend the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Wilson's Creek in Southwest Missouri. I was a bit hesitant at first for fear that the production might not do honor to the men who courageously gave their lives just a few miles from where I live. I had heard about previous attempted battle reenactments, and they didn't sound too appealing. This time however, it was different, and because it was different, something magical happened here in Southwest Missouri.
Reenactorsdressed in period costume
The 150th anniversary was a special occasion to be remembered, and so the private fields were donated adjacent to the landmark battlefield site, and the professional Civil War reenactors were brought in from all over the country. A tent city was erected with crafts, refreshments and souvenir vendors. Both Union and Confederate camps were set up down by the creek and the reenactors stayed in character for anyone who wished to browse through their tents. Conversation with these folks was amusing. Upon entering the Union camp I was promptly asked to discard the "separatists flags" we had purchased upon entering the attraction. (We had bought some small "Stars and Bars" along with the "Missouri Battle Flag.") While a high-ranking Union officer was discussing the strategies of war with us, a lower ranking officer interrupted the conversation with the report that Washington City was broke and could not send new provisions at this time. At which point one of the nearby spectators yelled "Well, I see nothing has changed!" causing the reenactors to break character for a moment to share a good laugh with the crowd.
An 1860s blacksmith demonstrates his skills while Union troops train for battle in the background.
The battle reenactments were superb, as men of all ages (some old and some just boys 12 and up) engaged in marching and flanking maneuvers not used by American soldiers in over a hundred years. The battle was condensed to about an hour in length for the purpose of not keeping the spectators in the sun too long, but they duplicated the Battle of Wilson's Creek for the most part, and as best as could be expected with the limited space of just 20 acres. What really made the whole event extra special was the celebration of the life and times of the people who lived during that era. The tent city offered more attractions than just historical warfare, as it delved into the culture and lifestyle of the people who lived in Southwest Missouri at that time. There was everything from an officer's ball to a gentleman's duel. Music from the period echoed throughout the valley, and people from all over came dressed in vintage apparel. Southern Belles could be seen walking down the country paths, arm in arm with their soldier beaus. Little girls chased each other down the main walkway, dressed in clothing similar to what one might see in an episode of "Little House on the Prairie." Little boys, looking a lot like Huckleberry Finn, were playing marbles and tossing horse shoes. Of course, my own kids (dressed quite modern) joined in the festivities right along with them. For a moment, just three days total, visitors to Wilson's Creek were transported to another time in this same place. There was a connection to our past, our history, our people and our culture.
Beautiful Wilson's Creek Southwest Missouri
What was so striking about the whole affair was how unabashedly Christian the atmosphere was. The reenactors did such a good job playing the role of people during this period, that it wasn't long before the manners of Christendom's remnant began to rub off on the rest of us. Within just minutes of arriving we found ourselves addressing each other as "sir" and "ma'am," as we gentlemen began lifting our hats off to the ladies almost instinctively. It was a strange phenomenon, but a pleasant surprise. Of course, Southwest Missouri is already a militantly Christian part of the country, steeped in Baptist Evangelicalism and rigid Pentecostalism. The manners of Christendom's remnant disappeared from this area only about two decades ago, but they quickly resurfaced once exposed to this Wilson's Creek reenactment. Those manners may now be gone from everyday sight, but they are not gone from recent memory -- not yet anyway. Given the right atmosphere they can, and do, resurface. Of course country and celtic gospel music from the 1860s filled the air as well, and this only served to solidify the atmosphere of Christendom's remnant. I cannot begin to relate the feelings one has when events like this are put on with such dignity. As a man of Southern heritage, I could almost feel my eyes welling up with tears at times, but couldn't keep the smile off my face. Two of my ancestors were near this area at the time of the original battle, one fighting for the North and the other fighting for the South. The 150th Anniversary of the Battle at Wilson's Creek was in no way a glorification of death, but rather a celebration of life, as those who contributed honored the people of the time and the legacy they left behind. I was humbled to share a small part in it.
The Missouri Battle Flag Confederate Christian Colors
Of course this whole affair would be just a footnote in history without the original battle a century and a half ago. Had the Battle of Wilson's Creek never happened, there would be no reenactment here, and nothing in particular to remember. We cannot do full honor to the brave men who gave their lives at Wilson's Creek, on both sides, without remembering what they were fighting for. As a man of Southern heritage, I do admit to bias, but I think it is well reasoned bias and fairly dispassionate. It is a bias not based on my maternal heritage, but on deep Christian ideology which my father's Union heritage could not argue with. The whole story of America is an iliad really, a long narrative of a series of disastrous events, tied together by a common theme that should make every Christian tremble. That iliad begins with the events leading up to 1776. The English colonists had suffered at the hands of a Protestant king who forgot the medieval Christian principle of subsidiarity. He was attempting to micromanage the English colonies in North America, and in doing so he levied taxes upon them which were unheard of for that time. He had also made war upon the Catholic king of France, causing the French to incite Native Americans into acts of violence against the English colonists. The list of abuses goes on and on and you can read about them in America's Declaration of Independence. The colonists had good reason to be angry with King George III of England, and so these mostly Protestant farmers allied with the Catholic king of France (Louis XVI) to overthrow the rule of their own Protestant king over the colonies. Thus the United States of America was born.
This is an original Portrait of the Battle of Wilson's Creek, credited with being the bloodiest battle in the Civil War, where the first Union general was killed. In this painting is featured Confederate troops from Arkansas and the Missouri State Guard. You will notice the original Confederate flag, the "Stars and Bars" (1860-1863) looked strikingly similar to the American Union flag "Stars and Stripes."
For all the talk of "freedom" and "independence" and "liberty," these words have little meaning outside of the context in which they were uttered by America's founding fathers. Though the word was not in wide use at the time, "subsidiarity" perfectly describes the principle upon which the American War of Independence was fought, and upon which the original Articles of Confederation were founded. The American colonists believed that power rests principally among the people first, and that government should be focused primarily at the local level with "grassroots" organization. Then as one moves further up the chain of government, from the city municipality, to the county, to the state, and so on; the role of each should be progressively less as the higher forms of government take a subsidiary role to the lower forms. The idea here is that higher forms of government only perform those functions that lower forms of local government cannot perform on their own, focusing primarily upon coordinating efforts between local governments rather than usurping them. The problem with King George III is that he was doing the exact opposite, attempting to micromanage the colonies from the top down, and in doing so he (perhaps unwittingly) became a tyrant to these same colonists. Shortly after the American War of Independence, (which was remarkably different from the French Revolution that occurred later), the founding fathers called for a Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. The idea was to tweak and streamline the Articles of Confederation the states were using as a national constitution at the time. Some of the delegates to this convention had other plans. Shortly after opening the convention, the Articles of Confederation were scrapped, and the delegates began drawing up a whole new Constitution of the United States of America. Two groups emerged in the convention -- the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists pushed for a strong central governing republic. The Anti-Federalists warned that by centralizing federal powers, the republic risked becoming just as much of a tyrant as King George III. As Daniel Bliss of Concord said prior to the American War of Independence: "Better to live under one tyrant a thousand miles away, than a thousand tyrants one mile away." In the end, the warnings of Bliss went unheeded, the Federalists won the day, and the new Constitution was ratified by all independent thirteen states.
This "tent city" stood just outside the battlefield site, on the other side of Wilson's Creek. Here spectators could participate in period crafts, watch productions of period plays, listen to period music, and enjoy period food. The city was populated by vendors dressed in 1860s period costumes.
The American Civil War (1861-1865) is inappropriately named. The official name of the war in the Congressional record is called the "War of the Rebellion." To people who live in the states that seceded from the Union during that time, all the way up to today (my own state of Missouri included), the war is affectionately referred to as the "War of Southern Independence" or more vindictively at times called the "War of Northern Aggression." While the term "Civil War" is the most widely accepted term (perhaps because nobody can agree on what it should be called), it really wasn't a civil war by definition. A civil war, by definition, is when two factions fight to gain control of one government. That is not what happened in 1861-1865. What happened in this case was a war of secession, where one group of people fought for political independence from a larger (more powerful) nation. In essence, the "War of Southern Independence" was identical to the "American War of Independence." In both cases, thirteen states fought for independence from a larger imperial power. In the case of the "American War of Independence" (1776-1783) the rebels won. In the case of the "War of Southern Independence" (1861-1865) the rebels lost. The similarities between these wars are uncanny.
In the case of the "War of Southern Independence" what unfolded was the physical consequences of the Anti-Federalists' warnings unheeded. This was the direct cause of the so-called American "Civil War." Contrary to popular folklore, slavery was not the cause of Southern secession, but it was however the hot-button social issue of the day, much in the same way abortion and same-sex marriage are now. Because of the charged political environment at the time, the issue of slavery factored into every corner of political life. Truth be told, the whole United States of America, from North to South, was a "slave economy" at the time. While most Northern states had banned institutionalized slavery by the time of the War, the banks in these states still used slaves as collateral in securing loans to Southern farmers. In other words, if you were a farmer in the South, and you needed a loan, about the only way you could get one was from a Northern bank. Those banks considered Southern land "worthless" because of the intense humidity and disease carrying mosquitoes in the summer months. Therefore a Southern farmer couldn't use his land to secure the loan. The only thing the Northern banks would use as collateral was farm equipment and slaves. So while the farmers in the South used their slaves as farm hands, it was the banks in the North that actually owned them. For if ever the farmer couldn't make his mortgage payments, his slave holdings and farm equipment would be foreclosed, causing the banks to auction them to the highest bidder. Foreclosed slave holdings were usually shipped down the Mississippi River for auction, hence the term "sold down the river." When the Southern states initially seceded, the Northern banks and newspapers were indifferent, that is, until they realized that secession might prohibit banks from foreclosing on mortgages down South. It was at that time the banks pressured the Lincoln administration to retake the Southern states, by force if necessary. It was a classic case of big business influencing government for their own material gain. The rest is history. In the end however, the South had the last laugh, well sort of. After the war, Northern banks began to foreclose on slave holdings in the South because Southerners hadn't paid their mortgages in almost four years! (It was the consequence of war you see.) So as they began to foreclose on Southern slave holdings, as "uncles" and "aunties" were about to be deported to Cuba for auction, the abolitionists in the U.S. Congress put forward the 13th Amendment, which if ratified by the states would free all the slaves in the entire Union and U.S. territories included. So guess which states ratified it first? You guessed it! The Southern states ratified it even before most Northern states! This prevented the Northern banks from robbing Southern families of friends they had known for years and deporting them to another country for auction. Thus the slaves were free, the Northern banks were screwed, and the defeated Confederates got the last laugh -- for a while. That is until the passage of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which gave the North the power to forbid all Southern gentlemen from public office and put into effect a military occupation of the South that would last for decades. It was dubiously called "Reconstruction."
Of course the question begs to be asked; why did the Southern States secede in the first place? We could go into a whole host of reasons, much of it related to taxes, particularly the Morrill Tariff of 1861, but in the end what it really came down to ideologically was the principle of subsidiarity. The federal government was imposing taxes that severely hurt the Southern economy, and this was being done without the consent of the Southern states. While the Morrill Tariff itself was not passed until 1861, largely because of the exodus of Southern congressmen from Washington City, the precursors that led up to it were in play for about 20 years prior to the War. Southern congressmen found themselves constantly battling Northern attempts to raise tariffs in such a way that would hurt the South. Of course the issue of slavery became a vindictive excuse for Northern politicians to justify their unfair positions on trade and commerce. The South had had enough, so to speak, and saw in the election of Abraham Lincoln the stooge these Northern politicians needed to finally "stick it to the South" and raise the tariffs. The federal government was becoming an "empire" on par with what King George III did to the original American colonists just a generation prior. Recognizing that the principle of subsidiarity had been lost in Washington City, and evoking "states rights," the Southern states began their secession from the Union, one by one, until thirteen in total comprised the Confederate States of America. Two states, Missouri and Kentucky, were forced into the Confederacy by circumstance, after Union generals attacked them after they originally voted to stay within the Union.
Pope Pius IX who declared the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and authored the 'Syllabus of Errors'
As an interesting footnote to the whole ordeal, Confederate President Jefferson Davis, along with Confederate General Robert E. Lee, forged an interesting (though unofficial) alliance with just one European monarch. His name was Pope Pius IX. While the Vatican could do nothing to physically aid the Confederacy during her time of need, and indeed sought peace above all things, we can gather from Pope Pius' letters to President Davis that the South was aided by the prayers of the Supreme Pontiff. The Holy Father acknowledged the legitimacy of the Confederacy, as a separate in independent nation, at least on a personal level, by acknowledging Davis is her "Honorable President." Of course the question begs to be asked -- why? Anything we say on that is just theory, for none of us can get into the mind of Pius IX. Based however, on what we do know of the man, we can make educated guesses. The first thing we can gather is that the Holy Father may have had sympathies for the South simply because he saw in Southern culture a remnant of medieval Christendom, wherein women were honored and liberal modernism was abhorred. That's one possible explanation, but not the only one. A second possible explanation is the cause upon which the South was fighting to begin with, which was states-rights, hearkening to the Christian principle of subsidiarity, a principle championed by the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Lastly, we could say a third possible explanation was simply that the South was fighting for it's survival with no intention of conquest over Northern states, while it was clear from both strategic models and political rhetoric, that the North was fighting specifically for conquest of the Southern states. In other words, the South was fighting a defensive war, while the North was fighting a war of conquest. Thus the South was in line with St. Thomas Aquinas' "Just War" theory while the North was in direct opposition to it. While it may have been just one of these reasons, or some combination of all three, the only thing we know is that Pope Pius IX wrote a very cordial letter to President Jefferson Davis, and later sent an autographed picture of himself. He did not do this for President Abraham Lincoln. Furthermore, it would appear that Pope Pius IX may not have been too fond of President Lincoln either, especially after Lincoln tried to influence the pope on ecclesiastic matters by writing a letter to the Holy Father, requesting him to elevate New York Archbishop John McCloskey to the college of cardinals. Pope Pius IX refused Lincoln's request.
The exchange between President Jefferson Davis and Pope Pius IX is recorded in "A Memoir of Jefferson Davis" completed (in two volumes) by his wife Varina Davis after his death...
Letter to the Pope from Jefferson Davis
RICHMOND, September 23, 1863.
VERY VENERABLE SOVEREIGN PONTIFF The letters which you have written to the clergy of New Orleans and New York have been communicated to me, and I have read with emotion the deep grief therein expressed for the ruin and devastation caused by the war which is now being waged by the United States against the States and people which have selected me as their President, and your orders to your clergy to exhort the people to peace and charity. I am deeply sensible of the Christian charity which has impelled you to this reiterated appeal to the clergy. It is for this reason that I feel it my duty to express personally, and in the name of the Confederate States, our gratitude for such sentiments of Christian good feeling and love, and to assure Your Holiness that the people, threatened even on their own hearths with the most cruel oppression and terrible carnage, is desirous now, as it has always been, to see the end of this impious war; that we have ever addressed prayers to Heaven for that issue which Your Holiness now desires; that we desire none of our enemy's possessions, but that we fight merely to resist the devastation of our country and the shedding of our best blood, and to force them to let us live in peace under the protection of our own institutions, and under our laws, which not only insure to every one the enjoyment of his temporal rights, but also the free exercise of his religion. I pray Your Holiness to accept, on the part of myself and the people of the Confederate States, our sincere thanks for your efforts in favor of peace. May the Lord preserve the days of Your Holiness, and keep you under His divine protection.
(Signed) "JEFFERSON DAVIS."
The Pope's Reply
ILLUSTRIOUS AND HONORABLE PRESIDENT, salutation: We have just received with all suitable welcome the persons sent by you to place in our hands your letter, dated 23d of September last. Not slight was the pleasure we experienced when we learned, from those persons and the letter, with what feelings of joy and gratitude you were animated, illustrious and honorable President, as soon as you were informed of our letters to our venerable brother John, Archbishop of New York, and John, Archbishop of New Orleans, dated the 18th of October of last year, and in which we have with all our strength excited and exhorted those venerable brothers that, in their episcopal piety and solicitude, they should endeavor, with the most ardent zeal, and in our name, to bring about the end of the fatal civil war which has broken out in those countries, in order that the American people may obtain peace and concord, and dwell charitably together. It is particularly agreeable to us to see that you, illustrious and honorable President, and your people, are animated with the same desires of peace and tranquility which we have in our letters inculcated upon our venerable brothers. May it please God at the same time to make the other peoples of America and their rulers, reflecting seriously how terrible is civil war, and what calamities it engenders, listen to the inspirations of a calmer spirit, and adopt resolutely the part of peace. As for us, we shall not cease to offer up the most fervent prayers to God Almighty, that He may pour out upon all the people of America the spirit of peace and charity, and that He will stop the great evils which afflict them. We, at the same time, beseech the God of pity to shed abroad upon you the light of His grace, and attach you to us by a perfect friendship.
Given at Rome, at St. Peter's, the 3d of December, 1863, of our Pontificate 18.
In the end we all know what happened. The South lost the war, and none of us can ever know if that was a good or bad thing, because none of us can predict what would have happened had the war gone the other way. Nevertheless, the Confederacy had a motto, which was officially stamped on it's national seal. It reads in Latin Deo Vindice which means "God will vindicate." Above the motto is a depiction of General George Washington (a native Virginian) riding on horseback. The image, along with the motto, sends a very clear message. The South was fighting for the same cause as George Washington and all the Founding Fathers during the American War of Independence. From the Southern perspective, the struggle was the exactly the same.
The Missouri battle flag, featuring the Roman cross, identifies General John Bowen's Missouri Brigade, who fought in this reenactment of the Battle of Champion Hill.
One-hundred and fifty years have passed now from those fateful days in 1861. In that time we have seen the warnings of the Confederates all become a part of our regular everyday life. We have a massive federal government that is bloated beyond anything the South or the North could have imagined in 1861. It rules by the "tyranny of relativism" as religion must retreat wherever the government advances, and as of late, the government is advancing everywhere! The examples of its violations against both state and individual rights are egregious as they are numerous. It has saddled our children with a national debt of over $14 trillion, a debt they can never repay, and has left our national credit rating downgraded. Is there anyone left in America who can honestly say with a straight face that the South was wrong? Is there anyone left in America who can honestly say that God hasn't already vindicated the South? Indeed, God already has vindicated the South, not by war or military revenge. No. The definition of the word "vindicate" means to free from allocation of blame, or to provide justification. The Confederate motto of Deo Vindice has nothing to do with the revenge of the South, and everything to do with showing that the South was right in its claims against the federal government. For the federal government has become everything the South said it would, and more, beyond what anyone living in the period could have imagined. Indeed God has vindicated the South. Deo Vindice. Just look around.
2009 TEA Party Demonstration in Washington DC
So here we are, a century and a half later, and the struggle has not changed. From TEA Parties to Town Halls, from the fight over Obamacare to the credit downgrading Debt Deal, the struggle is the same. The federal government has trampled the rights of the states, and in doing so it has annihilated the freedom of the people. The Catholic Church has since defined the word SUBSIDIARITY and placed in plainly in the Catechism of the Catholic Church for all to read and learn. Sadly, very few Catholics have, and today anyway, most Evangelical Protestants do a better job defending this principle than Catholics. This in spite of the fact that few Protestants have ever even heard of the word and even fewer know it stands for the very thing they fight for in TEA Parties and other patriotic events around the nation. It is however an American Iliad, a long narrative of a series of disastrous events, tied together by a common theme. That common theme is the struggle for Subsidiarity against Tyranny, the rights of the States (and the people) against the Empire. It doesn't matter of that empire subsists in the crown of a man who lives on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, or the derbies of men who control the money on Wall Street and the lobbyists on K Street. It doesn't matter of that tyrant is an imperial monarchy or a federal republic. Whenever subsidiarity is denied, tyranny exists. The struggle for the former, and against the latter, is our American Iliad.
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: We are all familiar with the Fatima prophecies concerning the conversion of Russia, and the necessity of this in the restoration of the world after the godless hell of Marxist atheism and Secular humanism. However, Our Lady of Fatima specifically stated that the conversion of Russia is contingent upon the actions of the pope. Russia must be consecrated to Mary's Immaculate Heart, in union with all the bishops of the world, and then Russia will be converted. By "converted" it is generally assumed to mean the Russian Orthodox Church (and the state as well) will be reconciled to Rome. We do not know when, or exactly how, this will happen, but it is an action reserved almost exclusively for the pope. As for the rest of us, all we can do is pray, considering Our Lady's message to live holy and chaste lives. To show our love and obedience, we may practice the devotion of "the First Saturday" as well as pray the Fatima prayers of the Holy Rosary frequently. This however is all we can do for Russia at this time.
Our Lady of Walsingham
However, many Catholic mystics across the generations have pointed to another crusade much closer to home, and one in which we can do a whole lot more. The Nation of England, Great Britain, otherwise known as the United Kingdom (U.K.) is pointed out by the Catholic seers and mystics across multiple generations as the "key" or the "linchpin" to the reconversion of Europe (and the West) after the great Western apostasy of the 20th century. Once considered "Mary's Dowry" this great Catholic nation fell into the Protestant Reformation, quite unwillingly and brutally, due to the apostasy of a king who could no longer see beyond his own political assumptions. Because of this, England fell into a 500 year spiritual death spiral. Today it is barely recognizable as a Christian nation, ruled by godless secularism and moral relativism, while Islam threatens to become the dominant religion on the island. England is spiritually dead now. It has reached the end of it's long death spiral. Now it faces a striking and painful choice. Shall it rebuild it's Catholic heritage? Or give up! allowing the Muslims to rebuild England for them into an Islamic state? Yes, it really has come to that, and yes, now is the time for decision.
I will leave you with the following video in two parts. They are stirring to say the least. If you want to help, you can! If you speak English as your native tongue, than you are connected to the restoration of Catholic England by virtue of your heritage. I will leave links for you to explore just below the video...
It is believed that the Lady used the Aztec Nahuatl word of
