Southern history and its monuments are being attacked, we are told, because of the injustices done to blacks not only in America, but in the West. Black slavery that reached its heyday in the West in the 18th and 19th centuries, is put forth as the worst crime in the history of mankind and, of course, those responsible have been determined to be, well, white. This, of course, is rather odd. To begin with, the idea that white ship captains and their crews ran around the dark continent capturing little black boys and girls and their helpless and harmless elders in order to carry them in chains back to the New World is only slightly less accurate than a Jules Verne trip to Mars. To begin with, any such attempt would probably have resulted in a lot of empty ships—empty of officers and crew as well as slaves—and a great many well fed lions and crocodiles not to mention the odd Zulu or Masai warrior whose battle gear would now carry some new and different effects from watch chains and wedding rings to false teeth. No, the black slave trade was carried on in Africa by Africans! The white European and the American Yankee (no slave ships ever sailed from the South!) along with the Muslim Arab had merely to appear with the appropriate amount of gold or other material for barter to be assured that their ships and caravans would obtain the desired merchandise to carry homeward. Interestingly enough, by 1888 in the West, even Brazil—the last slave-holding nation in the New World—had ended slavery. Yet today black slavery continues in Africa and Asia. So the idea that only the (white) West, and in the West, only the States of the South bear any blame for black slavery brings us back again to the prolific Mr. Verne. But the real question is, why these days does any of this matter? History is filled with horror stories involving every culture and every time period. Why, in a brand new millennium are Americans seemingly transfixed over a war whose cause only peripherally involved slavery—and that only in the South? After all, the States of the South were not the only States who still had slaves by 1861. Abraham Lincoln once opined that the slaves of New Jersey would probably be emancipated around the year 1900! In order to understand, we need to know why in the second decade of the 21stcentury is everyone so fixated on America’s black slavery long since ended when actual black slavery is still extant in the world! To begin with, it is not so much the institution of slavery, but the race of the slave that matters. Originally, in the New World, slaves were white. The British had no desire to buy what they could conquer and enslave in their own part of the world – that is, the Irish, the Scots, the Welsh and whatever Christian group—Catholic or Protestant—that was out of power at the time! But white slaves did not long survive in the heat of the West Indies or the Southern colonies; Africans did. But in the North, the African did not flourish and other than profiting immensely from the slave trade itself, most whites in that section resented the presence of blacks in their midst. The virulently anti-black sentiments of those States that (supposedly) later went to war to free their “black brethren” is not altogether unknown. Several years ago, a black journalist, Francie Latour, wrote an article that can be found in the archives of the Boston Globe, New England’s Hidden History. No person who holds an opinion on this subject should fail to read it unless, of course, they prefer to remain ignorant in order to maintain their prejudices. When the African slave traffic began in earnest, two colonies—Virginia and North Carolina—petitioned King George to end it; he refused. Meanwhile, the Africans, far from dying off, flourished and their numbers multiplied to the point at which many white colonists became uneasy. This concern increased after the horrors perpetrated during the uprising that led to the creation of the first black nation in the New World—Haiti. However, relations between the races in the South was strongly influenced by the Christianity of the whites and such black converts as joined them. Though definitely hierarchical, with whites at the top, that relationship was far less inimical than that existing in the North where the State of New York became known as the “slave’s graveyard.” In the South, slaves were often allowed to practice a skill after they had done their work and most were permitted to keep what they earned from their labors. This often resulted in a slave buying his freedom and, in some cases, going on to own property and slaves of his own! Indeed, the largest slave-holder in South Carolina at the start of the War of Secession was a black man who had been a slave himself! He invented a very useful machine that brought him sufficient money to purchase his and his wife’s freedom. Interestingly enough, the money went to the slave, not to his master! Now, this is all very interesting and if people were serious about who was to blame for what, it would be common knowledge—but it isn’t. Why? Because most of those involved in this issue don’t care about history or the truth! Contrary to the belief of many decent, rational and intelligent folks that the present problem between the races arises from historical “slavery,” the simple fact is that slavery as it once existed is an excuse. It is a means by which certain agendas go forward. It is a convenient mask with which to hide a very different and far more modern agenda. All of the hoopla and ballyhoo about Confederate symbols and monuments and heroes is so much nonsense. While it is true that most black Americans after emancipation were not in the main stream of the culture, they did not find themselves without the benefits of America’s bounty. There were and are “black millionaires!” There were and are black professionals and leaders of commerce and certainly there were—and are—black politicians along with the ever-present rabble-rousers. Were there as many of these as whites? No! But that is to be expected as blacks represent only about 13% of the population! But the above black “success stories” were present even in the days of Jim Crow—an invention of a mostly Northern Supreme Court with the decision Plessy v. Ferguson! And while it is also true that there were many poor blacks, there were also many poor whites! As well, before the “civil rights movement,” black median income was rising and the black family was strong! It wasn’t until Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” (and a less aptly named crime against the American people cannot be imagined!) that the government stepped into the shoes of ol’ Massa and many blacks returned to the days of the plantation where they were cared for from womb to tomb without having to do anything but vote Democrat! The black family—and with it the black future—was destroyed and the black social structure started down the road leading to Birmingham, Ferguson and Detroit. But who is the “real black victim” in all of this? It is not the black sports star or entertainer. It isn’t even the black politician and still less, the black criminal—albeit sometimes there isn’t much difference between the two. The realblack victims are those who function very successfully within Western (a/k/a white) culture. Now sadly, there are—and will be—well-educated and intelligent blacks who, when the chips are down (as they are now!) will go with their race even to their own destruction and the destruction of the society that gave them their “blessings.” But those who realize that civilization at its best does not lie with either tribal barbarism – white or black! – or the mindless hive of the New World Order but with Western Civilization and its faith, Christianity, are more hated by their fellow blacks than the most virulent “racist” redneck. Why? Because such blacks are proof that their race is capable of so much if they reject any tendency toward lazy, infantile self-gratification and the communist utopianism that has brought many of them to their present plight. Sadly, when this “race war” reaches a climax of hatred and death—as inevitably it must—the greatest tragedy will be that those on both sides will recognize only race, the result of which will be that many will suffer and die who, under better circumstances, would have lived as noble companions. In the end, we will all be victims.

Many people involved in historical study these days use the word “revisionist” usually in reference to—and as criticism of—some comment or report that doesn’t hold to the accepted orthodoxy. Yet, the word “revision” is defined as “changing a decision … in order to correct or make it more realistic” and further, “amending a text … to update, improve or adapt it.” Obviously, the word does not define a process intended to produce error or misinformation. Indeed, human knowledge is constantly being “revised” as we learn more and more about the world around us. At one point in time, it was believed (and so pontificated) that the atom was the smallest particle of matter. Obviously, that has since been “revised” and no one complains because the original statement was in error. It was not intentionally erroneous but rather reflected the information available at the time. However, especially with regard to history, “revision” has come to mean—as noted—the deliberate rejection of a settled viewpoint presented and accepted as the final determination of the matter under consideration. Ergo, “revision,” since it refuses to accept the status quo means patent and intentional falsehood – always providing, of course, that the status quo is itself accurate, not always the case, alas! But the matter becomes even more complicated when those presenting what today’s scholars and historians call “revisionist history” declare that they are correcting for the record the original “revisionist history” which itself rejected that which had previously been understood as a correct interpretation of the facts from which scholars could then opine on the meaning of the history involved. Let us take, for example, the subject of Abraham Lincoln. Even the most fervid of Lincoln’s acolytes admit that the man’s “history” is surrounded by, if not entirely composed of, legend. Even so, when efforts are made to replace legend with known fact and not speculation, those efforts are dismissed as “revisionist” in nature and the more those facts depart from the legend, the more adamant and hostile “Lincoln scholars” become not only towards the facts but towards those who present and disseminate them. In the end, no effort is made to actually refute this so-called “revisionist history.” It is simply censored from the mainstream of academia and the public square and its presenters dismissed as cranks and, worse, bigots. Motives become more important than truth while insults and threats replace rational debate. That which cannot be countered must be hidden and its proponents silenced according to the present orthodoxy. Now, in the not-too-distant past, this strategy could not have been utilized. Scholars would not be silenced, neither would they permit such actions against others of their kind. They knew that if they allowed censorship, there would be no way they could ensure that they themselves would not be censored should the time come when they supported an unpopular point of view. Intellectual honesty and rational decency kept the lines of communication open for even the most unpopular positions as long as those presenting such, provided recognized academic sources to support their case. In much the same way, the United States protected unpopular speech through the First Amendment of the Constitution which declared that Congress (that is, the federal government) could make no laws limiting that freedom. As a result, there was at least in the early history of the country, a wide range of opinions on many subjects, history being but one. Time alone was considered the means by which golden truth would be separated from the dross of error in that discipline. But, little by little, the right of free speech—even non-political speech—began to be subject to limitations. Such limitations happen most often during war. Any period of war becomes a means by which governments enhance their power while at the same time curbing the power of those who disagree with them. Everyone wants to help their nation in such a time and the concept of “nation” is represented by and recognized as that nation’s government. Criticism of the government at such times is considered “unpatriotic” and, perforce giving aid and comfort to the enemy. As a result, during war many ordinary liberties effectively disappear. Going back to Lincoln, we see this happen not only in the invaded South, but in the North as well and by the time the so-called “Civil War” had ended, the American Constitution had suffered irreparable damage that only increased in the years that followed. As well, the efforts to keep this fact hidden from the ordinary American represents if not the beginning then at least the institutionalization of “revisionist history.” It is this “history” that today’s “revisionist historians” are trying to overcome by presenting facts and well-founded opinions based upon the true meaning of the concept of “revision” as well as the facts and truths of history that have been removed or deliberately ignored in order to maintain the desired narrative. But there is one more facet in the current situation, something that has reset the mechanism of the imposition of the establishment version of history—past and present—making it almost impossible to counter even the most egregious and obvious falsehoods. Whereas Lincoln had his war and all of the opportunities it provided for him to silence debate and dissent, today we have a strategy which came from a contemporary of Lincoln, a man named Karl Marx. Marx was another statist who worshipped at the altar of big government and the god of the State. He knew that it was not always possible to use armed might to set the limits on speech in a society, so he created another way to accomplish that same end, a strategy called “political correctness.” Political correctness utilizes the ordinary individual’s good manners and conscience as a means to stifle debate and dissent. It singles out groups who may (or may not) have been ill-used in the past and makes of them, or rather of the claim of discrimination against them, a sort of shibboleth. Properly done, the mere mention of that claim will silence all but the most courageous. Today we see that in what is called “the race card.” Anyone who does not accept the establishment version of a particular part of the nation’s history or heritage is immediately labeled “racist,” a term created by a follower of Marx, Leon Trotsky. So powerful has political correctness become in this country and in the West, that there is virtually no more at least permissible debate. One side is allowed to present its own position—frequently in the face of incontestable fact—while any opposition is immediately silenced by the claim that merely to hold its position, never mind stating it, is by its very nature, “racist.” It is no wonder that “revisionist history” as defined today by the descendants of the original revisionists finds itself condemned out of hand no matter how strong the proofs of its veracity. We as a people must be strong enough to reject this strategy of censorship and deceit. If we continue to reject the facts of history to avoid being called names, soon the facts of history will no longer matter; indeed, soon the facts of history will be erased and replaced by what is “politically correct.” In his nightmarish novel, 1984, the motto of George Orwell’s Big Brother makes clear what is at stake: “Those who control the past, control the future. Those who control the present, control the past.” If we do not resist the present crusade to destroy history and replace it with the “acceptable orthodoxy,” if we do not become whenever and wherever possible, “revisionist historians,” eventually we will find ourselves living in an Orwellian world in which heroes will be made into monsters, and monsters into heroes.

And so the final blow falls; it is finished as God Himself once said of His great work of redemption, but, alas, we can now say it of the noblest experiment ever attempted by man – the United States of America. As in all things, we today witness only the end of a long train of evils leading to this final blow. It actually began in 1775 when the representatives of thirteen disparate colonies began a long and virtually impossible effort to throw off the yolk of their country of origin, the Empire of Great Britain. The history of those thirteen very diverse colonies made any such efforts immensely difficult. Often, they were more hostile toward each other than the “Mother Country” and such a situation does not bode well for an enterprise that, if unsuccessful, would find its leaders being hanged, drawn and quartered, the legally established punishment for high treason. These “colonies” rather stumbled into war through the actions of one of their number, Massachusetts, in its dealings with Britain and the Empire’s efforts to tax (and control) Massachusetts and all of the rest. By the time April of 1775 came along, it only took one unfortunate set of circumstances to launch what became a full-scale war though admittedly in a rather minute section of Britain’s total land holdings from Canada in the north to Florida in the south. But, as with a great many other immense happenings, the small size of its beginnings soon resulted in a war between thirteen small, weak, poor and disorganized collections of farmers, merchants, sailors and planters and the greatest Empire in the World. Even the most optimistic of these “colonists” could not have been sanguine about their prospects. And when you add to that, the fact that possibly a third of those involved sided with Britain, the matter became even more dismal in its prospects of success. But succeed it did – after eight long and painful years, years that saw the “original” Continental Congress attempt to hold the polyglot “nation” together. When it began it was soon determined that there had to be some order, some statement of facts and beliefs that gave structure to what was too diverse to be considered a single political entity, and so, on November 15th, 1777, that Congress finally brought into being what were called the Articles of Confederation. Now, remember, the first shots were fired in April of 1775 in Massachusetts at Lexington and Concord. The Battle of Bunker Hill was fought on June 17th, two months later. Virginia planter George Washington – chosen to lead the existing “army!” reached Cambridge and took charge of what was actually a militia milieu entrenched there on July 2nd, 1775, less than a month after that battle. Meanwhile, the Articles of Confederation didn’t come into being until November 15th, 1777, two years and eight months after the “war” began! Furthermore, they weren’t ratified until February 2nd, 1781! That means that the war was being fought and “Congress” was making decisions – when they did make decisions! – for six years before the Articles legally existed! Even so, once the Articles were ratified, they were soon found to be so badly flawed that the eventual victory of the colonial cause must be seen as more an act of God than any reasonably directed “national” effort! Let us now look at some of the failings of the Articles after they were ratified. Of course, as might be expected given that the Articles arose from thirteen political entities whose histories did not include deep and lasting cooperation – much less political union! – their guiding principle was the establishment and preservation of the independence and sovereignty of those States and to that end, they consciously established a weak central government (the Congress itself), affording to that Congress only those powers the former colonies recognized as belonging to the King and Parliament. But here we must also remember that the ongoing war was the direct result of how differently America and Britain saw those powers! Yet to facilitate fighting the war, there needed to be clearly written rules for a sort of “states’ league of friendship” at least, an arrangement that became known as the Perpetual Union. As the Congress waited for the document to be ratified, it observed the Articles in the conduct of its business, that is, directing the war effort (sort of!), conducting foreign diplomacy when it became useful and necessary and addressing territorial issues especially with regard to the Indians. Of course, little or none of this activity affected all the States at least at one time and as each State had the same power while each had different concerns and needs, and as each decision had to be unanimous it is easy to see why this body accomplished so little even when it was able to meet with enough members to form a quorum – something not always possible under the Articles! As the Articles were being used even when unratified, matters changed little when they were ratified. But as the “Confederation Congress” attempted to govern the continually growing and changing circumstances created by the war, its delegates soon discovered that the limitations placed upon them by the Articles (ratified or otherwise!) – such as in assembling delegates, raising funds and regulating commerce – rendered both the Articles and the Congress impotent to make any real and meaningful decisions. Indeed, the Congress was so ineffective during the war that had it not been for some private citizens and the King of France committing funds to the army, there would have been no need to worry about an American “government” because there would have been no “America” to govern! Thus, when the war was actually (miraculously!) won, nobody involved was unaware of the uselessness of the Articles to actually produce a working government and for a while, the individual colonies continued to scrape along trying to bring order out of a chaos that had been difficult even under the British Crown! Now with no “central power” to fix what was broken, pay what was owed and resolve what was unsound, the situation involving the newly “independent” colonies was grave indeed! Worse, the way of addressing such problems seemed to many “independent” colonists to just start another revolt as did happen with Shay’s Rebellion that took place in 1787 in – you guessed it! – Massachusetts! There was no central currency, gold was all that creditors would accept in payment of debt, people lost their farms and businesses because of the internal financial and political chaos while Europe waited to see how long it would take the thirteen little “countries” to destroy each other or be simply taken over by a European power, possibly even Britain itself as that nation still lurked to both the North (in Canada) and the South (in Florida) of the “newly independent” United States! Even George Washington, the great hero of the Revolution had some of his personal property seized in payment of debts for which he did not have the funds to repay. It was a bad time for the “newly freed” Americans and there was simply no apparent way out as things stood. And so, those same patriots who had launched the revolution, decided it was time to address the situation before it became terminal. Thus, it was determined to have a “convention” ostensibly to “fix” the Articles. Now, frankly, nobody believed that they could be fixed after eight years of evidence to the contrary! The sitting Congress had tried to “govern” under the Articles during that time and was spectacularly unsuccessful in doing so. Therefore, it came as no surprise to anyone attending the convention that a whole new government was being considered, a government that would give sufficient power to a central authority to allow all the States to work together as a nation. And, yes, it was put out that the convention was to “fix” the Articles, but for those who knew how the Articles worked during the Revolution, that statement could not have been taken seriously at face value! Of course, the problem was that while the Articles supposedly provided a “perpetual union,” that “union” was unworkable as each state, whatever its size, had the same power and all decisions had to be unanimous! Obviously, both of these strictures put an end to the usefulness of the Articles! What came out of the Constitutional convention was an exceedingly well thought out effort to manage all of the problems and the pitfalls arising from the existing “bodies politic” of the original colonies! The delegates could not go back and undo all the ill feeling and bad decisions that had been made by the various colonies during the period prior to the war, neither could they undo the mistakes and deliberate plots that manifested themselves during the war itself. Fortunately for these men, the man who took the position of directing the matter and who had suffered mightily from many of those mistakes and plots was able to rise above all that had happened in hopes of bringing forth a document that would give life to a “country” that was literally dying at birth, that is, His Excellency, George Washington who became President of the Convention. In the end, the Constitutional Convention did produce a most unusual document, one that addressed all of the problems at least of the day with sufficient ability to deal with problems yet to appear on the horizon. But with all that the Constitution had within its pages to deal with that which would appear over time, it was after all, a document, a piece of paper dependent upon the men who used (and often abused) it. However, we should not crucify those men who brought it into being and who, like George Washington, used it to initiate a government never before seen on God’s green earth! Why should we have expected perfection from a human document when a document given to us by God Himself – the Holy Bible! – is ignored or rejected? Do we blame God, or do we blame those who have rejected what God has given us? Certainly, had the Constitution been used in a spirit of prayer and obedience to the values the Founders advanced for the country, it might well have eventually failed, but it might have succeeded far longer than it actually did! For the eventual destructive nature of the so-called “federal government” became more and more obvious through the early years as the union that President George Washington prayed would be the first love and guiding duty of all Americans became a matter of sectional self-interest, political tyranny and economic corruption. Quickly – by historical standards anyway – the former free association of states based upon the desire to serve and promote the new Nation became a contest of power and money. One section, the South, properly reading the handwriting on the wall, tried to make use of the much-vaunted Constitution to withdraw from what had become political and economic slavery by using its constitutionally guaranteed right of secession. For it must be remembered that the United States had chosen to follow the British economic system of mercantilism, a system based upon trade and tariffs to fill the country’s coffers. Unfortunately, by the middle of the 19th Century, one section of the nation was providing the vast percentage of that nation’s income. Indeed, in 1860, the year before the so-called “Civil War,” the South, through tariffs, provided over 90% of the federal budget! And for this, the Constitution is blamed. Indeed, former Senator and the first—and only—President of the nation those States constitutionally created, Jefferson Davis, said many years after the bloodiest war ever fought by Americans, “It is a satisfaction to know that the calamities which have befallen the Southern States were the result of their credulous reliance on the power of the Constitution, that if it failed to protect their rights, it would at least suffice to prevent an attempt at coercion, if, in the last resort, they peacefully withdrew from the Union.” Still, one must wonder why Mr. Davis and the South should have held that opinion full well knowing that what was happening to that Section regarding the theft of its assets already violated the spirit and letter of that same Constitution! Once an agreement is broken in part, it is foolish to believe that it remains basically in effect in all its other parts! Lincoln’s war put the final nail in the coffin of the republic, replacing it with an empire of conquest and consolidation. The Southern people were fortunate. Unlike the American Indian, they were permitted to continue to live in a state of quasi-freedom. Many believe that they eventually achieved full freedom with the end of reconstruction, but actually all that happened is that every other American’s liberties were eroded away until there was little or no difference between the South after reconstruction and the rest of the nation without reconstruction. The only thing that grew stronger was the central government. And this is how it has continued. For a while, a sort of equilibrium remained because the nation retained its Christian moral heritage. But the communist/socialist philosophy of Marx’s American protégé, Abraham Lincoln, was not to be denied. Slowly, over the years, “progressives” like Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and others worked to grow the power of the central state to encompass ever wider areas within the lives of the People. Since the concept of states’ rights had been destroyed in the mis-named “civil war” and the states reduced to nothing more than bureaucratic entities within that government there simply was no way to curb its power. The major stumbling block to the creation of an all-powerful State was, as noted, America’s “Christian heritage.” This was well known and efforts to undermine the morality of the People began even before the end of the 19th Century. Educators and philosophers such as John Dewey brought their atheism and humanism into the American educational system with the understanding that America would never be free of Christian influence until it was destroyed in the young. In time, the judiciary moved not only to increase the power of government—and especially that of the judiciary—but to strike down Christian influences in the culture as well as in government. It was a deliberately slow process because the People were still feared – if not respected! – and politicians are generally more venal and self-serving than idealistic. But it does not take a brilliant scholar to realize that if such judicial rulings by the courts as abortion on demand and “gay marriage” had been attempted before 1950, the outcry from the American People would have quickly ended such unholy and perverted policies, Supreme Court or no Supreme Court! But little by little, America’s values were worn away and little by little, Americans themselves became as corrupt, venal and wicked as their rulers. Churches in the name of “social justice” embraced policies that directly contradicted the teachings of Christ and their own doctrines. What we see today was best expressed by British poet Alexander Pope (1688-1744) who wrote, “Vice is a monster of so frightful mien, As to be hated needs but to be seen; Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, we first endure, then pity, then embrace.” The result of this “embrace” is that fewer and fewer Americans identify themselves as “Christians” which is nothing if not correct. Even many of those who continue to use that title believe and live in such a way as to make of their claim a blasphemous lie. Indeed, the only “religion” today that can boast of serious adherents is itself more bloody and blasphemous than many of the worst of humanism’s canons and the Crescent once more threatens to turn the world into one large bloody 12th century caliphate. Ah, where are King Richard of the Lion’s Heart and Prince Eugen today? Instead, we have a conglomeration of pathetic capons who fear offending the wicked more than they desire to protect the helpless good. In truth, we have the “leaders” we deserve. But the killing blow to “the great experiment” was not delivered by a communist-Muslim mulatto “gay” foreigner whose ineligibility for his office both in talent and credentials was well known—and ignored—neither was it the result of the machinations of an atheist Jew whose vast fortune is the product of destroying nations and betraying his own people to their exterminators nor of a Muslim prince who, four years before Barack Hussein Obama was foisted upon the nation confidently predicted that a Muslim would be in the White House—in four years. No, the killing blow came from none other than “We the People.” No longer able to resist corruption or maintain our morals because our once great Christian ethic had been replaced by the utilitarian creed of atheistic Secular Humanism, Americans have chosen what Milton once identified as “…bondage with ease rather than strenuous liberty.” Of course, what Americans don’t realize is that “bondage with ease” is impossible. As fewer and fewer of the productive struggle to bear the burden of more and more of the unproductive and alien invaders, and of the cost of the ruling class, the time must surely come—and soon—when that bondage will make ante-bellum slavery into a light and easy yoke. No, we cannot blame our enemies. God knows, they made their intentions very well known throughout the years from Lincoln to Obama. Sadly, we have proven that nothing of value lasts and that eventually, the greater is supplanted by the lesser. As of today, we no longer even have the shoulders of giants upon which to stand and survey our doom. Whenever one wishes to know just what is going on, pay less attention to the "debate" and more attention to those involved. Learn the agenda, strategy and desire of both “contestants” and you will understand what is going on no matter what "historical reasons" are presented as driving the issue. Great men – both good and bad – of the past have made known that a people are much easier to conquer once you remove their past! If you don't know where and from whom you came, it is infinitely easier to enslave you for you have no heroes or beliefs to support and defend! This whole "monument" and "flag" agenda has nothing to do with history. Anyone who judges the past by the present is either stupid, mentally ill or wicked and therefore deserves no "following." But take everything away and we are left with a blank slate upon which anything can be written without the means of determining whether it is false or true. God knows, George Orwell made that abundantly clear as did Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn! The mere fact that this can continue at a time when so much information is available regarding the facts in these matters merely demonstrates that because we have become a people without a past, we are now a people with no present and surely, if this is allowed to go on, no future! To quote the man with whom Almighty God blessed this nation at her inception, George Washington: "The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves." Through the efforts of Washington and those of like ilk, Americans became free but today we are perilously close to allowing ourselves to be enslaved – and there is no Washington to save us.

America’s first President, George Washington was subjected to fierce attacks and even threats of being forcibly removed from the President’s House and guillotined in the streets of Philadelphia when he failed to go to war with England in support of the French when those two European powers went to war. Washington rejected “foreign entanglements” and spoke often and strongly against such alliances and the desire to link America with any country as it was not in the best interests of the new nation. And so, despite ongoing conflicts that continued after the revolution itself was ended by the Treaty of Paris, Washington was able to keep the new nation out of war with Great Britain despite the threats and the calumny he had to endure during his second term. Washington’s war against the Iroquois confederation had been brought about when those native peoples had sided with the British in the earlier war. Yet, Washington wanted very much to reach an accord with the Indians whom he considered the victims of European/American conflicts in the New World. But a quick look at history indicates almost continual warfare involving the United States at home and abroad. Below is a chronological list of those wars – large and small – involving America either directly or indirectly from the American Revolutionary War down to the year 2011, detailing all constituent military campaigns. Dates indicate the years in which the United States was involved in that war. As noted, the Study ends in 2011. Americans should see this list of ongoing conflict and realize just how many times and for how long we have been at war of one kind or another. If, as a nation, we are in our last days, we might reflect on our own actions over time and how they contributed to our downfall. American Revolutionary War or American War of Independence April 19, 1775 – September 3, 1783 Boston Campaign, 1775–1776 Invasion of Canada (1775) Canadian Theater, 1775–1776 New York and New Jersey campaign, New York and New Jersey Campaign, 1776–1777 Saratoga Campaign, 1777 Philadelphia Campaign, 1777–1778 Western theater of the American Revolutionary War Western Theater, 1775–1782 Northern theater of the American Revolutionary War after Saratoga, Northern Theater, 1778–1781 Southern theater of the American Revolutionary War Southern Theatre, 1775–1782 Kingdom of Great Britain Great Britain Loyalist (American Revolution) Loyalist Iroquois Cherokee - - - President of the Continental Congress, John Hancock, Henry Laurens, John Jay, Samuel Huntington (statesman)Huntington, Thomas McKean, John Hanson. Treaty of Paris (1783) Northwest Indian War or Little Turtle's War or Miami Campaign1785–1795 Western Confederacy - George Washington. Treaty of Greenville 1795 Quasi-War or Franco-American War Half-War1798–1800 First French Republic Act Further to Protect the Commerce of the United States, July 9, 1798 - John Adams. Convention of 1800 (Treaty of Mortefontaine) First Barbary War or Barbary Coast War or Tripolitan War1801–1805 Ottoman Empire of Tripoli History of Morocco The Alaouite Dynasty Sultanate of Morocco 1801 - Thomas Jefferson Treaty with Tripoli (1805)"Treaty of Peace and Amity" 1805 War of 1812 or Second War of Independence June 18, 1812 – March 23, 1815 Tecumseh's Rebellion, 1811–1813 St. Lawrence/Lake Champlain frontier Lake Champlain Campaign, 1812–1814 Niagara campaign Niagara Campaign, 1812–1814 Detroit frontier Detroit Campaign, 1812–1814 Chesapeake campaign Chesapeake Campaign, 1813–1814 Creek War, 1813–1814 Peoria War, 1813 Southern Campaign of the War of 1812 Southern Campaign, 1813–1815 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland United Kingdom British North America Shawnee Red Sticks Ojibway Chickamauga (tribe)Chickamauga Meskwaki Iroquois Miami tribe Miami Mingo Odawa people Odawa Kickapoo people Kickapoo Lenape Mascouten Potawatomi Sauk Wyandot people Wyandot United States declaration of war upon the United Kingdom (1812) An Act declaring war between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the dependencies thereof and the United States of America and their territories June 18, 1812 19-13 79-49 – James Madison Treaty of Ghent December 24, 1814 Second Barbary War or Algerian War1815 Bey of Algeria 1815 - James Madison 1816 First Seminole War1817 – 1818 Seminole Spanish Florida 1817 - James Monroe 1818Adams–Ones Treaty 1819 Enforcing 1808 slave trade ban; naval squadron sent to African waters to apprehend illegal slave traders slave traders (pirates) "Act in addition to the acts prohibiting the Slave Trade" 1819 - James Monroe1822 first African American settlement founded in Liberia,1823 US Navy stops anti-trafficking raids Arikara War1823 Arikara August 1823 - James Monroe 1823 Winnebago War or Le Fevre Indian War1827 Ho-Chunk 1827 - John Quincy Adams Treaty with the Winnebago August 1829 Black Hawk War or Black Hawk Campaign1832 British Band 1832 - Andrew Jackson Black Hawk Purchase September 21, 1832 First Sumatran Expedition February 6 – 9, 1832 Cheifdom of Quallah Battoo 1832 - - - Andrew Jackson February 9, 1832 Second Seminole War or Florida War1835 – 1842 Seminole 1835 - Andrew Jackson Martin Van Buren 1842 Texas Revolution or Texas War of Independence1836 Mexico An Act Authorizing the President to Accept the Service of Volunteers May 23, 1836 - Andrew Jackson Sabine Expedition 1836 Second Sumatran Expedition1838Cheifdom of Quallah Battoo 1838 - Martin Van Buren 1838 Mexican-American War or Mexican War or U.S.–Mexican War April 25, 1846 –February 2, 1848 Mexican-American War Conflict over the Nueces Strip Texas Campaign, 1846 Mexican-American War California campaign California Campaign, 1846–1847 Mexican-American War California campaign New Mexico and Arizona Campaign, 1846 Pacific Coast Campaign 1846 - 1848 Mosquito Fleet Mosquito Fleet Campaign, 1847 Mexican-American War Scott's Mexico City campaign Mexico City Campaign, 1847 Mexico May 13, 1846, 40-2 173-14 - James Polk Mexican Cession, Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo February 2, 1848 Gadsden Purchase, April 25, 1854 Navajo Wars1861–1864 Navajo people Navajo 1846 - John Tyler, James Polk, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Abraham Lincoln 1863 Cayuse War1847–1855 Cayuse 1847 - John Tyler, James Polk, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore 1853 Pitt River Expedition April 28 - September 13, 1850 Tolowa Nomlaki Chimariko Wintun April 28, 1850 - Zachary Taylor September 13, 1850 Apache Wars Apache Ute tribe Ute Yavapai people Yavapai 1851 - Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Ulysses Grant, Rutherford Hayes, James Garfield, Chester Arthur, Grover Cleveland, Benjamin Harrison, William McKinley 1900 Bombardment of San Juan del Norte or Bombardment of Greytown July 13, 1854 Nicaragua - Franklin Pierce July 13, 1854 Third Seminole War or Billy Bowlegs War1855 - 1858Seminole 1855 - Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan 1858 Yakima War1855 - 1858Yakama 1855 - Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan 1858 Rogue River Wars1855 – 1856 Rogue River (tribe)Rogue River Indians 1855 - Franklin Pierce 1856 Puget Sound War1855–1856 Nisqually (tribe)Nisqually Muckleshoot Puyallup (tribe)Puyallup Klickitat (tribe)Klickitat 1855 - Franklin Pierce 1856 Second Opium War or Second Anglo-Chinese War or Second China War1856 - 1859 Qing Dynasty Qing Dynasty 1856 - James Buchanan Treaty of Tianjin June 18, 1858-1859 Paraguay Expedition1859 Paraguay 1859 – James Buchanan Paiute War or Paiute Indian War or Pyramid Lake War1860 Paiute Bannock (tribe) Bannock Shoshone 1860 - James Buchanan 1860 American Civil War or War Between the States April 12, 1861 – April 9, 1865, Union blockade, 1861–1865 Eastern Theater of the American Civil War Eastern Theater, 1861–1865 Western Theater of the American Civil War Western Theater, 1861–1865 Lower Seaboard Theater of the American Civil War Lower Seaboard Theater, 1861–1865 Trans-Mississippi Theater of the American Civil War Trans-Mississippi Theater, 1861–1865 Pacific Coast Theater of the American Civil War Pacific Coast Theater, 1863 Confederate States of America Confederate States of America April 12, 1861 - Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson April 9, 1865 Reconstruction era of the United States Reconstruction Amendments (a very different “war”) Dakota War or Sioux Uprising or Sioux Outbreak of 1862 Dakota Sioux 1862 - Abraham Lincoln Surrender at Camp Release September 26, 1862 Colorado War1863–1865 Cheyenne Arapaho 1863 - Abraham Lincoln 1865 Battles for Shimonoseki July 20, 1863 - September 6, 1864 Chōshū Domain 1863 - Abraham Lincoln 1864 Powder River Expedition or Connor Expedition1865 Sioux Cheyenne Arapaho 1865 - Abraham Lincoln 1865 Snake War1864 - 1868PaiuteBannock (tribe)Bannock Shoshone 1866 - Abraham Lincoln 1868 Comanche Campaign or Comanche War1867–1875 Cheyenne Arapaho Comanche Kiowa 1867 - Andrew Johnson, Ulysses Grant 1875 Red Cloud's War or Bozeman War or Powder River War1866 – 1868 Lakota people Lakota Cheyenne Arapaho 1866 - Andrew Johnson Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868) Korean Expedition or Shinmiyangyo June 10 – 11, 1871 Joseon Dynasty June 10, 1871 - Ulysses Grant June 11, 1871Korean-American Treaty of Amity and Commerce Treaty of Amity and Commerce 1882 Modoc War or Modoc Campaign or Lava Beds War July 6, 1872 – June 4, 1873 Modoc July 6, 1872 - Ulysses Grant June 4, 1873 Red River War June 27, 1874 - June 1875 Cheyenne Arapaho Comanche Kiowa June 27, 1874 - Ulysses Grant June 1875 Black Hills War or Great Sioux War of 1876–77 or Little Big Horn Campaign1876 - 1877 Lakota people Lakota Northern Cheyenne Arapaho 1876 - Ulysses Grant 1877 Nez Perce War or Nez Perce Campaign1877 Nez Perce 1877 - Ulysses Grant 1877 Bannock War or Bannock Campaign1878Bannock (tribe)Bannock Shoshone 1878 - Rutherford B. Hayes 1878 Cheyenne War or Cheyenne Campaign1878–1879 Cheyenne 1878 - Rutherford B. Hayes 1879 Sheepeater Indian War1879 Shoshone 1879 - Rutherford B. Hayes 1879 White River War or Ute War or Ute Campaign1879 - 1880 Ute tribe Ute 1879 - Rutherford B. Hayes 1880 Pine Ridge Campaign or Ghost Dance War November 1890 – January 1891 Sioux 1890 - Benjamin Harrison 1891 Spanish-American War April 25 – August 12, 1898Cuban War of Independence Puerto Rican Campaign Pacific Campaign (Spanish-American War) Pacific Campaign Spain United States declaration of war upon Spain April 25, 1898, 42-35 310-6 – William McKinley Treaty of Paris (1898) Treaty of Paris (December 10, 1898) Philippine Insurrection or Philippine–American War or Philippine War of Independence June 2, 1899 – July 4, 1902, First Philippine Republic Katipunan Revolutionary forces Pulajanes 1899 - William McKinley Theodore Roosevelt July 4, 1902 Moro Rebellion1899–1913 Sultanate of Sulu Moro Moro people Moro May 24, 1900 - William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft 1913 Boxer Rebellion or The Boxer Uprising September 28 - August 15, 1900, Righteous Harmony Society Qing Empire September 28, 1900 - William McKinley China Relief Expedition, 1900 Boxer Protocol, September 7, 1901 History of Honduras #1899-1948 Occupations of Honduras Honduran revolutionaries March 23, 1903 - Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft, Woodrow Wilson, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge April 21, 1925, History of Cuba in the early 20th century Occupation of Cuba Cuban revolt Platt Amendment 1906 - Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft, Woodrow Wilson, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, Treaty of Relations 1934 United States occupation of Nicaragua or Nicaraguan Campaign Constitutionalist Liberal Party (Nicaragua)Liberal rebels May 1910 – William Taft, Woodrow Wilson, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt 1933 Mexican Revolution or Mexican Expedition or Pancho Villa Expedition April 21, 1914 - June 16, 1919, Mexico Yaqui people Yaqui Tampico Affair April 9, 1914 - Woodrow Wilson 1919 United States occupation of Haiti Occupation of Haiti or Hatian Campaign or Caco War Haiti Caco rebels July 28, 1915 - Woodrow Wilson, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt August 1, 1934 1916 United States occupation of the Dominican Republic or Dominican Campaign, Dominican Republic 1916 - Woodrow Wilson, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge 1924 World War I or First World War or Great War1917–1918European theatre of World War I European Theatre, 1917–1918 Western Front (World War I)Western Front Italian Campaign (World War I)Italian Campaign Asian and Pacific theatre of World War I Asian and Pacific Theatre, 1917–1918 Battle of the Atlantic (1914–1918)First Battle of the Atlantic, 1917–1918 German Empire Germany Austria–Hungary Austria-Hungary April 6, 1917December 7, 1917 82-674-0 373-50365-1 - Woodrow Wilson, Armistice with Germany November 11, 1918 Paris Peace Conference, 1919 Paris Peace Conference 1919 Treaty of Berlin (1921)Treaty of Berlin (August 25, 1921)Treaty of Trianon (in part) Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War Russian Civil War1918 – 1920 North Russia Campaign, 1918–1920 Siberian Intervention, 1918–1920 Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic Russia August 15, 1918 - Woodrow Wilson April 1, 1920 World War II or Second World War December 7, 1941 - September 2, 1945 Empire of Japan Nazi Germany Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946)Fascist Italy Italian Social Republic Bulgaria Hungary Romania December 8, 1941 December 11, 1941 June 5, 1942 June 5, 1942 June 5, 1942 Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman V-J Day, Japanese Instrument of Surrender (September 2, 1945), Treaty of San Francisco (September 8, 1951)V-E Day, Unconditional German Surrender, (May 8, 1945), Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany (September 12, 1990), Treaty of Vienna (1955)Treaty of Vienna with Austria (May 15, 1955)Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947 Paris Peace Treaties, 1947 Paris Peace Treaty (February 10, 1947) Battle of the Atlantic (1939–1945) Second Battle of the Atlantic, 1941–1945 Pacific War, 1941–1945 Burma campaign New Guinea campaign Aleutian Islands campaign Guadalcanal campaign Solomon Islands campaign Gilbert and Marshall Islands campaign Mariana and Palau Islands campaign Philippines Campaign (1944–45) Philippines Campaign Volcano and Ryukyu Islands campaign Borneo campaign Japan campaign Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II, 1941–1943 Operation Torch Algeria-French Morocco Campaign Operation Shingle Anzio Campaign Egypt-Libya Campaign Allied invasion of Italy Naples-Foggia Campaign Gothic Line North Apennines Campaign Spring 1945 offensive in Italy Po Valley Campaign Rome-Arno Campaign Allied invasion of Sicily Campaign Operation Dragoon Southern France Campaign Tunisia Campaign Western Front (World War II)European Theatre, 1942–1945 Invasion of Normandy Normandy Campaign Operation Overlord Northern France Campaign Battle of the Siegfried Line Rhineland Campaign Ardennes-Alsace Campaign Central Europe Campaign Cold War 1947 - 1991 Democratic Army of Greece National Liberation Front (Macedonia) N.O.F. partisans Soviet Union Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Yugoslavia People's Republic of Bulgaria Bulgaria People's Republic of Albania Viet Minh Pathet Lao Khmer Issarak United Issarak Front People's Republic of China People's Republic of China North Korea North Korea North Vietnam North Vietnam Viet Cong Cuba Khmer Rouge Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola MPLA Angolan Armed Forces AAF Mozambique FSLN Democratic Republic of Afghanistan Grenada Panama Mutual Defense Assistance Act Battle Act Gulf of Tonkin Resolution Tonkin Resolution--United Nations Security Council Resolution 8484-. Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George Bush Hellenic Army victory Partition of Vietnam, Geneva Summit (1955) 1953Vietnamization, Paris Peace Accords 1973, Fall of Saigon 1975Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty December 2, 1954 Ceasefire Bay of Pigs Invasion Aftermath Rebels captured 1961Ceasefire Angolan Civil War Ceasefire 1989 Soviet troop withdrawal from Afghanistan May 15, 1988 - February 15, 1989, Ceasefire, Violeta Chamorro elected 1990 Operation Urgent Fury Aftermath Constitution restored Manuel Antonio Noriega captured January 3, 1990 Dissolution of the USSR, Malta Summit December 3, 1989 Chinese Civil War, 1946–1950 Greek Civil War, 1947–1949 First Indochina War or French Indochina War, 1950–1954 Korean War or Korean Conflict or The Forgotten War 1950–1953 Second Indochina War or Vietnam War or Vietnam Conflict, 1953–1975 Laotian Civil War Cambodian Civil War First Taiwan Strait Crisis, 1954–1955 Second Taiwan Strait Crisis, 1958 Congo Crisis, 1960–1966 United States occupation of the Dominican Republic Invasion of the Dominican Republic or Operation Power Pack, 1965–1966 Korean DMZ Conflict (1966-1969) Angolan Civil War, 1975–1976 Soviet War in Afghanistan or Soviet-Afghan War, 1979–1989 Contras Nicaraguan Civil War, 1981–1990 Invasion of Grenada or Operation Urgent Fury, 1983 Invasion of Panama or Operation Just Cause, 1989–1990 1958 Lebanon crisis or Operation Blue Bat July 15 - October 25, 1958, Lebanon Lebanese Rebels July 15, 1958, Dwight Eisenhower October 25, 1958 Lebanese Civil War or Multinational Force in Lebanon August 24, 1982 - February 7, 1984 Shia militia Druze miltia Syria UN Security Council Resolution 425 March 19, 1978S.J. Res. 159 September 29, 1983 54-46 253-156 United Nations Security Council Resolution 425425United Nations Security Council Resolution 426426 Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan 1984 Gulf of Sidra incident (1981)1981 Gulf of Sidra incident or First Gulf of Sidra Incident August 19, 1981, Libya 1981 Ronald Reagan 1981 Action in the Gulf of Sidra (1986)Action in the Gulf of Sidra or Operation Prairie Fire March 1986 Libya March 1986 Ronald Reagan 1986 Bombing of Libya or Operation El Dorado Canyon April 15, 1986, Libya April 15, 1986 Ronald Reagan 1986 Iran-Iraq War or Tanker War1987 - 1989 Iran 1987 Ronald Reagan 1989 Gulf of Sidra incident (1989)1989 Gulf of Sidra incident or Second Gulf of Sidra Incident January 4, 1989, Libya January 4, 1989 Ronald Reagan 1989 Gulf War or Persian Gulf War or Operation Desert Storm August 2, 1990 – February 28, 1991 Iraq UN Security Council Resolution 678, November 29, 1990Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991H.R.J. Res. 77 January 12, 1991 52-47 250-183 United Nations Security Council Resolution 678678 George H. W. Bush United Nations Security Council Resolution 689UNSCR 689, 1991 Iraqi no-fly zones Iraq 5 April 1991 United Nations Security Council Resolution 688688 George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton Iraq sanctions, Operation Provide Comfort, 1991–1996 Operation Southern Watch, 1992–2003 Cruise missile strikes on Iraq (June 1993) Cruise missile strikes on Iraq (1996) Operation Northern Watch, 1997–2003 Operation Desert Fox, 1998 Operation Southern Focus, 2002–2003 Somali Civil War or Operation Restore Hope1992 - 1994 Various Somali factions 1992 George H. W. Bush, George Bush, Bill Clinton 1994 Bosnian War or Operation Deny Flight April 12, 1993 - December 20, 1995, or Operation Deliberate Force August 30, 1995 - September 20, 1995 Republika Srpska 1992 - - United Nations Security Council Resolution 770770United Nations Security Council Resolution 776776United Nations Security Council Resolution 836836 Bill Clinton Reflagged as IFOR in 1995 Reflagged as SFOR in 1996 Completed in 2004 Operation Uphold Democracy Haiti September 19, 1994 Bill Clinton March 31, 1995, Reinstatement of Jean-Bertrand Aristide as President of Haiti Operation Infinite Reach Bombings of Afghanistan and Sudan or Operation Infinite Reach Al-Qaeda Harkat-ul-Mujahideen National Islamic Front August 20, 1998 Bill Clinton August 20, 1998 Kosovo War or Operation Allied Force or Operation Noble Anvil March 24 – June 10, 1999 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 1999 United Nations Security Council Resolution 12441244 Bill Clinton, Military Technical Agreement 1999Reflagged as KFOR in 1999 in support of Operation Joint Guardian. Global War on Terrorism or War on Terror War in Afghanistan (2001–present) War in Afghanistan or Operation Enduring Freedom – Afghanistan Afghanistan Campaign, October 7, 2001 - ongoing Insurgency in the Philippines or Operation Enduring Freedom – Philippines, January 15, 2002 - ongoing War in Somalia or Operation Enduring Freedom – Horn of Africa, October 7, 2002 – ongoing Iraq War or Operation Iraqi Freedom or Iraq Campaign, March 20, 2003 – August 31, 2010 War in North-West Pakistan or Waziristan War, 2004 - ongoing Operation Enduring Freedom – Trans Sahara, February 6, 2007 - ongoing Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan Taliban al-Qaeda Islamic Movement of Islamic Emirate of Waziristan Alliance for the Re-liberation of Somalia Piracy in Somalia Somali Pirates Piracy in Yemen Yemeni Pirates Ba'athist Iraq Baath Party Iraqi Insurgency Ba'athists Loyalists Islamic Army of Iraq Ansar al-Sunnah al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists S.J. Res. 23 September 14, 2001Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq H.J. Res. 114 October 16, 2002, 98-077-23 420-1296-133 United Nations Security Council Resolution 13681368United Nations Security Council Resolution 13781378George W. Bush, Barack Obama. Ongoing Second Liberian Civil War 2003 Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy Movement for Democracy in Liberia 2003 - - United Nations Security Council Resolution 14971497George W. Bush US Forces withdraw in 2003 after UNMIL is established 2004 Haitian rebellion2004 National Revolutionary Front for the Liberation of Haiti 2004 - - United Nations Security Council Resolution 15291529United Nations Security Council Resolution 15421542 George W. Bush 2004 Libyan Civil War or Operation Odyssey Dawn March 19, 2011 - ongoing Libya United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 – United Nations Security Council Resolution 19731973 Barack Obama Ongoing