who are our Forefathers of the South?

[IRONCLAD]

I'd have to say:

1.George Washington
2.Jefferson Davis
3.Robert E.Lee


Why these three?
President Washington - the South looked up to this man as the true patriot for the freedom of america against England and later for the South....for he was from VA, for he stood up from a tyrant government, for he against all odds, fought and won against the Tyrant. I believe if you asked any Confederate Soldier of old. "who do you think your forefather is here in the South?" Hands down Washington would have won the vote. But, ask the people of the South today, you'll have the people say what I came up with.

President Davis - for he was the only one who was the president of the Confederacy. If you asked a Confederate soldier, "do you think Jefferson Davis is one of are forefathers?" Back in 1860's......NO would be the answer. Not because he had done anything wrong, but because it was to early to know just what this man really did for the South. But ask the same question to the same soldier twenty years later, he would have changed his mind and voted yes. Why would Jefferson Davis be even considered as one of our forefather...... I believe this is why; He never gave up hope for the cause, even when he was jailed, even when he saw his people being murdered, he himself never surrendered the Confederacy. I know there are a lot more reasons why I think he is one of our forefathers...but you get the ideal.

General Lee - Well, we all know why this man should be one of our forefathers, his own words speak far better then I could give the reasons why he is one of our forefather.

I think most of you will agree with me that these three gentlemen would be the top three for being our forefathers.......Right?

I know there are more folks out there who "fathered" our cause, but the top three would have to go to these Southern GOD's that I listed above.

IRONCLAD

[TNCSAcitizen]

Not to put down George Washington in any manner, his importance as a good Christian man and great military leader was of a caliber that is hard to find, especially today. I do want to put Thomas Jefferson in rather than George Washington. Jefferson was an ardent anti-Federalist patriot who understood the Federalist movement. The same could not be said about Washington; a moderate Federalist himself, was responsible for signing the Federalist backed Judiciary Act of 1789, which gave unprecedented powers to the Federal Courts over the States. Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, and others were greatly disturbed at this and attempted to take the sting out of it by getting the Bill of Rights ratified, using the 9th and 10th amendments to deem the Judiciary Act as unconstitutional.
Meanwhile, Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, the Father of the Federalists convinced Washington to sign the bill creating the United States Bank (a private bank with private directors) in 1791. But because the Bill of Rights had not been ratified yet, Washington was persuaded by Hamilton that this was a good move, if Washington had had the Bill of Rights he would have clearly seen that the Bank Act and the Judiciary act were unconstitutional.

[TexasReb]

from what I remember, if the US bank wasn't create then I'm not so sure the US would have survived.. at that time the treasury was hurting pretty bad.. I'm not so sure washington really had a choice..

[TNCSAcitizen]

It is true that we were having money trouble, but the fact still remains, we should not have allowed our banking system to be handed over to an elite, anti-American private company, that had all connections with the Bank of England, just as the Federal Reserve is today. The whole plan of Alexander Hamilton along with his Federalist and Tory crooks was to defeat America with paper since they (England) had lost the military war. It was the birth of Fascism, with corporations holding all the cards, the Rothschild's being the largest corporation then and now.

I ask you this question, since we probably agree that there is something terminally wrong with the U.S. Federal Government, what definition best fits our form of government?

[TexasReb]

some would probably say a tyranny, but I don't see it as it was during lincolns term.. he was the tyrant then.. now I see it as a whole and not just one man... if it were just one man, then you could spot the problem and exploit it for what he is... we called him on it the first go round.. the gov. new this and now that problem is fixed.. they have a whole gov. body now with the same issues. They may not show it but its embedded in them. I'd hate to see it, but I see it as a regime now...

[TNCSAcitizen]

A regime; yes I would agree, but to be more specific, it is clearly a Fascist type government but more correctly stated: "Corporatism" as Thomas DiLorenzo explains in an artical posted here: www.banned-books.com/truth-seeker/1994archive/121_3/ts213l.html

"When most people hear the word "fascism" they naturally think of its ugly racism and anti-Semitism as practiced by the totalitarian regimes of Mussolini and Hitler. But there was also an economic policy component of fascism, known in Europe during the 1920s and '30s as "corporatism," that was an essential ingredient of economic totalitarianism as practiced by Mussolini and Hitler. So- called corporatism was adopted in Italy and Germany during the 1930s and was held up as a "model" by quite a few intellectuals and policy makers in the United States and Europe. A version of economic fascism was in fact adopted in the United States in the 1930s and survives to this day. In the United States these policies were not called "fascism" but "planned capitalism." The word fascism may no longer be politically acceptable, but its synonym "industrial policy" is as popular as ever."

When we look at what is wrong in the US today you can see that the government is opperating in this manner, we have been cleverly decived into thinking that we the people have the true voting power. Although it is true that the president does have any and all powers granted to him with the Executive Order, and because we are still in a state of Marshal Law, which has never been revoked from WW2 the President is truly powerful. But I do not think that we can outrule the fact that there are very powerful people behind most of the worlds governments, controling them and their leaders and in particular, their money. They are the money changers; Rothschilds and Rockefellers to name a couple. They along with others own the worlds corporations, who in turn own the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Incorporated May 18, 1914, all 203,053 shares of it.

Corporations such as:
National City Bank N.Y.
J.P. Morgan
National Bank of Commerce N.Y.
A.D. Jiullard (North British Mercantile Insurance)
First National Bank of N.Y.
Hanover National Bank N.Y.
Chase National Bank N.Y.

Just to name a few. I wanted to get these names out to everyone. I think a new thread is perhaps in order as we are getting away from the heading subject line.

[IRONCLAD]

You both make great points. Not sure what side to take as of yet.

Welcome TNCSA, glad to have ya' aboard.
Welcome back Tex, glad to see someone back posting here.

Give me a couple of days to read up on both sides of the fence and I'll gete back with ya' to here what side I'll fall on...Ha.

I'll also give you guys an update on where I have been, for the last week.......it sure was a great trip. I did it to honor all Confederate Soldiers......Can't wait to post it here, so that ya'll can enjoy it as well.

Luckie