JOIN TEAM VT | SIGN UP DAILY NEWSLETTER
VETERANS TODAY ON : FACEBOOK | TWITTER | VT FORUM
|

Debunking Old Civil War Myths – Long Proven Wrong

The Victors Write the War History - but Should Their Lies be Immortal?

 

[Editors Note: I was 46 before I learned that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave anywhere. We are re-running Steve's article for Confederate Heritage Month - April, 2013, because it is a classic ....Jim W. Dean]

                 … by  Steve Scroggins

Lincoln’s Proclamation Did Not Free a Single Slave

The most persistent and pernicious Big Lie regarding the so-called “Civil War”— more properly called the “War to Prevent Southern Independence”— is this:

Noble and saintly Yankees fought the war to abolish slavery; evil Confederates fought to preserve it.

The historical record incontrovertibly refutes this Big Lie and yet it lives on, repeated incessantly by many who know better, and by many, many more who accept without challenge what they were taught in government schools.

The proverbial phrase “the victors write the history” was well-known well before the war.

In fact, General Patrick R. Cleburne, arguing for freeing slaves in exchange for military service, warned what would happen should the South’s bid for independence fail:

“… Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late. … It means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the War, will be impressed by all influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, our maimed veterans as fit objects for their derision. …to establish sectional superiority and a more centralised form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.” –Major General Patrick Cleburne, C.S.A. (Jan. 2, 1864)

Gen. Patrick Cleburne

Cleburne’s warning was indeed prophetic. The Big Lie is the official myth taught in virtually every public school in the country. Jim Dean noted this above, and he even went to a fancy prep school for two years in Massachusetts.

It is the myth believed and repeated incessantly by most Americans who never looked any deeper than the textbook they were issued in junior high history class. And when FDR’s New Dealers migrated from government service to academia in Southern universities, they made sure the Big Lie was taught down here in the South.

The facts and the historical record, which we will review below, are widely and easily available, but unfortunately most Americans don’t see it as their duty to understand American history in more depth than was offered in the superficial, comic-book summary they heard in government schools.

“It is a testament to the effectiveness of 140 years of government propaganda that a 308 page book filled with true facts about Lincoln could be entitled “The Lincoln No One Knows.” It is not a matter of a poorly-performing government education system but quite the opposite:

The government schools have performed superbly in indoctrinating generations of American school children with a pack of lies, myths, omissions, and falsehoods about Lincoln and his war of conquest.

As Richard Bensel wrote in Yankee Leviathan, any study of the American state should begin in 1865. The power of any state ultimately rests upon a series of government-sponsored myths, and there is none more prominent than the Lincoln Myth.” –Thomas DiLorenzo, from The Unknown Lincoln

The Sons of Confederate Veterans has as its mission statement what is commonly called “The Charge,” issued by General Stephen Dill Lee, who was then the Commander General of the United Confederate Veterans.

The Charge is a reflection of Cleburne’s warning above, and a stated desire to keep alive the memory of the Confederate soldier’s true history and motivation and the founding principles he fought to defend.

Gen. Stephen. D. Lee

” To you Sons of Confederate Veterans, we submit the vindication of the cause for which we fought; to your strength will be given the defense of the Confederate soldiers’ good name, the guardianship of his history, the emulation of his virtues, the perpetuation of those principles he loved and which made him glorious and which you also cherish.

Remember, it is your duty to see that the true history of the south is presented to future generations.” Lt. General Stephen Dill Lee, Commander General, United Confederate Veterans, New Orleans, Louisiana, 1906

______________________________________

 

First, let’s establish HOW the war was started, then we’ll proceed to WHY.

 

South Carolina seceded December 20th, 1860. Major Robert Anderson, commanding U.S. forces in Charleston, moved the garrison in Fort Moultrie (Sullivan’s Island across the harbor East of Charleston proper) –which he deemed indefensible– to Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor. He made this move in stealth in the middle of the night on December 26th.

Major Anderson

South Carolina officials were understandably infuriated, but Anderson refused to evacuate Sumter. President Buchanan was a lame duck; he didn’t want a war started on his watch, but refused to issue orders either way.

South Carolina officials made clear that the U.S. Army staying in Sumter was NOT an option and that resupply or reinforcements would be viewed as a hostile act.

On January 9th, an unarmed steamer, the Star of the West, approached Charleston harbor intent on reinforcing Sumter with more troops and ammunition (see diagram below). Charleston batteries fired warning shots near the ship and the Star of the West turned and fled.

By February, South Carolina had joined six other states in the Confederate States of America. Confederate officials pressed for the evacuation of Fort Sumter and Fort Pickens (Pensacola, FL). Buchanan stonewalled and the crisis escalated. Lincoln would inherit the crisis March 4th.

“[T]he Union … will constitutionally defend and maintain itself… In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority.

The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.” –Abraham Lincoln, from inaugural address, March 4, 1861.

Lincoln essentially declared war in his inaugural address March 4th in which he promised not to invade or attack any one EXCEPT…EXCEPT to hold the forts and property of the U.S. government for the purpose of collecting tariffs. In essence, he was denying the right of secession and promising to invade the southern states and force them back into the Union.

Lincoln refused to meet with Confederate emissaries sent to negotiate full payment for U.S. properties now within the jurisdiction of the C.S.A. Secretary of State Seward gave mixed signals, suggesting that evacuation of the forts was likely — in fact, all senior U.S. military officers recommended immediate evacuation to Lincoln.

Instead, Lincoln ordered a flotilla of war ships with additional troops and supplies to Charleston, then advised Confederate officials that it was coming to “resupply” Sumter, “by force if necessary.”

Rather than wait for war ships and the greater likelihood of loss of life on both sides, the Confederates decided to force a surrender before they arrived. Anderson was given a final chance to evacuate Sumter, given a deadline and told when the bombardment would commence. He replied that he would not evacuate.

The bombardment commenced on April 12th and Anderson surrendered on April 14th due to fears the magazine (with powder and ordnance) would ignite. No one was killed during the bombardment and Anderson’s garrison was allowed to peacefully leave the fort .

CSA Flag Flies at Fort Sumter – Later to be Replaced

Though he made force necessary, Lincoln had succeeded in provoking the Confederates to fire the first shots and it had the desired effect: it incited a war fever in the North. On April 15th, Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to invade the southern states to force their return to the Union, or as he phrased it, to quell “a rebellion.”

As a result of Lincoln’s call for a coercive force, four more states seceded in protest to join forces with the C.S.A. Virginia seceded April 17th and North Carolina, Arkansas and Tennessee followed in short order.

The stealthy taking of Fort Sumter was an act of war. The stated intention to insert more men and ammunition BY FORCE was another act of war. The bombardment of Fort Sumter to force its surrender was an act of war, but it was NOT the first act of war in the conflict.

________________________________________

Now, let’s review the WHY of the war.

 

There would have been no war if Lincoln had not ordered invasions and naval blockades of southern states. The southern states made known they wanted a peaceful separation. The answer to WHY the southern states fought the war is painfully obvious: Self Defense. Duh! Because their country was being invaded!

In the same Inaugural Address (March 4th, 1861) in which Lincoln promised to use force to collect the tariffs (protect U.S. tax revenues), Lincoln reiterated his previous statements that he had no intent, no lawful right and no inclination to interfere with slavery where it existed.

He went on to say that he supported the proposed Constitutional Amendment (the Corwin Amendment) that would constitutionally enshrine slavery beyond the reach of the U.S. Congress.

The proposed amendment reads as follows:

“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”
As noted earlier, Lincoln called for troops to launch an invasion April 15th. He ordered a naval blockade, and made various preparations for war beginning April 15th without a Congressional declaration of war. When Congress finally convened in July, it basically rubber-stamped his actions thus far.
 
 

But Congress also approved the Crittenden-Johnson Resolution on July 25th, specifically stating the purpose of the war was to reunite the southern states into the U.S.A. It was clearly stated the war’s purpose was to “preserve the Union” and NOT to overthrow or interfere with “the rights or established institutions of the states” (slavery). This unequivocal statement from Congress and Lincoln’s unequivocal support for the Corwin Amendment directly contradict the official Big Lie. But there’s more. As you’ll see below, Lincoln’s stated purpose remains the same 16 months into the war.

At this point (July 1861), it seems clear that if the Confederate States’ purpose was merely to “preserve slavery,” then its best option would have been to end hostilities and rejoin the Union. It was independence the South was committed to maintain and it was Southern Independence that the North intended to prevent by force if persuasion failed.
 

 

 
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.
 
What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.” –Abraham Lincoln, from letter to Horace Greeley, Aug. 22, 1862
___________________________________
 
Horace Greeley

Horace Greeley

Over 16 months after the war began (Aug. 22, 1862), Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley of The New York Tribune, an open letter in response to a Greeley editorial, in which Lincoln essentially said that slavery was not relevant to the war.
 
He stated that his “paramount object” was to “preserve the union,” and that slavery had no bearing on the war effort.

This was just days before the Emancipation Proclamation extended the offer, once again, to preserve slavery if the southern states would simply lay down their arms and return to the Union.

The Emancipation Proclamation didn’t free any slaves in any territory controlled by the U.S. government. It was generally seen as a farce by both Americans and the British press.
 
“We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.” —Secretary of State William Seward
 

“The Union government liberates the enemy’s slaves as it would the enemy’s cattle, simply to weaken them in the conflict. The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States.” –London Spectator, 1862

Right up to very near the end of the war, the South could have saved slavery simply by returning to the Union. Independence was the southern goal.

 

General John B. Gordon, in his book Reminiscences of the Civil War (p. 19) summarized it this way:

 

General John B. Gordon

General John B. Gordon

“But slavery was far from being the sole cause of the prolonged conflict. Neither its destruction on the one hand, nor its defense on the other, was the energizing force that held the contending armies to four years of bloody work.

I apprehend that if all living Union soldiers were summoned to the witness-stand, every one of them would testify that it was the preservation of the American Union and not the destruction of Southern slavery that induced him to volunteer at the call of his country.

….No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union.” —General John B. Gordon, from Reminiscences of the Civil War, page 19

The North’s primary purpose was to prevent southern independence. It’s the North that betrayed the Founding principle of “consent of the governed” from that celebrated secession document, the Declaration of Independence.
 
 
How can any American deny the right of secession and at the same time celebrate Independence Day and the principle it embodies? As Greeley put it in his editorial in the New York Tribune December 17th, 1860:
 

 

If the Declaration of Independence justified the secession of 3,000,000 colonists in 1776, I do not see why the Constitution ratified by the same men should not justify the secession of 5,000,000 of the Southerners from the Federal Union in 1861…

We have repeatedly said, and we once more insist that the great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence that government derives its power from the consent of the governed is sound and just, then if the Cotton States, the Gulf States or any other States choose to form an independent nation they have a clear right to do it…

And when a section of our Union resolves to go out, we shall resist any coercive acts to keep it in. We hope never to live in a Republic where one section is pinned to the other section by bayonets.” —Horace Greeley, NewYork Tribune, Dec. 17, 1860.

In December of 1860 and January of 1861, many newspapers across the North and Midwest echoed Greeley’s sentiments to “let the South go in peace.” But the bankers, railroads and shippers soon informed the press of the financial implications of southern independence.

The editorial tune changed dramatically in February and March of 1861 to “No, we must NOT let the South go,” and “what about our shipping?” and “what about our revenue?” As the New York Times noted on March 30th, “We were divided and confused until our pockets were touched.” [ See Northern Editorials on Secession, Howard C. Perkins, ed., 1965 -- See Sample editorials here. ]

All the powder keg needed was a spark to ignite a war. Lincoln sent the war ship flotilla to Charleston and it was on. Lincoln had his excuse.

There you have it. The North prevented southern independence because it threatened their financial interests. The South wanted independence for its own best interests, in the tradition of the American Founders. It sought peaceful separation, but fought in self-defense when invaded and blockaded.

The current best estimate for death toll of the war is 750,000 American soldiers and at least 50,000 southern civilians. Adjusted to current population, that’s the equivalent today of 8 million Americans dying in four years.

The Official Big Lie was created and maintained to obscure the overthrow of the Founding Principles, and the true motivations that resulted in tragic and unnecessary death on an epic scale.

Editing:  Jim W. Dean

The United Confederate Veterans – Reunion Time

__________________________________

Are You a Son of a Confederate Veteran?

 

The infamous H.K. Edgerton – Past NAACP Pres.  Asheville, NC.  You can figure out why.

For those of you suffering from ancestor denial the Sesquicentennial is a good time to cross back over the river to get connected to your family.

The first place to start is by joining the Sons of Confederate Veterans or the United Daughters of the Confederacy…no cross dressing allowed though, sorry.

Membership requires a lineal Confederate ancestor, but that includes not only soldiers but those who served in the CSA government.

If you are from the South it is impossible to not have Confederate ancestors among the sixteen branches of your family that the average person has back to that period.

The SCV has many years of experience helping people document their CSA ancestry. The fabulous online archives of family name genealogical forums make doing this much easier than even ten years ago. But tracking down the female branchs due to all the name changes is often a challenge.

You can go to the SCV website, click ‘about’, then ‘Join the SCV’, and find just about everything that you will need. If you have any questions you can call Brian at 1-(800) MYSOUTH, or email him at membership@scv.org. 

Be sure to tell him Jimmy Dean sent you so you will get the white glove treatment.

Teaching the kids about our unknown dead – hands on.

______________________________

Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=246979

The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT or any other VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners and technicians. Legal Notice

Posted by on Apr 8 2013, With 0 Reads, Filed under Editor, World. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

COMMENTS

To post, we ask that you login using Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail in the box below.
Don't have a social network account? Register and Login direct with VT and post.
Before you post, read our Comment Policy - Feedback

Comments Closed

47 Comments for “Debunking Old Civil War Myths – Long Proven Wrong”

  1. Lincoln sole purpose was to save the Union. The British empire had been out to destroy it from day one. They supported Arron Burr and his treasonous acts. They fomented the southern aristrocrats against the northern manufactures to get free trade back in place to favor British finished goods. The British also helped crush the 2nd national bank leading to a 6 year depression.

    To shit on Lincoln for preserving the Union is discusting. It’s obvious you haven’t even an inckling of understanding of the economic warfare the British used to try to take the Union out.

    • The war of 1812 made clear the Brits wanted to teach us a lesson. They sacked and burned D.C. Of course, we did have designs on their territory in Canada. They nearly split us then when the New England states plotted to secede and cut their own deal with the Brits to restore their shipping and trade. That was skating close to treason while we were at war with the Brits. Look it up, patriotone, the Hartford Convention.

      No doubt the Brits were looking to their own interests but they did NOT enter the war on the Confederate side which would have have virtually guaranteed their independence. So your argument doesn’t stand up, patriotone. Even diplomatic recognition without military assistance may have tipped the scales.

      Lincoln did NOT “preserve the Union”… he destroyed the voluntary republic our founders bequeathed us. His war was an overthrow of the Constitution.

      • Lincoln was a Federalist, the Southerner’s were predominantly Anti-federalists. Lincoln didn’t destroy the Constitution, he preserved it. If the South had broken away imperial powers would have been agitating both sides and numerous wars would have been fought over it. We could still be fighting today…

        • A really good read about this time frame 1800-1812 is “The Olive Branch” by Matthew Carey. This book had great influence during the period and is credited with saving the nation.

        • Lincoln was not a Federalist. He was a Whig and after their disgrace a Republican. He was a protege of Henry Clay and advanced his “American System”… essentially an American version of British mercantilism where government subsidizes favored industry to exploit agrarian colonies (like the southern states) and labor. He was a railroad lawyer long before he went into politics… and he got the transcontinental railroad going with tax subsidy DURING the war since he no longer had southern opposition in Congress. Lincoln favored Hamilton’s nationalist views more than Jefferson’s decentralized views. He was a consolidationist like the national socialists and marxists…. and his war destroyed the federal republic in which states had opposing rights to control the central government. All Americans entered the war as citizens of their respective states and emerged as subjects of an empire that they were no longer free to leave. If you’re not free to leave, you’re not free. The “free, independent and sovereign” states that formed and ratified the Constitution were converted to provinces or colonies of the empire. That, sir, is NOT “preserving” the Constitution.

          • Pres. Jefferson favoured protectionist policies. He favoured internal improvements. He favoured the American System. The American System was developed to nation build.

            Mr. Jefferson, in his letter to Benjamin Austin, Esq., in 1816, “To be independent for the comforts of life, we must fabricate them ourselves—we must now place the manufacturer by the side of the agriculturalist. The grand enquiry now is, shall we make our own comforts, or go without them, at the will of a foreign nation? He therefore who is now against domestic manufactures, must be in favor of reducing us either to a dependence on that nation, or be clothed in skins, and to live like wild beasts in dens and caverns—I am proud to say I am not one of these, experience has now taught me that manufactures are as necessary to our independence as our comfort”

            Favouring American producers over foreign ones is the job of the Federal Government.

          • Here is a good read for you. You misrepresent the American System as mercantilism. You call tariffs a tax when they offered American labour & capital protection from slave wages and imperial robbery. The only system ever devised to equalize and elevate mankind is the American System.

            This link below offers historical proof from debate during the period. You decry the American System and you know little of it.

            americansystem.wordpress.com/

    • “saving the union” would have been following the constitution, declaring slaves free, legalizing literacy, offering land, allowing the new land owners to vote, and in time, the machinery would have sold anyway.

      I didnt “shit on lincoln”, he did a damn good job of that all by himself!

      I know you’ve read Steve Scroggins comments, he makes great points. if the Brit were after breaking it up theyed have supported the southern side for independance, but they didnt and didnt need to because theyed funded all the manufacturing from New York anyway and genocide is good for business too. why tip your hand and support one side of an “internal” conflict for control when you’re already in full control? it pretty well explains why the Brit didnt invade the US right after the war too.
      obvious enough to me anyway.. lol.

      the Brit brought the slavery here in the first place (and other countries too), they wanted that to end to usher in the equipment that’d make it all more profitable, and they know all about how to propagandize brainwash manipulate demonize.. got a clue yet?

      DC ramming NAFTA GATT through to hand all technology and production to China,
      which has been a UK political puppet show since the opium wars…
      corporate welfare to send companies there leaving US unemployed for cheaper labor,
      unregulated polluting and more, hell, lets have a war with China while we’re at it!
      I’m sure old abe would be willing to print up some more greenbacks to fund it..
      “omg they took our jobs that DC handed over!” “they’re running slave labor!”

      I dont doubt your heart is in the right place but wake up would ya?
      the Brits were running the economic warfare from WITHIN back then,
      same as they are today from behind the scenes.
      under contract to the vatican for centuries, prettymuch rothschild owned,
      and rothschilds are bankster to the vatican too btw..

      the 1st and 2nd “national banks” were also rothschild enterprises here that were rejected,
      the “feral reserve” we have now is too and if its 100 year charter is rejected, GOOD!
      which does mean a collapse-depression for a while of course, but I doubt it’d be any worse than the complete controlled demolition of our economy that they’re already doing to the whole world..
      what union? zio-nazi war machine against the world until America is 100% hated? gee thanks?
      c’mon man, get that toothpick outta your eye and see the forest for what it is.

  2. captain obvious

    disclaimer: slavery and racism suck mm-kay..

    there was more going on leading to the “Civil War” really..
    “northern industrialists” aka New York aka Old York aka BRITISH money influences and funders..
    had built machinery that’d do all the harvesting and processing, a lot cheaper than running slaves!
    they couldnt sell their crap to the South, who did have their labor covered,
    so the North decided to tax and tarriff the South to death, and the South said “GFY MoFoz!”

    Lincoln wanted his WAR and couldnt fund it, banksters couldnt say “youre friggin NUTS” to him,
    so they proposed 27% interest that Lincoln rejected, and he started printing the greenbacks…
    to give us a war with Americans killing Americans, instead of making slave education legal.

    after that war, “freed slaves” now unemployed and homeless, lied begged borrowed cheated and stole,
    not knowing what to do with themselves as the machines from the North began replacing them,
    which made the racist crap 100 miles deeper for over 120 years now!

    after the war Lincoln was also assassinated, only makes me wonder what other kind of insanity that man,
    who WAS a pretty good orator no doubt, but what kinda insane crap was he gonna pull next?!

    printing the greenbacks is one thing, but using it to fund a WAR with Americans killing Americans,
    is batshit insane!! he could have offered education, land ownership, for a LOT less money than WAR.

    I’m not any kind of eloquent writer, this is just off the cuff common sense stuff to me. if someone were to research some, what I’d said is a big chunk of the truth too, ALL are created equal and what Lincoln had done did nothing to stop slavery, mining companies ran their own currency and indebted people for life!
    pickering mercenaries killed lots of people striking against the railroads, not charged with murder for it.

    they didnt want to “let the South go” is true, they wanted the taxes they declared to be “legal”,
    and they wanted to punish the South for daring oppose their BS too, the South didnt need the North,
    the North, was a parasite with huge fangs, that didnt care if the host died..
    and the SLAVES didnt have any say about what led to it, or the results..
    sure sounds like “freedom” to me, right?

    • A tariff isn’t a tax. It’s a duty on imports. It is used to protect home producers. The South’s exports of cotton were not affected by the tariffs. British finished goods coming in were. Britian hated it. Not to mention the Southern farmers made more money selling cotton to the north rather than paying the shipping costs to England.

      Read Henry C. Carey’s, Harmony of Interests, Lincolns economic advisor. For a real picture of the economics of the time. The South was a British proxy used to break to Union and expand the exports into the Union to break the back of American producers. Just like free trade today.

      • Semantics. A tariff is a tax. Of course the Brits hated our tariffs, protectionist tariffs made our northern (inferior) goods competitive with British manufactured goods… the money was paid by the south and benefitted northern industry. The Brits saw the war as the north’s seeking to maintain economic control of the south. That is an accurate view.

        • Semantics? Are you kidding. Would you rather American’s support American’s and build a market for ourselves or support the manufacturers of another nation? The North had tried for 50+ years to get the Southern Aristocrats to develop manufactures. They could have gotten 500 times wealthier finishing their own cotton, and making their own iron. Instead they chose not to because they were happy where and comfortable in their wealth. They were not interested in creating opportunity for the many. Via combination of effort and labour specialization.

          “The Brits saw the war as the north’s seeking to maintain economic control of the south.” of course this is the case. Do you think the hard won manufacturing base of the North would cede the South to British proxy control? So they could feed their manufacturers in Britain with Southern agricultural goods at the expense of the North.

          • Pariot,, If course it is a tax. The Carribean countries do it as super sales tax on all the things coming in that are not exempted. They know they would lose a big chunk of it trying to collect from merchants. In Barbados when I was there the sales tax on a car was 100%…but the dealer paid it on import and just added it to the price of the car, which is have a lot of folks did not have one. Everyone there considered it a tax, for the obvious reason. Even illiterate people figured it out.

            I am 63 and have never once run into anyone that pitched a tariff as not in realtiy a tax. It ups the price of the product, which is borne by the end user, and the government gets the dough. Hello. But you are free to call it something else if that pleases you.

            And yes, we do have the Olive branch here. But silly arguments like this is why for so many years the heritage movement argued itself to death for personal enjoyment, and when the big battles came were nowhere to be seen because they did not enjoy that part.

            We will work on the Founding fathers names being removed, battle flags denigrated, demands for monuments being moved inside someplace where the public will not be traumatized by seeing them. Yes, someone did file a 50 million pain and suffering lawsuit like that one time.
            He and you could have had wonderful debates. :-)

          • Good job deleting my response to Jim. Are you afraid of the information or is it because it doesn’t meet your goals of misinformation?

  3. Thank you Mr. Scroggins & VT:

    Since I don’t see any mention of General Grant (USG) who had discovered & published in the country’s main newspaper that in fact the Rothschilds had been the real culprits of the American Civil War I’d like to cut & Paste the comment of one of USG’s descendants on VT with link to that page:

    Tom Dillman
    November 27, 2012 – 1:38 pm
    U.S. Grant was my great, great Uncle. Yes, he lived his final years in relative poverty for daring to broach the subject of the Rothchilds. Also, our family lore says he was a serious grouch in his final years, but a true family hero none-the-less. Why? Not because he was a General and President, but because of his massive struggles to free all Americans from slavery.

    *************http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/11/26/the-four-horsemen-of-banking/

    • Many of the Founders saw public debt and bankers (centralized banking) as the biggest enemies of liberty and security.

      • None of the founders supported a central bank. However, they did support a national bank. It’s function is often confused with a central bank. The national bank established a credit system to lend to the people and their productive endevors. Where a central bank supports the banks and the governments credit.

        People often believe the 1st & 2nd national banks were central banks which, they weren’t. It could be considered a national development bank.

    • I’m not familiar (yet) with Grant’s postwar issues with bankers and Rothchilds, but it’s also well-known he didn’t care for Jews during the war. He viewed them as war profiteers, traitors and scavengers. His General Order #11 was intended to stop speculators and traders in cotton during the war (the money presumably helped Confederates trade for arms, medicines, etc.). http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/regenstein8.html

      • Thank you Mr. Scroggins:

        When running a search for the book within your link I came across this article with following applicable quotes:

        *************http://americanjewisharchives.org/publications/journal/PDF/2012_64_01_00_rock.pdf

        “….The Times commented that even on “selfish” grounds, the order ought not to have been issued, given the high political positions Jews held in Europe—the power of the Rothschilds “to raise or destroy the credit of any nation.”

        “Banker August Belmont, although he supported the Union, was termed the “Jew banker of New York,”—an agent of the Rothschilds out to provide funds in a conspiracy to aid the Confederacy.”

  4. So very true Jim W. Dean but it’s actually gotten worse. To the average American truth is not found in documented evidence but in Hollywood produced docu-dramas. To them, if it didn’t happen in a movie, it just can’t be true.

  5. Exactly, Steve Scroggins!

  6. Lincoln’s intentions were not what has been put about by the mainstream media. It would seem that one of his passionate objectives was to remove all black Africans from America, feeling that in reality the two types of people could never live together side by side. After the Civil War he immediately set about plans to move them all either back to Africa – or to an ‘unoccupied western land’. He evidently approached businessmen to cost up and begin this operation once he had full access to the Southern States.

    His other passion was to have America issue its own currency. Both endeavours were stopped by an assassin’s bullet. Another event over which the usual cloak of confusion has been draped.

    A new book is now in circulation about this.

    • Lincoln advocated and lobbied for “colonization” his entire political career. It was not a passing phase or temporary idea; he worked for deporting all blacks from America for decades and up until his death. His efforts saw the country of Liberia created for the purpose. Plans were already under way to isolate native Americans into concentration camps called “reservations.” His swordsmen saw to it that Indians were fully removed only after his death. It’s fair to say, as Thomas DiLorenzo suggests, that Lincoln’s dream was of a “lilly white” America free of Africans and Indians.

      Central banks were always part of Lincoln’s “American System”… which was adopted from his mentor Henry Clay and the Whigs and essentially was an American version of British mercantilism where industry and railroads/shipping work with government subsidy (through high tariffs) to control the agrarian colonies (in this case the Southern states) to enrich banks/industry. The Constitution (and those pesky Southerners) were always an inconvenient obstacle to fully implementing the “system”… but Lincoln’s war served to overcome that obstacle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_System_(economic_plan)

      • Di Lorenzo is an Austrian economist and not to bright to boot. The American System is what made America possible. It was supported by Washington, Hamilton (Architect), Madison, JQ Adams, Jefferson (after the war of 1812). We saw the most explosive economic growth under it. It was only utilized as designed for short periods due to foreign interests.

        Merchantilism is growth through exports via slave labor and cheap foreign resources to taken. The American System is something totally different. 1.) Home Production for 2.) Protection for producers – both labour & capital 3.) Internal Improvements – railroads, bridges, canals, dams etc…

        Rather than looking at wiki & the free trader Austrian economist read about JQ Adams and his presidency. The Austrian school is just another fake choice.

  7. Steve Scroggins, Lincoln did not inspire Marx. The Communist Manifesto was penned before Lincoln was put into the Presidency. Lincoln was actually “duped” by this Talmud Based Philosophy known as Communism for a time.

    • Thanks for clarifying this, JohnG. I did NOT write that Lincoln inspired the Communist Manifesto. Marx was already writing in the New York Tribune before the Republican Party formed from Whig ashes and before Lincoln was known outside of Illinois court rooms, railroad board rooms and the US House. The Republican Party was viewed as a tool by the communists to achieve their socialist and consolidationist ends. Crushing states rights, decentralization and the Constitution was their goal and Lincoln advanced it to their approval. Marxists and national socialists were staunch consolidationists and Lincoln’s acts met with their approval.

  8. Good piece, deftly turning the tables on the received ‘wisdom’ of establishment ‘history’ with real facts.

    Another myth from the same period is that wicked Germany (or Prussia for the slightly less grossly ignorant) attacked poor peace-loving France in 1870, the first of 3 such outrages in 70 years. In fact France attacked Prussia first, and expected others to do the same, leading to a result not much different from that meted out to the CSA. This time it did not work, and France got the whipping, though with the help of Uncle Joe and his Merry Reds (plus a deluded Britain and duped US) Germany was finally smashed raped and pillaged 3rd time round 75 years later.

  9. The Karma of this country is killing for resources, gold, oil, cheap labor, uranium, etc. First the Indians, and after that slaves, and after that virtual slavery of poor, uneducated immigrants. All who perpetrated these things, North or South are a scourge to humanity. From the revolutionary war to the Iraq and Afganistan War, the Karma continues. All those patriotic people who have been killing each other since day one have been brainwashed by their governments. The Civil War is no exception. Both sides have negative Karma in this, although telling the truth about both sides is always a good idea.

  10. Martin Maloney

    “History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren’t there.”

    — George Santayana

  11. The photo “The United Confederate Veterans – Reunion Time” could almost cause me to weep. Not because they “lost” but because their cause was right. I felt honored in local history discussions with locals in N.W. Arkansas when they promised to this obvious yankee, “the south shall rise again”.

  12. If Lincoln is to be commended for anything let it be for being one of the few world leaders to stand up to the “Big House” of Rothchild and knowing that it would probably cost him his life for doing so.

    • It was a different time, Johng. The White House was typically unlocked and anyone could stroll in… though D.C. was a fortress in general, Lincoln was fairly lax with regard to his personal protection… often taking solitary horse rides and strolling amongst crowds of armed people without a security cordon. Though he reportedly had premomitions (dreams?) of his own death… he did not retreat into seclusion.

  13. Believe it or not the Civil War could have worse. After Lincoln “snubbed” the House of Rothchild by printing greenbacks and not allowing them to own the war debt they then threatened to enlist the French and England to enter the side of the Confederacy to sabotage Lincoln’s efforts to preserve the Union. Lin oln successfully countered by appealing to Russia for military support. Russia complied and 3the fighter ships were docked in the San Francisco Bay. Lincoln had successfully countered the Rothcild threat and this is what could have sealed his fate with them.

    • Obviously, the war could have been worse. Had the powers followed the Sherman plan, every last southern man, woman and child would have been wiped out. Sherman famously said that “the only good Indian is a dead Indian.” He wrote more or less the same thing about the southern people and it’s documented in The Offical Record of the Rebellion published by the U.S. Government. Of course, the survivors would have scattered to the hills and a decades long guerilla war would have ensued.

      Lincoln’s stated objective was to “preserve the Union” but his true objective (achieved!) was to effect a “total transformation” to borrow an Obama phrase. He converted a decentralized republic of republics into a centralized empire ruled from D.C. that controlled the money and banks, that set about building the transcontinental railroad with taxpayer subsidy and established a police state mentality. Trampling the Constituion at will, Lincoln shut down or destroyed newspapers at the drop of a hat. He had thousands of northern citizens imprisoned without trial, at the nod of a head or snap of the fingers from the king’s men. He had thousands of southern civilians bombarded, looted, burned out and left to starve. He revelled in stories of their suffering; Sherman and Grant both noted that he always asked to hear such stories.

      Lincoln was a tyrant in every way and yet modern Americans consistently rank him among the “greatest” presidents. THAT is an indication of the staying power of the Lincoln Myth. Adolf Hitler also warmly approved of Lincoln’s conduct and centralizing policies… Lincoln inspired Hitler and Marx. The evidence is in Mein Kampf. http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo20.html

      Socialism and centralization were the rage in Europe during our war and many refugees from the failed German revolution ended up in the U.S. Army. The grandson of Francis Scott Key (author of the Star Spangled Banner), Francis Key Howard, was a Baltimore newspaper editor held as a political prisoner in Fort McHenry… and wrote of a Union officer with a thick German accent lecturing him on what it means to be a “good American.” Howard was arrested for criticizing Lincoln in an editorial (Baltimore Exchange) — specifically he was criticizing Lincoln’s suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus (See Ex Parte Merryman). Most of the Maryland legislature were also arrested to prevent their voting on secession.

      What Americans hear in government schools, of course, is of Lincoln the “Great Emancipator” and Lincoln the “humanitarian.”

      • captain obvious

        vegetarians eat vegetables, I really wonder about these “humanitarians”..

        the railroads sure used a lot of slave labor building the tracks, same for California gold rush days with all the rock walls built by Chinese back when, allover the Sutter Creek area, in the Sierra foothills.

        “Buffalo” Bill Cote’s wild west show was also shut down by government, for him daring tell the truth about his own part (and regrets!) of genociding the buffalo to impoverish-enslave-genocide Natives.
        (I dont know if he exposed blankets all laced with smallpox, what a great “humanitarian” move..)

        personally, I get it that lincoln was off his everlovin rocker,
        how exactly is a WAR, with Americans killing Americans, NOT unAmerican and treasonous?
        outrageous taxation against the South is what started the whole conflict, monotary aggression.
        resistance to that was deemed unAmerican or unpatriotic? gee then, what was 1776 about?
        -they never want us to think or wonder about THAT stuff nope..

        I’d drawn the parallel between the “Civil War” and the modern day above in a later comment,
        same as all technology and production being handed to China now, with American slaves being left TERRORIZED of unemployment and homelessness because of treason by the District of Criminals.
        -oh but its not treasonous economic saboteuring financial terrorism when THEY DO IT nope..

        they conquered China with the opium wars, now they import all the dope into the USA..
        their bankster buddies get to launder the money but move along nothing to see here, right?
        as they hand US the bill for the corporate welfare that exported the jobs,
        and the police state for all the displaced workers who turn to peddling THEIR dope..
        laughing all the way to the bank for being invested in privatized prisons paying off bigtime..

        they love taking everything someone has ever owned, throwing em into their gulags,
        literally feasting on their souls, as they claim to be “humanitarians”.. wow.

    • captain obvious

      its a tough call about who snubbed who, in my opinion.
      banksters couldnt say “youre friggin crazy” about wanting a “Civil War”,
      but they sure could get away with proposing 27% interest as a big “FU”.

      not saying the greenbacks werent a frontal attack on the banksters influence either,
      I dont doubt silver certificates being part of why theyed assassinated Kennedy too.

  14. Good Job.

    Now let’s get into the aftermath, as mentioned above circa 1871 and the changes that made the U.S. into a corporate entity, the financial reasons, the role of the bankers, the illegal changes to our structure, our status as Americans under a corporate structure, and what it has meant since. The early usurpation of our rights and status needs to be reviewed if we are to understand how we got from there to here.

    Thanks

    • Oh yes, and some would say that all that happened was not ‘fall out’ from the war, but one of the prime reasons for it. Sherman and his brother-in-law Congressman (can’t remember the name) had a treasure of letters that survived from during and after the war. One of the most memorable was his writing Sherman that,

      “Well, it’s a done deal. The Railroads are in total control and passing legislation in secret and will rule the country for the next 50 years…they are the prime victors of the War.”

      What he was saying of course was the centralization that was consolidated during Reconstruction, where ‘special interests’ really hard wired themselves into the system. They next went on to put wind in the sails of imperial America, to do what they had done here with the sword in other places.

    • In 1871, most southern states were still under military occupation, that happy time known as “Reconstruction.” The years immediately after the war was the time when the southern states did not have “state” status… at least not until they ratified the “Reconstruction Amendments” at the point of a bayonet. So how exactly can a state that is not really a state ratify anything? The 14th Amendment was declared ratified when in fact it never met the requirements (3/4 of the states). The 14th Amendment is often cited as the authority for all manner of trampling on state’s rights.

      Incidentally, 1871 was the year when Nathan Bedford Forrest testified before Congress that he was not a member or founder, nor was he ever a leader of the Ku Klux Klan. These members of Congress (Sherman, et al) were not friends of Forrest, but they were satisfied with the testimony. That myth about Forrest lives on.

      It was 1913 when the 16th Amendment to introduce an income tax was allegedly ratified. Then the U.S. government designated the Federal Reserve Bank as the controller of U.S. currency and money supply. Southerners had fought the establishment of central banks for decades after the founding, but after 1913, a cartel of international bankers were inside the henhouse.

  15. Fantastic editorial Mr. Scroggins. Thanks to Jim, too. And a shout out to Tyron Parsons and his comment above, an aspect to the story that I would love to see VT bring into their discussions.

    From my experience, only a very small fraction of people have ever even heard the ‘alternative’ understanding of the legal organization of this country and fewer still understand it. This is relevant more than ever before as the police state is taking over and false flag attacks abound.

    I’ve said it on these pages before, our government’s official opinion of just about anything of importance to the world is almost always a lie. And not an accidental one either. This story is just another on a long, long list.
    Thanks

    Matt

    • Thanks, Matt. It’s very difficult to knock holes through the walls of official myth, repeated ad infinitum over decades. The true details are easy enough to get but the first step is for indoctrinated people to open their minds. Those with an interest in maintaining official myths are skilled at injecting hyperbole and whacky wrenches into the works as a means to discredit most dissent from “official history” as “conspiracy theorists” and the crackpot fringe.

      Of course there are the “hate industry” insiders like Loewen and Sebesta (and their SPLC buddies) who blather on about the so-called “lost cause mythology.” Their distortions and smears attempt to label all SCV members (and most southerners) as—- get this loaded phrase: neoconfederates.

      Any empire or leviathan state requires a substantial series of myths and Big Lies to keep the populace placated and productive (on the tax paying plantation). I find it amusing that so many Americans celebrate Independence Day (that famous secession document, the Declaration of Independence, and first principles like ‘consent of the governed’) and yet whole-heartedly believe that individual states do not have the right to secede. If you’re not free to leave, you’re not free.

      This coming July 4th will be the 150th Anniversary of the fall of Vicksburg (Mississippi). Following Grant’s long starvation siege and bombardment of civilians in Vicksburg, it’s worthy to note that the city of Vicksburg did not celebrate July 4th for eighty one (81) years after the war.

      I realize that there are competing claims on this. History.com and Time magazine (July 9, 1945) and others state there were none until 1945… while wikipedia (eye-roll please) claims such statements are false. Wiki editors are well infested with anti-southern Sebesta/SPLC types. So another question to add to our list is, WHO controls the content on Wikipedia?

      http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/surrender-of-vicksburg
      http://www.conservapedia.com/Siege_of_Vicksburg

      As Orwell put it in the novel 1984, “Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” We now return your screen to Reality Control.

  16. “History is the most abused and mistreated subject ever recorded.”

    Amen on that. Half of all history class time taught should be covering bogus history…but I did not get one minute of that. It was like every history book was subversion of a bible. If it was in the book, it had to be true…like it was illegal to print something that wasn’t.

  17. “Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened.” —Winston Churchill

    “Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility.” —-Sigmund Freud

    Americans pay lip service to “freedom” but the idea of “responsibility” scares them to death. The Founding Principles make clear that there can be NO Liberty without corresponding Responsibility. Since FDR’s New Deal (the logical end to Lincoln’s War), Americans have grown accustomed to dodging responsibility and hoping for Uncle Sam to solve all perceived problems. In his essay entitled “Ticking Time Bomb Explodes, Public is Shocked,” Robert Higgs summed it up this way:

    “The trouble is, the American people have little interest in liberty. Instead, they want the impossible: home ownership for those who cannot afford homes, credit for those who are not creditworthy, old-age pensions for those who have not saved, health care for those who make no attempt to keep themselves healthy, and college educations for those who lack the wit to finish high school. Moreover, they want it now, and they want somebody else to pay for it.” —Robert Higgs
    http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=186
    So… we steal from our great-grandchildren to live in high style today. We’ve lost our moral compass, and the collapse of the Hotel of Impossible Dreams is near.

  18. Good Gosh fellas, a couple of great quotes there!! This has been a great comment board. It’s what we always wanted them to be like…and we are getting there.

  19. I like the Santayana quote best. I’ve seen several versions of the Bonaparte quote and I suppose that can be attributed in part to the translation to English. More to the point on the Bonaparte quote is the following. Though Le Sueur is obviously a French name, she was a 20th century American writer from the midwest:

    “The history of an oppressed people is hidden in the lies and the agreed-upon myths of its conquerors.” ~ Meridel Le Sueur, Crusaders, 1955

    Le Sueur’s family were socialists, so you know their slant on “oppression” but the point remains valid and is more or less that “victors write the history” and that the myths are part of the oppression.

Comments are closed

 

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Join Our Daily Newsletter
  View Newsletter ARCHIVE

WHAT'S HOT

  1. NEO – Washington’s New Enemy Image – Victor Orbán
  2. NeoRenaissance & the Green Eyed Grocer!
  3. Hawks in US Congress threaten Iran with sanctions
  4. I Support Israel’s National Bill
  5. NEO – West supports Kiev in new East Ukraine war
  6. NEO – America’s Nuclear Command Meltdown
  7. ISIL Israeli mercenary army
  8. RT Outs Amanpour, the “Cow of Propaganda
  9. Iran nuclear talks end in Vienna, new deadline set for July 1
  10. Al Etejah-Panorama: Gilad Atzmon on Ed Miliband, The Labour and the Jewish Lobby (TV)
  11. Hagel Resigning, Pushed to the Curb
  12. European Colony Doubles Down on Institutional Racism
  13. ‘No nuclear deal by Nov. 24 deadline’
  14. Uri Avnery – The UnHoly City
  15. US should work with Syrian Army against ISIL
  16. Climate Change or Climate Justice
  17. Part 2. Battle of the Bulge and the Malmedy Massacres
  18. Evil with a Nice Face – The Janus Principle
  19. Afghanistan: Empty Peace
  20. Black Saturday Sale Starring New .308 SASS Tacticals
  1. Worker Bee: "I know I was there voting straight democrat just like I said I was going to do." "It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who ...
  2. Worker Bee: Lazar Moiseyevich Kaganovich died in his bed at the age of 97. As usual, no justice in the world.
  3. Worker Bee: "What’s CNN?" Controlled News Network
  4. David Odell: Nov 26 , 1977 was a day where the communication was interrupted at the Hannington transmitter. that day was 13 Batz. The day 13 batz is recurring this year on ...
  5. Worker Bee: ”most moral country in the world” Thought that was Iceland?

Veterans Today Poll

For over 60 years, US Taxpayers have been funding Israel, Palestine and Middle East. Are you happy with return on investment or would you prefer those monies be invested at home instead?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Archives